ML20070U151
| ML20070U151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070U147 | List: |
| References | |
| PROC-830228, NUDOCS 8302100226 | |
| Download: ML20070U151 (285) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:R E'30R" SE SMIC CONFIRMATORY 3 ROG R AM Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1 l 0_ NO. N37- 2 l SOU"- CARO _INA E_EC R C & GAS COM3ANY
'w FEB RL A RY -1983
i l l l l SEISMIC CONFIRMATORY PROGRAM Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1 OL No. NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY February 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ITEM 1 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........ 3 II. APPLICABILITY OF EXPLOSION TESTS TO EARTHQUAKES 6
III. ACCELEROGRAPH PAD EFFECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 8 IV. FOUNDATION EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 V. CONCLUSIONS. . ......................... FIGURES APPENDIX A: SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS RECORDED AT THE JENKINSVILLE, S.C. ACCELEROGRAPH STATION (Ertec Western, Inc.) APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF RELATIVE RESPONSE OF ACCELER0 GRAPH PAD, FREE FIELD AND STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONS AT THE VIRGIL C. SQDIER NUCLEAR STATION (URS/ John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers)
i SEISMIC CONFIRMATORY PROGRAM l 1 l l I. INTRODUCTION la its Partial Initial Decision (PID) dated 20 July 1982 (Docket No. 50-395 OL) in the matter of South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. et al. (Virgil l C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l (ASLB) required two licensing conditions to be met by the Applicants. The first is a requirement to continue seismic monitoring. The second condition involves a confirmatory program on plant equipment and components, to ensure seismic safety during shallow reservoir-induced earthquakes. Additionally, as a result of Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) meetings held in early 1981, there is also a commitment of the Licen-sees (contained in a letter from T.C. Nichols to H.R. Denton, dated 4/15/81) to continue seismic margin analysis for equipment and components necessary for continued heat removal. At the time of the ACRS commitment, the response spectrum of concern was the g4.5 response spectrum proposed by the Licensees j for the Monticello Reservoir-induced seismicity (RIS). This spectrum applies l to normal depth RIS. 1 l l The procedures and conclusions described herein constitute results obtained during the experimental stage of the Licensees' program to satisfy l ( the ASLB licensing condition. This program is described in the document entitled " Seismic Confirmatory Program for Equipment and Components, Virgil C. l Summer Nuclear Station," dated September 24, 1982. The first set of results (Sect'on 111) are quantitative estimates of the amplification effects of the concrete pad at the Monticello Dam abutment on the accelerograph records of earthquake motion at that site. These esti-( mates were made using two independent methods, both of which confirm the opinions of expert witnesses expressed during ASLB hearings in 1982. 1 ocm n u vocre 1
The second set of results documents the reduction in motion at the lower foundation levels of plant structures caused by the composite influence of embedment, wave scattering, foundation size and rigidity, rock-foundation interaction, and other effects on the incident waves. These effects were evaluated by conducting explosion tests and recording the resulting motions in the nuclear plant structures and on the soil surface in the free field. Section II discusses the applicability of this type of active field experiment to demonstrate the reductions to be expected during actual earthquakes. The results, in terms of response spectra at the basement level of structures, are presented in Section IV for the Auxiliary Building, Service Water Pumphouse, and Diesel Generator Sump. Finally, conclusions resulting from this program are discussed in Section V. These are, generally, that the ACRS commitment to analyze equipment for the effects of a g 4.5 earthquake at normal depth is more stringent than the envelope spectrum referenced by the ASLB licensing condition after reduc-tion as demonstrated by this program. Two appendices to this report describe details of the field work, data analysis, and interpretation conducted by Ertec Western, Inc. (Appendix A) and URS/ John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers (Appendix B), upon which these conclusions are based. 2 C _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _____ ___ _ _
- ~ _ _ - _
II. APPLICABILITY OF EXPLOSION TESTS TO EARTHQUAKES l Five series of explosion tests were conducted to establish the nature of vibratory motion at the floor level of various structures comprising the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), compared to ground motion at nearby free-field locations. Two of the test series (Tests 4 and 5) were designed also to compare signal levels on the USGS accelerograph pad with those at nearby free-field locations on the dam abutment. Test 5 explosions were located at or very near the hypocenter of the 16 October 1979 earthquake so that source-to-receiver propagation effects would be similar. Test 2 and Test 5 explosions were also recorded on the foundation of the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility (hydroplant). Tests 3 and 4 provided data from dif ferent azimuths but at almost the same distance (approximately 4000 ft) to the Test 1, receivers in the VCSNS structures and various f ree-field locations. conducted in 1981, provided foundation and free-field data from another azimuth and from a greater distance (approximately 14,000 ft). There are several reasons why these explosion test results are applicable to shallow RIS events in the vicinity of the VCSNS. First, the RIS events are all very shallow so that the paths of propagation from source to receiver are approximately the same as for explosions detonated in the granite bedrock; all of the explosions were detonated well into the granite bedrock except for a few of the Test 5 shots. Second, all wave types show similar foundation to free-field reductions, implying that earthquake motions would be similarly reduced. All available recordings of earthquakes and explosions in the Monticello Reservoir area are characterized by two large amplitude segments. Based on travel-time observa-tions and other signal characteristics, the first segment is comprised of energy that has traveled from source to receiver primarily as P waves and the second is comprised of energy that has propagated as S+ higher-mode surface waves. Therefore, while the energy partitioning between P waves and S+ higher-mode waves generated by the source is expected to be different for earthquakes compared with explosions (earthquakes generating proportionally more shear 3 _
- m. , sa
energy than explosions), the observed reduction factors from foundation to free field should be the same for both earthquakes and explosions. The same is true for the accelerograph pad to free-field amplification factors. Because of the strong effects of the heterogeneous structure on detailed features of the signals, it was not possible to isolate specific wavelets and compare them individually among receivers; indeed, the detailed wave shapes ) exhibit a very high temporal and spatial variability, manifested by chaotic particle motions and poor phase coherence between nearby receivers, whereas the overall signal levels behave systematically from receiver to receiver as discussed above. Third, the consistency of spectral reductions observed both for P waves and S + higher-mode waves for different foundation receiver-to-source azimuths (200*; 240*; 30*) and distances (3700 ft; 4300 ft; 14,000 ft) indi-cates that neither direction of arrival nor angle of incidence is impor-tant. That is, the spectral reductions are approximately the same regardless of the direction of arrival or angle of incidence of the input signals. Therefore, the explosion test results are appropriate for shallow RIS events located anywhere in the vicinity of the VCSNS. Fourth, the question of possible larte differences in fundamental mode excitation by earthquakes and explosions at different depths where there is a shallow saprolite layer is not relevant because fundamental mode waves in the frequency band 10 to 40 Hz have been observed in only one instance, specific-ally where the saprolite layer was continuous from source to receiver. In that case, the group velocity was approximately 0.2 km/see compared with a minimum observed group velocity of about 2 km/see for the S+ higher-mode window that consistently contains most of the signal energy. There are extreme variations in the thickness of the saprolite layer in the vicinity of the VCSNS, effectively eliminating it as a waveguide. For example, the saprolite layer is totally absent in the hydroplant - tailrace portion of the propaga-tion path to the accelerograph pad from the Test 5 shots and the 1979 earth-quake source. Fundamental mode waves generated in the immediate vicinity of a Osm : n !; ra I i
receiver by the incident P wave or S+ higher-mode wave fields would be gener-ated by both source types, and corresponding f oundation to free-field reduc-tions would apply to both. Finally, the smaller motions observed in the hydroplant foundation, compared with the accelerograph pad and nearby free-field locations for Test 5 explosions, are consistent with the observation that the 16 October 1979 RIS event that caused a 0.36g peak acceleration on the USGS pad did not cause any damage to structures or equipment in the hydroplant. Therefore, these explosion tests provide an appropriate quantitative basis to establish adjusted response spectra for VCSNS structures. r -
- . :k c .
5
111. ACCELEROGRAPH PAD EFFECTS The dynamic interaction between the concrete pad at Monticello Dam shutment and the saprolite on which it rests was suspected to contribute to the high peak ground accelerations recorded on the pad by the USGS SMA-1 accelerograph during small rt ;rvoir-induced earthquakes. To investigate and quantify any potential effect, several methods are available. The two most direct and timely methods are forced vibration tests (with mathematical modeling of dynamic response) and explosion tests (with instrument recording of ground motion on the pad and adjacent to it in the free field). Both of these methods were used, and both indicated that the pad-soil system increases the recorded ground motions compared with motions in the free field (without any pad-soil interaction). The fact that both of these independent methods indicate a pad amplification demonstrates that this effect is real. The forced-vibration tests are described in detail in Appendix A. Briefly, the natural frequencies, modal dampings, and mode shapes of the soil pad system were derived by recording responses of the pad to continuous forced vibrations at controlled frequencies. These modal parameters were then used to construct a mathematical model of the dynamic system. The motions recorded on the pad during the 1978 and 1979 earthquakes were input to the structural model to determine the equivalent motion in the free field (i.e., without any nil pad effects). The average ratio (over all horizontal compo-nents of these records) of free-field / pad motion, in terms of 5 percent damped spectral velocity, is shown in Figure 1. It varies as a function of fre-quency, but indicates substantial reductions in motion (from 5 to 30 percent) at frequencies above 20 Hz. Details of the explosion tests are described in Appendix B. The pad and several surrounding free-field sites were instrumented, and motions during. a series of explosions were recorded. Response spectra of these motions were computed to compare free-field and pad motion. Figure 2 gives a summary of the ratio of free-ficld to pad response spectral amplitudes. . While differ-ing in detail from the forced vibration test results, the explosion test m;n',m 6
results indicate substantially the same overall effect, i.e., motions in the free field are smaller than those on the pad by approximately 20 to 30 percent for frequencies above 20 Hz. Based on these two independent tests, it is appropriate to reduce earth-quake motions recorded on the dam abutment pad to represent free-field motions. The reductions indicated by each test are used in conjunction with the nuclear plant structure test results to indicate overall reductions in the recorded ground motions, as discussed in Section IV. These pad amplif. cation effects apparently are not unique to the Monti-cello Reservoir site. At the Fall 1982 American Geophysical Union, a paper was presented that indicated the peak acceleration recorded near Enola, Arkansas by an SMA instrument on a concrete pad was significantly larger than observed on a nearby f ree-field recording of the same near-field earthquake. It is our understanding that the USGS is carrying out further analysis of these data, but that this amplification appears to be a real effect (Fletcher, 1982; personal communication). Haar, L.C., J.B. Fletcher, and E. Semberra; A Preliminary Analysis .! Digital Seismograms from the Afkansas Earthquake Swarm of 1982; EOS, Vol. 63, No. 45, p. 1024, November, 1982 7 0 m . ;
IV. FOUNDATION EFFECTS To determine the composite influence of foundation size and rigidity, wave scattering, embedment, foundation rock interaction, and other effects, blast motions were recorded simultaneously in nuclear plant structures and free-field sites. These field experiments were designed to establish experimentally the difference between foundation and free-field motions, including the possible range in effects due to differences in source location, travel path, and free-field site conditions. The details of these experiments are given in Appendix B. As a gene';al result, foundation motions were found to be significantly less than those in the free field at the same source-receiver distance. This applies for all tests (including the 1981 experiments) and for all structures. It is important to note that foundation reductions should be applied after the effect of the accelerograph pad-soil system has been taken into account. The reductions for various types of foundations have been computed by comparison to free-field motions. These reductions apply in addition to reductions of motions recorded on the accelerograph pad discussed in the previous section. A further point is that the motions recorded during these experiments are used to compute reduced earthquake motions for structures and to assess offects of these motions on equipment. Response spectra for these reduced earthquake motions represent spectra at the basement levels of structures; they must be compared with floor spectra at the appropriate elevation to make preliminary determinations of the adequacy of equipment qualification. At the basement elevation of structures, the floor spectrum is in general higher than the ground input motion spectrum because foundation springs were used in the original structural analysis to model the interaction of the structure and the rock on which it is founded.
**'C' "
8
Results for Auxiliary Building Motions in the Auxiliary Building are representative of motions in the Reactor and Control Building, which are also founded on rock. The Auxiliary Building rotions are also representative of motions to be expected in the Intermediate Building, which is founded on caissons but which is tied on its west side to the Control Building at the foundation level, and is laterally stiffened on its east side by a structural shear wall anchored to rock. Figures 3 and 4 show reduced envelope response spectra for the two horizontal components of the 1979 earthquake accelerograph record obtained at the dam abutment. In Figure 3, the forced-vibration transfer function has been used to quantify the accelerograph pad-soil effect, and the reduction for plant structures has been applied, so the spectra shown represent an Auxiliary Building basement motion equivalent to that recorded on the USGS accelerograph pad in 1979. Figure 4 is similar except that the explosion test data were used to correct for the accelerograph pad effect. These two figures show the range of results obtained for different components of motion and different analysis techniques. Also shown on the figures are the original envelope spectrum, the SSE spectrum for rock structures anchored at 0.15 g, the reser-voir-induced seismicity (RIS) spectrum anchored at 0.22 g, and the Auxiliary Building floor spectrum for the basement level. Except for a small frequency range, the reduced 1979 spectra fall below the RIS spectrum so that the latter provides a more stringent input. There-fore, it is concluded that the analyses to be performed under the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) commitment to review equipment will govern the acceptability (or unacceptability) of current qualification data. Conclusions about the acceptability of equipment qualification can be made by comparison of equipment qualification spectra to floor spectra and evaluation of available margins. 9 , . , ..-m
1 Results for Service Water Pumphous_e { Reduced 1979 spectra are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for the Service Water Pumphouse. Again, these spectra show the range of results from different methods of determining the accelerograph pad-soil effect, and for the two components of the 1979 earthquake record. In this case, these adjusted spectra are compared to the R1S spectrum (which is anchored to 0.22g). The adjusted 1979 spectra fall below the RIS spectrum so that equipment in this 4 structure can considered under the qualification program for the ACRS commit- , t ment. I Results for Diesel Generator Building i Explosion test data were recorded on the sump floor of the Diesel Gener-ator Building. The sump is a structural appendage (approximately 12 f t by 65 ft in plan dimensions) situated below the main building. The structure itself is founded on . caissons which extend through saprolite to bedrock. Because of the instrument location (in the long, narrow sump), the motions recorded may ovetsstimate the motions expected on the main floor of the Diesel Generator Building. These motions apply to the Diesel Generator Building and to the Fuel Handling Building, which is also founded on caissons. Figures 7 and 8 show the reduced 1979 spectra, compared to the SSE spectrum, the RIS spectrum, and the envelope spectrum. In this case there is a small frequency range in which the reduced spectra exceed the RIS spectrum, but this exceedance is not large, so that few pieces of equipment are likely to be affected. Therefore, the evaluation of equipment in this structure can most logically and efficiently be accomplished during the program for the ACRS 1 commitment. Dames ti Moore ___ __ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ - _ _ _
V. CONCLUSIONS The experiments and analyses conducted for this program have indicated that the envelope spectrum obtained from accelerograms recorded on the USGS accelerograph pad at the Monticello dam abutment is inappropriate to represent ground motion in the nuclear plant structures. The ef.fect of the pad soil system has been to amplify motions over what would be obtained in the free field. Moreover, the nuclear plant structures reduce motions further because of the composite influence of embedment, foundation size and rigidity, wave scattering, rock-foundation interaction, and other effects which cannot individually be quantified. The total reduction has been well-documented and quantified by the work reported herein. For structures founded on rock, the ACRS commitment to review equipment for a magnitude H 4.5 earthquake will cover the review necessary to satisfy the ASLB licensing condition (the ACRS criterion implies higher levels of ground motion at virtually all frequencies than the reduced envelope spectra and is therefore more conservative). This is also the case for structures founded on soil (the Service Water Pumphouse). For structures founded on caissons, the reduced spectra exceed the RIS spectra only in a small frequency range. For the small amount of equipment involved in the Diesel Generator Building and the Fuel Handling Building the determination of effects on equipment can logically be made during the review of equipment for the Advi-sory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) commitment. 11 O m ,.s.f# core
o I I i i i o
"a
- 6. -
go -- _ gg-J" ~ cd ~ CC i-O* ' - we Q_ m N - ad E c I I i i i i
%.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 FREQUENCY, HZ Figure 1: Ratio of free field to pad spectral velocity (57. damping) versus frequency, from forced vibration tests.
i I l l 2.00 i i i i i i i i i giiiiiiiiigiiiie i i i i giiiiiiiii 1.50 _ t . i.00 _______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ -
/
.50 M -
l 1 l 0.00 ' ' i i ' ' ' i e I i ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40 00
- FREQUENCY (HZ) 180' Component of 1979 record
- - - - 90* Component of 1979 record 4
I i Figure 2: Ratio of free field to pad spectral velocity (5% damping) versus frequency, from explosion tests.
i 800.0 , , , y s,,.wm. , , ,, y , n , u. n ,, , , ,,, s ,,\ ,
~/Q&K' ',^ f'l 'p' ?jj j,' ']yX' V'fQ& Z
~
s ^7
'/ V X VN>?X 4%'/ Y X vwXPN / Y X v4'In 'a M / \ MM).' '4 ',4' X / \. MWK)iTRX /!\ XI"/X W~,
SM W/WWT&M MW/VI69 " ' ' WX1M .e
&%#2WMRN'%\#4M X 's' A'N \ E l l X /4X's MMMO?MWGIKCMTOC - l f) g
/ AIA Ndbk"ICNSh I,^/ Ns X'ZEATW . * . .' ^ ' Tris ' SPECTRUM b
\ CMU . /7 I- A
*sw e / A IA s
E/ Qt
\ Ng K's (4 VW g .' / Y X M /c'ai , '// Y Y
'/ Y j X / \ '
W4'/'dQT / \ X/ . ," ?& / \_ X/ M xN Y
?'W N4WMW W/ W D M shX W M >OM Y %%//NWWN%ff/MANM'WW/Z'/VAMS %,%
WNk'lD$W $$N W / W W $ $ 'X W O$i t'
, f i memwwe MynWJWMY en '// E A 've/Ii sh ' i. Y s vs'4 nh / Y X YNx XW E ('W'/ X XWiit/?M /i\ - XW OM X /l\ Xu/K'4'W
// X'M'dO FQpi\XW.dDM'M ! W'X#'rT9 e h
/M/kN \ /'i h M M N ' M N N NN Y d'[' N M N 't
- S < l.I%dA ' $ W $ A N W N' N W -
OJ E ', '/ J xX'?xMn'; ',I, x waM/ ^
'X f xA X'C M M'M/X /.X W M W9 A b>v-J u O' / ^i ^1xNA~U '
- a. / A A N Y'rN ss
' /y s v4 'Iw N' / v N v7/New / N g
\ X/V'fxWX / \ iX4NN x'CX / l\ IXW(x "
X/h'X'>d3sMNX X'WDMM ! X'MX M' % N//X%\'M624'MX'NMN ' 96WdXS s.
'd%@MMEd'7XM'A.U'd4M [
est W(((Q ~fhQ e.1 s.e to e PERIOD-SEC e '90* COMPONENT a 18d* COMPONENT Figure 3: Reduced Auxiliary Building spectra (5% damping) for 1979 record (from forced vibration pad results and explosion foundation results) compared to envelope, RIS, and SSE spectra,
l . . W? f Is K'd s Q7k, f ' , ' ' ' fT, / A ifX,'f f f
' ' ' ,T X -Q s';gs, 'f ,
/A A N KAY/A./ < A i A T NA 'r(I/ / A#A X u'ig A
'/ Y \ Y'YKX VN! / f X YNK/fh( / W \ VN'fX s?
Y / \ MX'YNN,0X / \ X W X)TA X /8\ XI9XM W X[M)XND&X XW///G "' '> ' "MXJdy . M#2 WOW %S4646KMbS"\\5IIY58/>( W MWVC%Wi W (X'&$Vl6 DOI
' EN OPE / / h - N'
.~'
g 8PECTRUM , ', D i M
# ' \W- ' E'\ /
\ ~ /d1
% 10.0 es / -r us
,rm
. ' JN -e y g'-- r w f. ss-Nn RI
- - r sn x x m. .c ,-
V s va 'v > [] g
., /N />N /t %
__/ AiA NL 1
- 7. I A -
1
.S S PECT, RUM e, I ' A' ' 7 N y.r g @ 9ys 4 =;r
//f / Y %
/ y %
'/ Y N
/
g I/ \ g/ I Y/M/* / \ lX6 ' N8 _' N /' '_ XWXYh85 hX MWX/hlfM X/4W/hM\\X X' W / O 'h? \ C' 6%4NWb V V & W 6 W A D 4'MNV/XWXIMk % ls WNY$W M NE N2iN'/)'l$ s' g ,3 vw y n .y w
=
f ]-.[7.f , k 'Q,-b %W , ? y X' i N' d #; #"M i A h 95,'j ijf(AflxX^ N ('-N ', -
\/_6% ' A 'n K
$ ^ '/ NhAT<h."/ -
//h'r.f %A'i?2c 'A m 7/ X A ' V r i E l & \\ N
~
s N % 'x (m N / Y N V Vii'> . R I' / i X i V 4 X'!.4 S.N M - /I\ X///// ??s' p U a ' nX' V'AV'#2h' y/'.M4% ) X '% A>( D Q,% t \f fM f X//>f
/)PX b3.pQ'Q WsNr ' @>' }{hM%WKX/k1. W .-
E W N'5WWKWAYMWANW -
~
0.1 E ,X, x X .'xM N T h ',[,f( f) x ',-(' [ N I- N '2 / X / b . )4 Y D /I M 7 ' '
- e. / A A N Wi/ M / A. A ti Mf t /PM / A i A l \ NA ~ = ~ '
e / y 1 yryffsNi / y N y?//WN / N N y -
'X W h" W X \ IX' N*
Y \ X"X*XXbKbX / 'N / X'/WXN"; 9,% N_ XW.4XMQX X'd'/ A1%X
'M'2NM M M W'/hVJON M ' elf W#OD
' MO NM T N N f8 M '7 X Rhs ' M ' d M /'
/ - 1
,X fi . ) '
4 7 g I , e.01
-l ,,-
^
{' l k' >/8 $ )l- Q h.Ik e.1 3.0 10.0 PERIOD-SEC e 90* COMPONENT a 180' COMPONENT Figure 4: Reduced Auxiliary Building spectra, (57. damping) for 1979 record (from explosion pad and foundation results) compared to envelope, RIS, and SSE spectra.
/A/%
~/ ^
Nb% ^ s' / s i r X 'x1 ,' > F % '1 /' 'l l s.Xuy,w 'N&%, e A ^ x uwu- es i^ s s vm- A ^
'/ V 3. VN)M E'V / V \ \MXrX)i , >f)f'M(
WX
/ Y
/8N T. V/t'I>Ii?
XMKm X / \ MX!WRX /\ bM W/WDS'X W/@M}K'X WMX%M ,
*St\\#2WMhkhf49!XYk'\%fAW>(Xi %
\ / \ ) > \ .
[N
'/ ENVELOPE [ /\ [ [N' IN I ,,, "I Dk2k ix\MA 2 '"
'^
?\ N '
A 'x T' 'l ; i,^/ fIx X'Cf4%V _^ ' ' V's1.' m, h7, _8PEb'R . 1 '.
$, ^,^ x m.x .- x A Y/ y' % A Na s.
g '/Y \ g //>:/ , '/ V V _ g I / \ f/W'*%*'?X / \ X@d' 'TQN' / sfX X,8.'N /' N X/NXYk^s F#d>OM 2M MMX)MW W 8 / X ' 6 M \\ X \ Y KN%#NV/>$YM%fhXAAX'Q%%//ZWXIni % M'$$ Q $ $ b W W 6 N N A W ) W X 'l
= , , Ubi )Nb
/'f/?Jn d?bM'd 'T / ?x X'd@N'4f'X f\X N'?fWi efx m u x 2s w i is .x u v.#s
,VW N v4',5 Av / y a
x NIM e s w ,-w v4'ra.' a '// X t 'vri'I L N ~ Pk' // \ iX W Kites \ iN ' X/X>?(iX3X /\ X///X'(i.T f E
, SK' X'4MTMC@QX ! X'# /KX W BX W'X4'>(' N ,g
) W/WAM >IWOW49)&'l>fKM'%W4M'XX' '
S' N'N N b' Y }< %e ' ,s $ YW y- % , % W ;,r .Y N. 7y yzy .s . l >n, On ' ? W N. . s f xX N21,I/'X 2x X'? 'ON'Iff^/ A X ' Nxi wR>5'y
'/
/
E - s wa u - # . ^ . x r.mru - A,n .y .
- ~ ^
' e y N ve/Ex'PN / V N v7/ .N9Y / /N X v.v_w vs N /\ X4 W K W X / \ 'XWXxhX \ t X'MYx
- W4MANWSX W/h8KY$s\X X'/%dXW '
>. 'hh!#XXM/M6MWp#' v'M'kN%V/4X/AXN s '3' 'XWMWWYW ,, yr .)
'\
W/(M N ,f' '
' r/ 7 v ,
'N%)J:h,9h.:!M sai NEs ,e e.i a s.e 3e.o PERIOD-SEC e 90* COMPONENT 4 180' COMPONENT Figure 5: Reduced Service Water Pumphouse spectra (5% damping) for 1979 record (from forced vibration pad results and explosion
- foundation results) compared to envelope, and RIS spectra.
/ ,( ,% )^Niy Q, ^,','y ' ,%._ f Q' G",Q',4,',' ,* ,xuwm , Y Q R$ -
e A ^ x umzu - e, i ^ v wuu- A ^
'/ V \ YVX'X E'r' / V \ Wi'K)TPh( / V Y7x'Ifi?
M / \ M///MW X /\ MM/M)V; X /'\ T.X(' VIM W XMWWS'X X'dMXXth'X X[/hX%h> M#XWXM6'%\//4WXM>S3Ss/MM/>OD
/ \ // \ 4 (*
sf I N Y # [N ENVELbPE[ SPECTRUM' ' s' [
/[
l n i y g s I 8 N[ d/ iAN AN.
.i
_\ _ AM f) go,o 5,'X Nx' WE'#sY ^'.# .)^' RIS 8PECTRUM Y // ^4^\WNYN] /MfM//4^1 ; Q. X/v@>/~ x'V !NtS$V,'i^s WfM$$ g N/ \ LOX / \ /' s_ X'N'xYvs W ~)]4WJW\% XOYM1%%X X'WJ>OO& \s C' 6'\%EdW>fWYOWOMEW W/XWXI W $ ! '\ / k eP lE ,, WkWl Y?hk?WD
'n%f$ f,l%',f K ju',u .%%N.'ll',' e u u m.:
,% sq ' ?,_ &[%';
Ai e.,s w. , f
# 'f/ X u ## u \ m' V *i'fX t h ~ , \N 's Wii T4h / Y \ V-$'If4 Y.
E N~ // \ XWY:G2h\. P;\ X'X'iOX'X /iN X///i3'9s e X'W.MXNT'I'X ' X"?X4K'lN' ,%
. L'A' X'/XSDO@ i 3 c % e M M @ ws v @x W 4 M H m M a w 4 M x m i D,M'M'>6'T3N'MOR M>N M N -
E a,
, fs
'A $'h Y [' sO M s#3
'x # /.1x _waM/ 7 M<OM A ', I ,AA . xAumrX'x'z NIM'M m.: / A /X
's
, AA i WNdN't x NA v N Y '.4 s
'/Y x v/ivihv / v N VV -Wh / x '
X /\ X/VfXWX / \ 'XAW)(W X / \ I X' *x' 8P,% N_ X(MAK'sMSX X W K)^l W X'/MXK V kYb [dbNY' N>hNNNN\ [ b hh s ' d @ % M N O # $ M ' 7 X R M M D M
/
;\ / ) Ys _
\ -
.., to.o
- e. s.e e.e PERIOD-SEC O 90' COMPONENT A 180* COMPONENT Figure 6: Reduced Service Water Pumphouse spectra (5% damping) for 1979 record (from exolosion pad and foundation results) compared :o envelope and RIS spectra.
** w x x. n:/> i. x . , x w re / / > ,/, x .
, n ;
'[x\lAR k'!<' s'l's' ??j}QU'/ n'Y[x $v/&If Q n'
, ~
/ V Y Y^rx'X P N / Y X WE>rew /y V i X / \ Y/>9YMWX / \ X / / / X )i WX /!\ X69 X ('X W WZWfhKtX W/X/9/G ** ^" " %X4M %
i' 4'35//2WMXO////42fXSk'N\NN5"'X/4XS ; SiWGX4MX&M%4'C y ENVEl. OPE /N /\ I
.~. \
1
! ,, 'I'!"N N>A\AAE '
D '. k ld [/ Ns X'd EdM _ # . .' ^ ' ' RIS 8PECTRUMbr Yb h _
.',^s '@$3M y / ,^s ',^ 'y' ,4M//,^Q,^.;' -
yg4$j,',^ X///xYV j $<' / \ F/ VY' val < / \ ; X/V5x'%" ?sh /' %. W >MWf%fx% W/Y/X'f%% X W/%ZK>N \s C' M'%f/,UNY/ > W % lff % / M M M b //2WAMb s' WW$(\S$$W6DWNWN'XYO4i
=
WB
, , $#ESM%W
/~>'o6',sU
//A ]
I AA 'UYs_ /is%'NXN$0'l
' f / # ' f i. ' V/i'I A s h ' M%
\\^/ ! V . \ M'\ 'vV 'I b.A.~l'Ev[%']'/~/
/A1A
\ \ M'i'M ( >W / Y \ W X//#XN'sN N Y[%','
lx s';.A ' A 's rf
/i'X X'3". f E PK // / X4N Yx'1M K MD \\ XWE'4'il?X /N ,s ,, M'/ X'/X4KM0Q4 i WO'/KxNf'SK W'X4K09 5 K: /%M 'y h N ' % N 4 k N O W O W %'% ' M W "
S x'ME'd@M?MMMMN9MI - c
~ >
E
/, x X'MMU ',DX' /x X ' C N d N '/ / '/ f x X 'NN S N 'y NA ~ a: / '
S. / A A N ' tANX A., ; / A A ! \ b//tfA4/ AiA \ Y YA A
'/ y N v/iWiN / V N Y7/d9N / N
\ 'XP/XXVM \ X'M
!XWTXZ Yf9XXWX X't258,%
/ /
X /\ ~ N. W8.O3%KRX X'/X4KMMM J'hd2NMXMhMf2' 4'XMh\Vdd'X'#OU
' N %)$
,r -
/ '
W l yi . M '7X '
%M '
hSi'/IM r ,
/
eat
'hh ,M > x12-
- e. 1.e
. xs3 '
to.o est PERIOD-SEC e 90' COMPONENT A 180' COMPONENT Figure 7: Reduced Diesel Generator Sump spectra (5% damping) for 1979 record (from forced vibration pad results and explosion foundation results) compared to envelope, RIS and SSE bpectra.
/,$ / l \ / s % $ /ls' l \
/ / V N YM>r fM/ / 'n' \ VVX'XPh( / Y \ Y4'Ifi? )
X / \ nMV XKX / N \ hhfY)i%KX /6% XKVX Y'Y, l M >MWXMX XMWW "* " ' '"WXXh) ., l l l M h 4 2' W@RA%#AMdRXSkdSM))N>ON'S l MW6XXWEGX X'MRZ{4'
[EbOPE EN /
N' : [N' ! r /\d f-i
$. ,, ^
. SPECTRUMd
, a m - A . < A dNN>
[( ' I /Ix ' UI'NN+1 . ..'^ ' [Rik 8PECTRUM' N
* / / ^O^\ LeWW//4^ !' yMMS',i^s 'MM$$ -
l X/MX TY
~ } W / \ fdMYy/AK / \ l f6VX W V.'N / %.
W MMX)M\T WA'hh h\X X'W/d>M \ C' h% iXWYfl%%EENY?Ms%//X6V>( W %
'l WNQS$I$W0XYM?$$'5/V% ~t'
= F;
,' ~ ^,- '
/,W.fRl&& ','
3AN 'AS R',' ,1x f xKb?,&'] ',,^,q' 1;e+d]
,? , fQ N -i}[ % ' i
//A E I, AA YI2s 5/p i A
- N M v / #t : / AIA .N'A'w/v e '// E A ' Wi'>'X Ns ' ,XN N V 5'x GW / T' N V4't/73 E PK // X ,WN ' X'.'V'AY'AX /1\ >'// / 4 Y W p
- .\f'/ X'h/' XAAff:4' M W ~ WW8/dMNX l W ' X A') O ' $ ,%
/29h0GYg'kNMMXWW/6' WM X' , ~
- M9'\
5 S x', MN<N$$Mc M ( M M N - E 0., IJ xXYx'NU ', I,MXf WYK M / A. xA ,NX'[ NIki /<^/A>^/ x Ydx'dNh bA 1 fl .A /
\ "sA ~=:<
- e. / A A N X V'r 'M .A
'/ V \ V/ 'X-6W t / V N Y >r'dPM / /N -
\ M VfiWX / \ 'X4X /XWM \X'h lX'XDK ff Wh'.4XlMMX X'/hddMlthX MX K9 %
. W'2N N W A W i'hf/MR + R4(S'v>O5 s
/
' M'MM@MM(XME'dO%?
j ~X '
!j i
[/ .}
\ ' 'y '
Q 'q 9 [
. I _' / . ~_ >
tal e.1 ' .01 10.e PERIOD-SEC , e 90* CONPONENT a 180* COMPONENT Figure 8: Reduced Diesel Generator Sump spectra (57. damping) for 1979 record (from explosion pad and foundation results) compared to envelope, RIS, and SSE spectra.
. - _ _ _ - _ =
SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON EARTHQUAKE HOTIONS RECORDED AT THE JENKINSVILLE, S.C. ACCELEROGRAPH STATION Submitted to: South Carolina Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 764 Columbia, S.C. 29218 Submitted by: Ertec Inc. 3777 Long Beach Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90807 February, 1983 83-164
TABLE OF CONTENTS fagg 1.0
SUMMARY
...................................................... I
2.0 INTRODUCTION
................................................. 3 3.0 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODELS ............................ 6 3.1 Equations of Motion for Earthquake Response ............. 6 3.2 Solution of Equations of Motion ......................... 9 3.3 Derivation of Free-Field Motion ......................... 10 4.0 FORCED VIBRATION TESTS ....................................... 12 4.1 Field Testing Program ................................... 12 4.2 Response Data flor. Vibration Tests ...................... 14 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................ 15 5.1 Reduction of Data from Forced Vibration Tests ........... 15 5.2 Determination of Stiffness Matrix ....................... 17 5.3 Determination of of Modal Parameters .................... 22 6.0 CALCULATION OF FREE-FIELD MOTIONS ............................ 24
7.0 REFERENCES
................................................... 26 m.,,. , . . -. . -,-,-- .-- - - . , , ,, ,,,,,,,,--,_ .. , ,--.- ,- ,-. -
n , _ , - - - - - -- - - - - , _ . , - - .-.e
1.0
SUMMARY
Forced vibration tests, using small eccentric mass shakers, were con-ducted at the Jenkinsville, S.C. accelerograph station to determine the effect soil-structure interaction had on the motions recorded at the station during 4 small reservoir-induced earthquakes. The tests and subsequent analysis clearly indicated that soil-structure interaction amplified the 5 percent damped response spectra of the recorded horizontal motions by an average of about 20 percent in the frequency range 20 to 50 Hz. No significant amplifi-cation was noted in the vertical direction. The Jenkinsville accelerograph station consists of a 4 f t x 4 f t x 2 f t concrete pad partially embedded in the soil and a 5-ft-high wooden hut, which is attached to the pad. The Kinemetrics SMA-1 accelerograph, mounted on the pad, recorded the earthquakes' notions. In the frequency range from 5 to 60 Hz the vibration tests revealed that the soil pad-but system had 2 natural frequencies in each horizontal direction. No natural frequency was identified in the vertical direction. The natural frequencies and the associated modal dampings were: 1st Mode 2nd Mode Direction f g - Ez C 3
-% f 2
2
~
x (N50*E) 16.7 4.0 49.8 20 y (N40*W) 10.6 6.0 47.9 21 Both modes exhibited strongly coupled translational and rocking response. The first mode involved mostly the response of the hut while the second mode involved a greater response of the pad. I
j Based on the results of the vibration tests, linear lumped parameter soil structure models of the soil pad-hut system were constructed. The equations of motion for the models were solved for the unknown free-field motions in terms of the earthquake actions recorded by the SHA-1 and the I dynsaic properties of the soil ped-hut system. The flow chart presented in Figure I shows the chronological steps of the investigation, beginning with the field experiment and ending with the computation of the free-field re-sponse spectra. The computed free-field accelerograms had smaller amplitudes than the corresponding SMA-1 accelerograms. On the average the response spectra of the horizontal free-field accelerog:ams were: 5 percent less than the SMA-1 response spectra in the frequency range from 1 to 20 Hz; between 5 and 27 percent less in the frequency range from 20 to 36 Hz; and 27 percent less from 36 to 50 Hz. The differences between the vertical free-field and SHA-1 response spectra were negligible. The differences between the horizontal free-field and SMA-1 response spectra demonstrate that a reduction in the envelope spectrum developed by the NRC for the Monticello accelerograms (NRC, 1982) is appropriate. The recom-sended reduced spectrum, shown in Figure 20, is based on the average reduction obtained from the results of the soil pad-hut interaction analysis displayed in Figure 19. l l 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION
I 1 l The Jenkinsville accelerograph station, located near Monticello dam at ' the Virgil C. Summer nuclear site, recorded motions from 3 small earthquakes on 27 August 1978 and another small shock on 16 October 1979. Although the earthquakes caused no damage, they produced large peak accelerations at the accelerograph station. These accelerations were recorded by a Kinemetrics SHA-1 accelerograph, which was bolted to a concrete pad (4 ft x 4 ft x 2 ft) that was partially embedded in the ground. A 5-ft-high wooden hut was attached to the slab to provide a shelter for the SMA-1. There was some question whether these high peak accelerations were truly representative of free-field ground motions or whether they had been influ-enced by the interaction between the concrete pad and the ground. To obtain an indication of whethe- the motions were influenced by interaction, the firm of Stoll, Evans, Woods and Associates conducted plucking tests on the concrete pad in January, 1982. The purpose of the tests was to determine the natural frequencies and dampings of the soil pad-hut system. Their results showed coupled rocking and translational motion in both N50E and N40W horizontal directions. Whereas, there was some uncertainty in distinguishing Setween rocking and translational modes, it was judged that the predominantly rocking modes had natural frequencies of 18 to 20 Hz and 12 Hz in the N50E and N40W directions, reapectively. The predominantly translational mode had similar natural frequencies between 40 and 50 Hz in each direction. These results suggested that soil-structure interaction may have signi-ficantly influenced the earthquake motions recorded by the SMA-1 accelero-graph. This conclusion was based on the observation that the natural fre-quencies measured during the plucking tests were in the frequency range where significant energy is contained in the SMA-1 accelerograms. However, addi-tional field tests were required to accurately quantify this interaction. Forced vibration tests, which were considered the most reliable means of quantifying the dynamic properties of the station, were conducted by ANCO 3
Engineers and Ertec, Inc. in Novcaber, 1982. The data collected during these tests were used to construct dynamic soil-structure interaction models of the I soil pad-hut system. These models were then used to deconvolve the SHA-1 accelerograms through transfer functions to generate corresponding free-field, ground-motion accelerograms. As outlined in the 10 September 1982 proposal from SCE&G to the NRC, the theoretical free-field earthquake motions were to be computed by 2 methods. The first and most direct approach involved: (1) the determination of the stiffness matrix of the equations of motion of the system from the forced vibration data, and (2) the deconvolution in the frequency domain of the accelerograms recorded by the SMA-1 instrument through the transfer functions for the soil-structure models. The inverse Fourier Transform gives the free-field motions in the time domain. The second approach involved the straightforward use of the modal quantities (natural frequencies, dampings, mode shapes, and participation factors) in the modal equations of motion of the system. The first approach, which was to be the prime analysis tool, had the advantage of preserving all the information at each frequency. The second approach offered simplicity and was to be used to check the first approach. However, during the analysis, it became apparent that the first approach was extremely sensitive to the phases, or the time lags, between the harmonic force applied by the shaker and the accelerations measured on the pad and hut. The computed stiffnesses in some cases had a negative imaginary part, which implied negative damping, and this in turn resulted in extremely small estimates of the free-field motions. This did not seem to be realistic, and so a decision was made to use the second approach, which did not depend on the phase measurements, as the prime analysis . tool. In the second approach the response spectra of the theoretical free-field acceleregrams were computed and compared to the response spectra of the recorded SMA-1 s.otions. The response spectra computation was carried out to 50 Hz for 5 percent critical damping. The ratio of the recorded spectra to the free-field spectra indicated the influence of soil pad-hut interaction on j the recorded earthquake motions. l 4 4
.= -~ - _ . . - . _ - . - _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --
t The remainder of this report is organized as follows. Section 3.0 presents the theoretical formulation of the soil pad-hut interaction. Section 4.0 describes the forced vibration tests that were conducted on the pad.
. Section 5.0 presents the methods used to reduce the data from the vibration tests and the methods used to determine the dynamic properties of the soil-pad-hut system. Section 6.0 presents the theoretical free-field motions and compares them to the recorded SMA-1 motions to determine the significance of the interaction.
e 5
l l 3.0 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODELS Preliminary forced vibration testa conducted on the pad indicated that the fundamental mode of vibration in both horizontal directions was heavily influenced by the wooden hut attached to the concrete pad. Therefore, the hut was included in the soil structure model for the response calculations. The soil-structure model for both the forced vibration experiments and earthquake response analyses is shown in Figure 2 for horizontal translation and rock-ing. The model in Figure 2 has 3 degrees of freedom: horizontal transla-tion (vg) and rocking ( 4 ) of the concrete pad, and rotation ( 0 ) of the wooden hut. A rotational bpring was considered sufficient to model the connection between the hut and the pad. The base of the hut was separated from the concrete pad by a 5/8-inch-thick foam-rubber pad. During the vibra-tion experiments the hut appeared to rock about the basc as evidenced by the compression visible in the front and back ends of the foam rubber. 3.1 Equations of Motion for Earthquake Response Under the assumption of small displacements and linear response, the equation of motion in the frequency domain for the model shown in Figure 1 is: (3-1) Mk+K5=[ where the 2 dots above the variable indicate double differentiation with respect to time and the bar over the quantity indicates the Fourier Transform. In Equatico (3-1) M and K are the mass and stiffness matrices, respectively; _v is the transformed displacement vector; and _f is the transformed force vector. These quantities are: (3-2) 5 " {kb, , 0) T 6
\
l T 1 = -{ (m+mhIUgh, (mh o +mh (2h,+h hU h II gh' "h h gh I "m+m (3-4) h mh,+m h (2h,+hh I "hhh M= mh,+n (2h,+h ) mh,2 +I+m (2h,+hh) n h +I h "h h3 (2h,+hhI +Ih mh "h hh (2h,+hh I +I h hh "hhh +I h
"K yy K 12 0'
K- K K 0 21 22 0 0 K g, In the above equations: the symbols a and I are the mass and moment of inertia of the concrete pad; e and I are h the mass and moment of inertia of the wooden hut; h is the height of the center of gravity (e.g.) of the concrete pad above the soil pad interface; h is the height of the c.g. of the hut above the top of the concrete pad; K (1,j=1,2) are the foundation impedance functions; Kg is the rotational stiffness between the hut and concrete pad; and V is the horizontal free-field acceleration. The dis-placement, vg , is measured with respect to the free-field motion. The mass matrix, M, is real and symmetric, while the stiffness matrix, K, is complex and symmetric. All elements of the stiffness matrix are frequency dependent and represent the unknowns in the soil-structure models that were to be determined from the forced-vibration experiments. The elements of the mass matrix were determined from measurements made on the pad and hut after the forced vibration experiments were completed. The mass and acment of inertia of both the concrete pad and hut were based on: (1) the dimensions of each structure, (2) the concrete density computed from r. standard NX core of the concrete pad, and (3) the wood densities computed from small plywood and 2 by 4 sections cut from the hut. 7
i In deriving Equation (3-1) the pad-foundation forces, P and Q in Figure 2, were expressed in terms of the pad-foundation displacements, vob ""d *
- through the impedance functions, K (Bielak, 1971). In theory, K = K)g, because the model is linear. This equality was not assumed when deriving the stiffnesses from the data obtained during the forced vibration tests. l One assumption of the soil-structure model shown in Figure 2 is that the theoretical free-field motion, , is the pad-foundation-input action.
In theory the pad-foundation-input motion will generally be different from the free-field motion because of the scattering of the incident seismic waves off the pad-foundation interface (Luco, 1980). However, for the Monticello accelerograph pad this effect was considered to be negligible in the frequency range of interest from 1 to 60 Hz. Another assumption of the soil structure models, which was confirmed by the forced vibration experiments, was that torsional action, arising from any accidental eccentricity between the e.g. of the pad and center of stiffness of the soil, was negligible. Furthermore, torsional input motions resulting from non-vertically incident shear waves are expected to be negligible for frequen-cies less than 60 Hz. Alternatively, Equation (3-1) can be expressed in terms of normal co-ordinates under the assumption that classical normal modes exist for the soil-structure model. Thus, Equation (3-1) can be expressed as: R=4 5gy (3-0
%$ + 2w$ C $ 53+ w$ $ $
where ng is the i*h normal coordinate; mgand g g are the 8 natural fre-quency and damping, respectively; and I' is the participation factor for the i mode. The vector of participation factors, T , is given by: _
.T_ = Y { m+m h , mh g +m h (2h 9 +h h ' ' "h h }
8
where Y is the mode shape matrix, i.e., the i th column of Y is the i th mode shape. The matrix Y is normalized such that Y MY = I, the identity matrix. The displacement vectorsJ1,and v_ are related by: v_ = Yrl (3-8) 3.2 Solution of Equations of Motion The solution to the equations of motion was obtained by 2 methods: (1) direct approach involving equation (3-1), and (2) modal superposition. The stiffness matrix needed to be determined to apply the direct approach, and the natural frequencies, modal dampings and mode shapes were required for the modal superposition method. These inputs are determined in Section 5.0 from the forced vibration tests discussed in Section 4.0. With the mass and stiffness matrices known, the solution to Equation (3-1) can be written as: [ = - [M - K/w ] ~ [ (3-9) 2 The relationship, X = - v / O , which is applicable assuming zero ini-tial conditions, was used in the derivation. . In terms of the modal quantities, the solutien can be easily obtained by solving Equation (3-7) and substituting the resulting exprescion into Equation (3-8). Intermsof1thesolutioncanbewrittenas: k=5gh (3-10) where the i element of the I vector is the amplification factor for the i* node. It is given by:
~
K1=r1 / 1- (w/w1 ) 2 -j 2 (w/w1 ) c1 - (3-11) where j = Y-1 for this equation only. 9
3.3 Derivation of Free-Field Motion The objective of this investigation was to determine the free-field accelerations from the 4 earthquake accelerograms recorded by the SMA-1 accelerograph, which was mounted to the pad as shown in Figure 2. This was accomplished by expressing the recorded SMA-1 motions, VSM , in terms of the elements of the displacement vector v_. For example, the translatiional accel-h eration recorded by the SMA-1, v3g , is: h Ygg " Ygh + ob + (hg +h)3 I (3-12) where h is the height of the transducer element in the SMA-1 above the 3 c.g. of the concrete pad. For vertical motion, the analogous equation is: Y gg *Y gy -e5 xy (3-13) where e is the distance in the x direction between the vertical transducer in the SMA-1 and the c.g. of the concrete pad (Figure 2), and 5 is the pad rotation about the y axis. By substituting the solutions to the equations of motion given by Equa-tion (3-9) into Equation (3-12), one can obtain an expression for the trans-formed free-field motion in teras of 53 through the appropriate transfer function:
' ' ~
~
h V
-gh " E- SMA / ,
1- (1#et O 31 B y$
+ @g4 3 B 2j h, @N j=1 2
where det B is the determinant of the matrix [M - K/w } ;B are the ele-ments of the adjoint of [M - K/w ] ; and f) are the elements of (-T / Vgh )* Similarly, by substituting Equation (3-10) into (3-12), an analogous equation can be derived in terms of the modal quantities: 10
I 8 h 3 Ij Y gh " I SMA / , 1+
,y Y
13 Ij + (h o+h3I EYj 2 j=1 where Y are the elements of the mode shape matrix, Y . By following the same basic procedures, similar equations can be derived for the vertical free-field notion as well. O e 11
4.0 FORCED VIBRATION TESTS Forced vibration tests of the concrete pad were conducted to determine the dynamic characteristics of the soil pad-hut system. In these tests eccentric-mass shakers were used to provide harmonic excitation to the pad over a frequency range of 5 to 60 Hz. Triaxial accelerometer packages placed on each corner of the pad and near the roof of the hut measured the amplitudes and phases of the horizontal and vertical motions. These measurements were used to determine the stif fness and modal quantities that appear in the frequency-dependent transfer functions, which are, for example, the denomina-tors of the right hand sides of Equatiens (3-14) and (3-15). 4.1 Field Testing Program The field testing program was conducted by ANCO Engineers of Culver City, California, and was monitored by Ertec. Inc. of Long Beach, California. The vibration generation equipment consisted of 2 eccentric mass shakers, MK-11 and MK-12, capable of producing low- and high-force levels similar to thoce experienced by the pad during the recorded earthquakes. Endevco piezoelectric accelerometers (5241A), which have a flat frequency response between 2 and 500 Hz, were used to measure the pad and hut accelerations. Signals from the accelerometers were passed through a STI differential amplifier and antialias filter, which removed frequencies greater than 100 Hz. The output was passed through an analog-to-digital converter and stored on a Data General Nova 3 Computer. A Hewlett-Packard HP3582A Spectrum Analyzer, and HP7015B x y plotter, as well as a Houston Instruments plotter were used to , monitor the tests. To determine the frequency-dependent foundation impedances, K (1,j=1, 2), for coupled transintion sad rocking response, 2 independent forced-vibration tests were performed for each horizontal direction; that is, in the x and y directions (see Section 5.2 for theory). 12
i For one test in the x direction, for example, ANCO mounted the MK-11 eccentric mass shaker to the top of the pad over the center of gravity (c.g.) and excited the pad with a x-directional horizontal harmonic force at a fixed frequency. The resulting coupled translational and rocking accelcrations were measured with triaxial accelerometer packages. The tests were repeated over a range of frequencies from 5 to 60 Hz. The frequencies were incremented such that the frequency of a given test was 1 percent larger than the frequeacy of the preceding test. The applied force in pounde equaled 1.051 ef2, where e = eccentricity and f = frequency in Hz. To keep the force levels from becoming too large, the eccentricity was lowered at 20 Hz and again at 35 Hz. The eccentricity values selected were: 1.0 (5 to 20 Hz); 0.40 (20 to 35 Hz); and 0.15 (35 to 60 Hz). For the other independent test, the shaker was moved from over the c.g. to a point about halfway between the c.g. and the end of the pad. The shaker weights were oriented to produce a force in the vertical direction. This induced a soment to the pad, and the coupled rocking and translational motions were measured in the same manner as in the first test. A third test was performed to determine the frequency-dependent stiff-nesses for vertical response. Theoretically, the second test described above would also provide response data to determine the stiffnesses. However, because of the asymmetric stress distribution that resulted beneath the pad during this test, the shaker was placed over the c.g. for the vertical test. Three confirmation tests, one for each direction, were conducted to verify the experimental results. One confirmation test consisted of repeating the test where the shaker provided a vertical eccentric force. However, in the verification test, the shaker was moved to the same location on the other side of the e.g. Through a comparison with the original vertical eccentric force test, this test also indicated the effect of the asymmetric stress distribution beneath the pad. I 13 l
The entire test procedure described above (comprising a total of 8 tests) was repeated twice: first at low-force levels, using the MK-Il shaker, and then at high-force levels, using the MK-12 shaker. The high-force-level tests were conducted with the MK-12 shaker. The results of the 2 tests indicated whether or not non-linear response was significant. In addition to the pad-response measurements, other quantities were also obtained: (1) the dimensions, densi::y, mass, moment of inertia and location of the c.g. of the pad, (2) the location of the applied force within the MK-ll and MK-12 shakers, (3) the locations of the transducer elements within the SMA-1 instrument that recorded the earthquake ground motions, and (4) the locations on the pad of the accelerometers recording the motions generated during the vibration tests. All of these quantities were measured directly, obtained from specification sheets, or computed. 4.2 Response Data from Vibration Tests The steady-state acceleration amplitudes and phases for the acceleration-time histories recorded by the Endevco accelerometers were determined by Fourier analysis at each frequency of excitation. The modulus was taken as the amplitude of the steady-state acceleration and the phase angle was com-puted from the real and imaginary parts. The phase angle (p) was defined with respect to the applied force; i.e., if the shaker force was F = F o sin wt, then the response measured by a particular accelerometer was a = a sin ( wt + p). The shaker force and the measured accelerations were con-sidered to be positive along the coordinate axes shown in Figure 3. To time the application of the harmonic force, a sensor was placed on the rotating shaf t of the shaker. This sensor recorded the times at which the shaker force reached its maximum positive value during each revolution. 14
5.0 DATA ANALYSIS 5.1 Reduction of Data from Forced Vibration Tests The steady atate amplitude and phase data obtained from the forced vibration tests were transformed into the 3 translational and 3 rotational accelerations of the center of gravity (e.g.) of the concrete pad and the rotation and vertical translation of the wooden hut. The equations that describe the rigid body motion of the concrete pad for small displacements (see Figure 1) are: Uf = -U, + (zg-zc ) Oy (yg -y } O c z
... (i=1,4 , ,10) (5-1)
Vg=Uy - (zg-zc) O x + (xy-xc) 0, ... (i=2,5,8,ll) (5-2) Wg = U, +(yg -yc) O x (xg -xc I Oy ... = , ,9, (5-3) th Equation (5-1) applies to accelerations U recorded on the i accelero-meter oriented in the x direction. Similar definitions apply to Equations (5-2) and (5-3) in the y and z directions, respectively. In the above equa-tions U , U, and U are the horizontal accelerations of the c.g. of the concrete pad in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. The rotational accelerations about principal axes through the pad's c.g. are represented by 0,,O , and 0 ,. The coordinates (x,, y,, z,) designate the location of the c.g. of the pad while (xg, y g, z )g designate the location of the i* acceler-ometer. In general, 4 separate equations involving 3 unknown responses can be written for each one of the equations (5-1), (5-2) and ($~3). Each response quantity in these equations is of the form a sin ( hit + p). Thus, the re-sponse quantities can be expressed, for convenience, as complex variables, and existing computer sof tware can be used to solve the simultaneous equations and 0,. for the unknown responses,U ,,U ,,U ,. . O ,, 0 7 15
For our transducer arrangement on the pad, the quantity gz s was con-stant for all 1. Therefore, O and O ,could not be obtained from Equations (5-1) and (5-2). Furthermore, because some of the x , y and zg pairs were nearly equal (e.g., x and 3 x ), 4equations involving these pairs were nearly dependent, and therefore, ill-conditioned for solving simultaneously. Thus, 4 different sets of 2 simultaneous equations were written for each one of . Equations (5-1) and (5-2). Because of noise, some of the W rec'ordings had to be eliminated, and only I or 2 sets of 3 simultaneous equations were written for Equation (5-3). The solutions for each set were averaged to reduce any random noise that may have been present. Because the wooden hut was assumed to act as a rigid body attached to the concrete pad by flexible springs, the hut's motions at its c.g. were easily computed from the recorded roof motions and the calculated pad motions. The calculations of translational accelerations (U , U , U,) and rota-tional accelerations ( O , O , O ,) in Equations (5-1), (5-2), (5-3) showed that torsional accelerations f O ,) were small. As expected, t ranslations perpendicular to the direction of the applied shaker force were small compared to the translations in the direction of the force. Typical plots of the U diplacement amplitude and phase data versus frequency are shuc in Figure 4 for the first low-force-level test. The displacement amplitudes have been normalized by the shaker force. The discon-tinuities at 20 Hz and 35 Hz reflect the change to lower eccentricities (and hence lower force levels) during the test. Theoretically, if the soi1= structure system were completely linear and if the eccentricities were pre-cisely set, then discontinuities would not appear. However, they are small and of no practical consequence. The narrow peak at 16 Hz and the broad peak at 48 Hz in Figure 4 cor-respond to the first and second natural frequencies of the soil pad-hut system. Similar plots for the corresponding high-force-level test are shown 16
in Figure 5. The amplitude and phase plots are considerably different from those in Figure 4. For example, the second natural frequency was reduced f rom about 50 Pa. during the low-level tests (Figure 4) to approximately 25 Hz during the first high-level test (Figure 5). This indicates that the high-force-level tests induced a severe non-linear response by degrading the soil stiffness and/or creating a small gap at the interface between the side of the pad and the surrounding soil. The same conclusions were reached upon inspec-tion of the results of all the high-force-level tests. These tests, because of their long duration at high-force levels and the attendant non-linear response, were not considered indicative of the behavior of the soil pad-hut system during the reservoir-induced earthquakes, which essentially applied impulsive loads lasting less than 1 second. Consequently, only the low-force-level data were considered in the subsequent analysis. 5.2 Determination of Stiffness Matrix The elements of the stiffness matrix in Equation (3-8) were determined from the equations of motion for the forced vibration experiments. The equations are similar to the matrix Equation (3-1); the only difference is the f orcing term, f, on the right-hand side. Theory. To determine the elements of the complex stiffness matrix, forced K (i = 1,2) and K g , in I horizontal direction, 2 independent vibration tests were performed as discussed in Section 4.0. The first one consisted of a horizontal harmonic force applied above the c.g. of the pad (Figure 2). The second one consisted of vertical harmonic force applied at a point located away from the c.g. For each experiment 3 equations of motion involving the base translation, vg> and rotation, $ , of the pad and the rotation of the hut, 0 , were written.
- The equations of motion for the first experiment are:
M y + Ev =f 1 g 17 i
l where: v1 , {y ob 1. 1 ,g1 ) T
- (5-5) f = {F,F (hg +hy ) + M,, 0} T (5-6) m+mh mhg +mh (2h,+hh I "hhh M= mh,+mh(2hg 4hh ) mh g 2+I+"h(2hg +hh I +I h "h hh (2h +hhI +Ih h2 "h h h "hhh(2hg +hh I + Ih "hh+Ih .
"K yy K 12 K= K 22 21 (5-8) 0 o K.
g Note that the H and K above are identical to M and K given by Equations (3-4) and (3-5), which were used in the equations of motion for the earthquake response. The equations of motion for the second experiment are: (5-9) Mi + Kv =f where: {vob (5-10) v , 4 , e }T
=
f 2 - {0, Fa, o} T 18
i i In the above equations, v and f represent the displacement and force th vectors respectively, measured during the i experiment; F is the applied harmonic shaker force; a is the horizontal distance from the applied vertical shaker force to the pad's e.g.; M is the moment applied by the shaker when the shaker force is in the horizontal direction; and h g is the vertical distance of the horizontal shaker force above the pad's c.g. The remaining symbols were defined in Section 3.0. The matrix equations (5-4) and (5-9) can be written out as 6 equations involving the unknown stiffness. Because Kg is not coupled to K in the stiffness matrix, 2 of the equations involve the unknown KO only. The remaining 4 equations involve the unknown K g only. Thus, two indepen-dent estimates of K g were obtained, and under the assumption K12 K 21' ""I S "' estimates of the K were obtained. Details of the solution procedure are given below. Because the applied shaker force is harmonic, then: i ist [ = Y_ e (5-11) i _i e iwt 1 "X (5-12) where [ and f represent the complex amplitudes and are functions of the circular frequency, w, in radians /sec. The [ were determined using the data reduction methods discussed in Subsection 5.1. By substituting Equations (5-11) and (5-12) into Equations (5-4) and (5-9) and by making use of -w f=[,thefollowingequationsareobtainedfor the unknown stiffnesses: 19
A20 Dick 1 Kg - (w / b {M3 } i (5-13) Kg - (w /5) (M3 } i (5-14) 1 1 2I l+" 2 1 T1 V b K n+TK12 * "" 1 I ($~ $} Y 2 - 2 ob Kyy + 5 K 12 " " l}T -i (5-16) v ob K21 + K22 * ~ " 2+w {My }T (5-17) 2 2
- 2 v
b K21 + E22 " ~ " 2I 22+" 2 IM2}T S (5-18) In the above equations f 1 is the J E element of the vector , and d th { M } is the vector whose elements are given by the j coltaan of the mass matrix. Equations (5-15) and (5-16) were solved simultaneously for K gg and K 12' and Equations (5-17) and (5-18) were solved for K 21 and K 22 at each frequency, w , in the range from 5 to 60 Hz. The stiffnesses in the vertical direction were obtained from the third vibration test where the harmonic shaker force was applied in the vertical direction over the pad's c.g. However, because the vertical tests showed no natural frequencies in this direction, the stiffnesses were not used in the earthquake response calculations for the vertical direction, and they are not Presented in this report. Results. The real and imaginary parts of the complex stiffnesses, Kg) and Kg , are shown in Figures 6 through 9 for the x direction. Some observa-tions in these figures are of particular interest. For example, 20
the real part of the stiffness K 33 in Figure 6 increases with frequency. This is not consistent with the theory for embedded retangular foundations (Dominguez, 1978), which shows the stiffness, Eg, decreasing slightly with frequency. He real parts of K and K21. (Figure 7) although roughly equal, 12 are much larger than expected on the basis of theory (Dominguer,1978). The imaginary parts are cle .rly not equal, and in fact, In (K12) 18 "'8811 IOY nearly all frequencies. The stiffness Kg (Figure 8) exhibits erratic be-havior, especially near the natural frequencies of 16.7 Hz and 49.8 Hz. The imaginary part of K is negative f r nearly all frequencies, which implies 22 negative damping. The stiffness associated with the hut, K g , seemed fairly well behaved in comparison with the impedances K (iel,2). However, the Ke were not obtained from a simultaneous solution as were the K . Rather, independent estimates of K g were obtained from both vibration tests; whereas, both tests were required to obtain single estimates of K . H e relative stability of the Kg suggested that the data from both tests and the resulting simultaneous equations were not well conditioned for solu-tion by this procedure. To test this hypothesis, the off diagonal terms, K g and Kg were set equal to zero. Equations (5-15) and (5-16) were each solved for Kg , and Equations (5-17) and (5-18) were each solved for K22 The results, presented in Figures 10 and 11, show a reduction in fluctuations with frequency. The differences between both independent estimates of Kg and K are c nsidered small by experimental standards. Nonetheless, they were 22 ' apparently large enough to cause the erratic behavior observed in Figures 6, 7 and 8. Even though they are more stable, the stiffnesses K 33 and K 22 shown in Figures 10 and 11 still exhibit some anomalies. For example, the increases in the real part of K33, with frequency up to the first and second natural frequencies, are not expected. ~he negative imaginary part of K 3g around the
. natural frequency (16.7 Hz) is also not expected. The same comments apply to K 22, except the negative imaginary part is observed at all frequencies greater than 12 Hz. The reasons for these anomalies are not . entirely clear.
One explanation is the soil pad-hut model is more sophisticated than the one 21
l considered and that the stiffnesses are simply reflecting these differences. Another explanation lies with the phases between the applied shaker forces and measured acclerations. The calculatione showed that the stiffnesses were sensitive to these phases. Thus, experimental error, noise, or some other phenomena could have affected the phase measurements, which could have contri-buted to the behavior in the K noted above, especially with regard to the imaginary part. Even with the anomalies in the K it was still possible that the sub-stitution of these stiffnesses into Equation (3-9) would lead to reasonable estimates of the earthquake response of the soil pad-hut system. This is explored further in Section 6.0. 5.3 Determination of Modal Parameters To obtain the free-field earthquake ground motions by modal superposition (e.g., Equation 3-15), the natural frequencies ( w ), modal dampings ( C 1), j and acde shapes ( ? ) must be determined. These parameters were obtained from the data generated during the low-level forced vibration tests. The natural frequencies and dampings were determined by applying a pro-cedure developed by Beck (1980). The procedure consists of fitting a theo-retical amplification curve for a single-degree-of-freedom system to the observed response data. The method is applicable to modes which are well separated and have low damping, which is the case for the soil pad-hut system. A computer program for the curve fitting was taken from Appendix A.2 of Lin (1982). The program was applied to pad displacement data normalized by the applied shaker force. The displacement data were computed by dividing tt pad 2 accelerations, determined in Subrection 5.1, by - m ,
. An example of the response data from the low-level vibration tests was shown in Figure 4. Two peaks are apparent in the plot: one near 16 Hz and the other near 47 Hz. The response data that defined each peak were used in the curve fitting procedure. This procedure was repeated for the y direction also. The resulting m and C are presented in Table 1.
22 i
The mode shapes were obtained from the response data at each natu-th ral frequency. For example, at the i natural frquency the respe h { $ ob
,5 , 5 } T, obtained from the data reduction procedures described in Subsection 5.1, would represent the i'h mode shape, y g, to within a scale factor (Nielsen, 1964). The scale factors and hence the mode shapes were then determined by solvinge Y MY = I (5-19)
I where Y is the mode shape matrix, M is the mass matrix, and I is the identity matrix. The mode shapes Y g (i.e. the columns of Y ) are also presented in Table 1. Discussion. The natural frequencies ( s ) and modal dampings ( C ) determined from the forced vibration tests are similar to those obtained during the pluck tests conducted by Stoll, Evans, Woods and Associates on 9 January 1982. This indicates that the dynamic characteristics of the soil pad-hut system did ret change appreciably in the 10 months between the experiments, and therefore, they probably did not change between the time of the earthquakes and the experiments. The forced vibration tests clearly showed (Table 1) that the first natural frequency in each direction was influenced by the hut. On the other hand, the second natural frequency in each horizontal direction was predomi-nantly the response of the pad. The similarity of the second natural fre-quencies in the x and y directions is to be expected because the soil ptop-erties are not expected to vary significantly in the 2 directions. Bovever, j the differences in the first natural frequency in the x and y directions are expected because the stiffness of the but is different in each direction. i 23 O
6.0 CALCULATION OF FREE-FIELD MOTIONS i An indication of the amount of soil-structure interaction that affected the SMA-1 secelerograms recorded on the concrete pad was obtained from the transfer function, SMA/ gh. These functions were computed from equations such as (3-14) and (3-15). Graphs of the transfer functions, both the modulus and phase, versus frequency are shown in Figure 12 for the x direction. These plots were derived from Equation (3-14), which used the stiffnesses shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11. The transfer functions computed from Equation (3-15), which involved the modal quantities, are shown in Figures 13 and 14 for the x and y directions. A general transfer function for the vertical (z) direction cannot be computed because it depends on both the horizontal and vertical SMA motions. Individual transfer functions for each vertical component of the SMA accelerogram can be calculated but they show little amplification and are not presented. The transfer function obtained by the stiffness approach (Figure 12) indicated that the motions recorded by the SMA-1 were greater that. the free-field motions by factors larger than 10 over a wide frequency tange, which did not seen physically possible. The transfer functions were sensitive to the phases, and the large values for the modulus were mostly attributed to the negative imaginary parts of K g and Kg, which implied negative damping in the system. At this point, it was concluded that the stiffness approach would not give realistic estimates of the transfer function or the free-field ground motions, and this approach was not pursued further. The transfer functions obtained from the modal approach (Figures 13 and
- 14) are reasonable and consistent with physical intuition. One of the reasons for the regular behavior of these transfer functions is that they do not depend on the phases measured during the v.9tation tests. The damping in the "aystem and the other modal parameters were obtained only from the modulus versus frequency plots, as discussed in Subsection 5.3. The phase information was not needed for this approach.
24
l l l The free-field earthquake ground motions, corresponding to the 4 accele-rograms recorded by the SMA-1, were computed by taking the inverse Fourier Transform of Equation (3-15) and the analogous equation for the vertical ; direction. A comparison between the SHA-1 and free-field accelerograms is ) shown in Figures 15 and 16 for the 090' and 180* directions, respectively. These directions corresponded to the transducer directions in the SMA-1. Thus, the x and y free-field motions, computed from the transfer functions, were transformed into the 090* and 180* directions. i Figures 15 and 16 show that the computed horizontal free-field accelero-grams are somewhat less than the SMA-1 accelerograms, both in amplitude and frequency content. The differences for vertical motions were negligible and these results are not presented. The 5 percent damped response spectra of the SMA-1 and free-field accel-arograms are shown in Figures 17 and 18 for the 090* and 180* directions. The differences in the SMA-1 and free-field response spectra are also con-sistent with the transfer functions. The average reduction in the horizontal free-field motions was obtained by averaging the ratio, PSV f_f(f)/PSVSMA(f), where PSVp f(f) and PSVgg(f) are the 5 percent damped pseudovelocities at frequency f for the free-field and SHA-1 accelerograms, respectively. The ratios for the 8 horizontal components were averaged arithmetically at nch frequency and the results are plotted in Figure 19. The overage reduction in PSVg (f) for frequencies between 1 and 20 Hz is about 5 percent. The reduction is linear between 20 and 36 Hz; its value at 36 Hz is 27 percent. The average reduction for frequencies between 36 and 50 Hz is about 27 percent. The average reduction factors indicated above were used to modify the envelope spectrum developed by the NRC for the Monticello accelerograms (NRC, 1982). The 5 percent damped response spectrum in Figure 2-1 of that reference was reduced by these reduction factors and the results are plotted in Figure
- 20. The reduced spectrum in Figure 20 is the corresponding free-field spec-trum for the Monticello accelerograms.
25
7.0 REFERENCES
Beck, J. L.,1980. Determining modes for structures from earthquake records. Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, Report EERL 80-01, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. , i Bielak, J., 1971 Earthquake response of building foundation systems: Earth-quake Engineering Research Laboratory, Report EERL 71-04, California Institute of Technclogy, Pasadena, California. Dominguez, J., 1978 Dynamic stiffness of rectangular foundations. Department of Civil Engineering, Report No. R78-20, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Luco, J. E., 1980, Linear soil-structure interaction: Report UCRL-15272, PSA
#7249809 submitted to Lawrence Livermore Laborato: y.
Lin, A. N., 1982, Experimental observations of the effect of foundation embedment on structural response: Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, Report EERL 82-01, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. Nielsen, N. N., 1964, Dynamic response of multistory buildings: Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1982, Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Docket No. 50-395, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, NUREG-0717, Supplement No. 4, August. ) s 26
TABLE 1 MODAL PARAMETERS FOR SOIL-PAD-HUT HODELS ist mode 2nd mode Direction w q y w g y x 16.7 Pz .04 1.45E-2 49.8 Hz .20 5.67E-2 5.77E-4 1.87E-3 4.64E-3 -3.90E-3 y 10.6 Hz .06 9.34E-3 47.9 Hz .21 5.16E-2 4.39E-4 1.63E-3 5.04E-3 -5.88E-3 27
APPuED FORCE e Hermenic Escitetlea of Pod VIBRATION TESTS . Lo. a N Sn rocce Levees uEAtuRED HESPONSES e Acceleration Amplitudes e Phasse If TRANSFORu uEASuRED RESPONSE DATA
~
eh ow TR ANSLATIONS & ROTATIONS OF PAD 8 hut s.S.'s DATA 1r 1r REDUCTION ex,u,,,o,7,,,o , 1 ExAulNE DATA FROu SEVERE LOW-FORCE-LEVEL M80M* FORCE-LEVEL % DEO ADAT TESTS TESTS go no, use ir SELECT DATA FOR ANALYSl3
......___....________4....................__............___
DYNAMIC k 1r PROPERTIES StirrNEst uATRix rRow NATURAL FREcutNCiES. oAuriNo$. DETERMINATION AuPutuoE S PNASE oATA a uOoE SNAPES FRou AuPuTuot DATA 1r 1r SOIL-STRUCTURE cou,uTE SuA., uNREAuSTic couPuTE SuA-i INTERACTION TO rREE.Fifto A RESuLTS TO FREE-FIELD ANALYSIS TR ANSFER FUNCTION 00 NOT USE TRANSFER FUNCTION 1r COuPUTE FREE-FIELO ACCELERooRAuS a RESPONSE SPECTRA FREE-FIELD MOTION COMPUTATION 1r FREE-FIELO 080' OlFFERENCES CouPARE FREE-FIELD y, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS S 380* , TO SuA-1 uCTIONS DIR THAN SuA-1 OtR. NEoLECT 1r CONCLUSION REouct NRC tit $n g en JEc7 wo.: Sa iSA ENvEtoe SPECTRuu h se sa % h SCE&G SOlL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION INVESTIGATION AT JENKINSVILLE ACCELEROGRAPH STATION 1242 PIGURE1
1 m h,Ih ! n e l HUT c.g. L ONE ACCELEROMETER hh LOCATION FOR ECCENTRIC FIELD EXPERIMENTS MASS SHAKER SMA 1 6
- U a
a I'l U [. F~ h e ex : h1 h3 h2 m,I c.g. g CONCRETE PAD U P" Q
> P N
.... i/ y:%Wi
!!ff
.> ..::q
.E.?t .
..;L
. .. .:c.u::
.#.::'. d$ii - 'S.SI'5h.1.,h.,,(:. Ed.
N '
- O '#fl.! nf B.:.! ;:.:;.. Nj. ; e vb o
4--* FOUNDATION SOIL i ( l enOJECT NO.: 33164 hw%h SCE&G SOIL-PAD-HUT INTERACTION MODEL FOR HORIZONTAL TRANSLATION AND ROCKING 12 32 FIGumE 2
l Us
@u D Uryggu D
/ j, _,_ (x ,, y, , z,,
h ug n' Q 8v O
- Uy c
h g (x ,Yc.2c) c
@" b gn b
@ @~ Y ,
. h CONCRETE PAD
=
to,o,ol f@ DIRECTION OF POSITIVE ACCELERATION FOR ACCELEROMETERL (xi, yi, r,) COORDINATE OF ACCELEROMETER i (xe, ye, zc) COORDINATE FOR CENTER OF GRAVITY (c.g.) OF THE PAD Ux, Uy, Us ARE THE TRANSLATIONAL MOTIONS OC THE PAD c.g. Ox, Sy ,6, ARE THE ROTATIONAL MOTIONS OF THE PAD 1 1 1 g PROJEC.T No.: 33 164 hwhw SCG&G ACCELEROMETER LOCATIONS, COORDINATE AXES, AND SYMBOL NOTATION FOR THE FORCED VIBRATION EXPERIMENTS 12 52 FIGURE 3
O O N I I I I I I CD I WO WO to . _ _
._J N N
B z td8
- a. _
\ _
J" a O O I O , , , , ,
%.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 FREQUENCY, HZ 3
E & l l 1 l l l 3 8 r-coin z; - - C s O *o C tcq l.
' V Y" A h a^. '"
W r-g ri 1 'a 3 M i i i t i I
'0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0' 50.0 60.0 70.0 s FREQUENCY. HZ 83 164 PROJECJ NO.
me r,* **=*sw h SCE&G 1 DISPLACEMENT AMPLITUDES,Ux AND
}
PHASES FROM FIRST LOW FORCE-J LEVEL VIBRATION TEST g .g 3 FIGURE 4
l l O O
~
I l i n I l l% uns _ _ lt " 03
-- l o No
'5 Z* - - ]
- ) vi ao
.lO 5 - -
O
. I I I I l l
%.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.O FREQUENCY, HZ A N I I I I I l 3
mG z; - - C
, og C
[ Lt.lt - 1 mtn f C* ~ ~ ,{ E' 8 4 WA// a : 1 I I f f I
- 0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 s
FREQUENCT, HZ g PROJECT NO.: 83-164
*NW SCELG }
DISPLACEMENT AMPLITUDES, Ux, AND PHASES FROM FIRST HIGH 6 FORCE LEVEL VIBRATION TEST 143 FIGURE S
l l l C O E I I I I I "ag
~. _ -
m-8 1 z.
] -T N
CD d o JT C LL.I CCg I I l i I I
- 0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 FREQUENCY, HZ c
o 5 I I I I I I i as s O
,a f* A - A- _ _ up [ _h
,y__v v
s d Co$ E CST C 1 r a -g 5 I I I I l l
- 0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 s0.0 60.0 70.0 s
FREQUENCY, HZ eus enonct No.: sa-is4 N'** % & SCE&G E
] }5 FOUNDATION IMPEDANCE, K11, VERSUS FREQUENCY i.ss ,,cune s
8 E I I I I p I i 11
~g o 11 l \V /
/~
~. _
1 O p\b k
- NLdi~'+ 2 \
fn l8 J li' \i l V J Ja cr ' s W c l i I I I I _ j 0. _0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 FREQUENCY, HZ 8 M i I i i i I 8
.s a
n _
"" /\
A
/81
' /\ lI J d
, ) . . ,I x / sr n M k \
/
1 87 I r a g I I I I J f I 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
- 0. 0 s
FREQUENCY, HZ 1 i PROJECT NO.: 33 164 m K 12 a= w % w SCE&G E
---~-
21 FOUNDATION IMPEDANCES, f K12 AND K21 VERSUS FREQUENCY i: navner l 1
, a
8 s d i $ i i i i "o8
~. - -
1 Z- up 1 -T m
' > V J8 114 s u) 8 d i i i e i i _
- o. o 10.0 '
20.0 30.0 40.0 so. o 80.0 70.0 FREQUENCY, HZ x 8 . m i i i i i i 3 8
.s o
~. - -
we -
% c Z* '\ u t. A g _vg y i
J o y di 1 1 I a g d i i i e i i __
'o. o 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 s FREQUENCY, HZ i
g PROJECT NO.: 83 164 mewhw SCE&G g '} FOUNDATION lMPED ANCE, K22, 3 VERSUS FREQUENCY 143 FIGURE S
i 8 s $ i e i i i i "o8 - hl
/
g/ /T - me l O \ E QO
;] Cd ci i
E s m J8 .. ry - _ c tuo Co e i i i I i
- 0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 o FREQUENCY, HZ o -
E g
- 1 I i i i 3
5 - o c co I\ ga
/19 i N oo o l II nJ s
C= 1, yh,_ _
\
r? i s m 3d gr
'y l .J8 209 1 -
1 ro 3 .-. o e i i i i i O. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
' FREQUENCT, HZ l
m PROJECT NO.: 83 154 1st EXPERIMENT (Egn.6-13) M"* % > SCE&G g I ----- 2nd EXPERIMENT (Egn.6-14) ROTATIONAL STIFFNESS OF HUT, f K ,VERSUS FREQUENCY 143 FIGURE 9
i l l l 8 /
,/
$ N I I I l l
/
e- / o8 W -
/-
o E o j Z*
-7 q v N
(D d o ay - _ C tu CCo o 5 I I I l l l
- 0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 FREQUENCY, HZ c
E o e I I l l l l 5 o8
~. . -
m- j p l ~ c 2 c e-e g rr y-, - - n, ,m N D
\1 18 E
O C "' [ E 5 mc c l l I l l 1
- 0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 FREQUENCY, HZ 1st EXPERIMENT (Een.5-15) 8= w % a==== SCE&G 1
} ----- 2nd EXPERIMENT (Egn.5-16) }a FOUNDATION IMPEDANCE, K11, VERSUS FREQUENCY
$43 ASSUMING Kg gK21=0 ,,
o o I i l l I o s - s MN /N/ o '
\ -
E Zd
,,< \ -
s'
~ i W
h as.. C JT - s uJe CCo i I I I I I
'0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 o FREQUENCY, HZ e
I l i I I I a o8 - w& n s o o 25
- m/t S
"T - '
-m
'E
,. /
, og 1
l ro 6 mo 3 - 1 I I I I I -
'O. 0 10.0 20.0 3G. 0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.O s FREQUENCY, HZ l
g PROJECT NO.: 53 164 1st EYPERIMENT (Egn.5-17) me tne tww==sv h SCE&G
----- 2nd EXPERIMENT (Egn.5-15) FOUNDATION IMPEDANCE, K22, VERSUS FREQUENCY g .33 ASSUMING K12=K21=0 FIGURE 11
e cs st3 i i i i I i e i g _ a M5 Dm c _ g s 30 O* I og r o es _ O i e i i
- 0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 30.0 70.0 FREQUENCY, HZ 3
2 & I i i i i i 3 5 & wm z: C
~
s O o Co .__A cr . h a r. . o - - - - w
. \
wn ' mm i C: _ _ ri I CL I
- 6 "
M i i i i I i
- '0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 l FREQUENCY, HZ s
t l t PROJECT NO.: 83 154 merm Wh SCE&G 5 ' TRANSFER FUNCTION VS FREQUENCY l STIFFNESS APPROACH X DIRECTION i e3 piouse 12
8 M I I I I I i O O sn Do I Jo 1g 0a C R O E O O
~
O s 8 . l l 1 1 I I _
%.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.O S0. 0 70.O FREQUENCY, HZ Z
N I I I I I i b c-(n m zj - - C s-. s a CO
"~ d w Lu c.
tnm CJ r - _ _r i g Q. o
& I I l l l l
'0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 s FREQUENCY. HZ l
g PROJECT NO.: 83 164 y mewha== > SGE&G I TRANSFER FUNCTION VS FREQUENCY l MODAL APPROACH X DIRECTION 1-33 F IG U R E 13
o O s M i l i i i i O O e - in Do E ao - ]g DW a a 3 s e
. I i i i i 1
- 0. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 FREQUENCY. HZ 5
A M i i i i i i 3 5 z; - C s o CO mg .. Lu r-(nm CJ _ g ri 1 a 3 x M i i i i i I
'O. 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 s
FREQUENCT, HZ PmoJEcv No.: as is4
"'
- W h SCE&G 1
3 TRANSFER FUNCTION VS FREQUENCY
}
MODAL APPROACH d Y DIRECTION 143 PlGURE 14
' 8
- I I I I I I I y SMA 1 Lu (A O sg - -
o tu 5 (n
*Af; :_^;..--
9 ' a O tu7 - - o O Cc I I I I I I I
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME, SEC 5 0 3 O I I I I I I I y FREE FIELD ID (D C sg - -
s o tu (D g " i Ay - g- ,*_ _ -_ _ _ _ - -- O z ug _ _ ,1 Lu i O l0 O Co i l I i i i !
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME, SEC r
ggy PROJECT NQ : 83 164
"" W % 8"p""""' SdE&G g
! } RECORDED SMA-1 VS COMPUTED l FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 090' DIRECTION 27 AUGUST 1978 EVENT 1 83 FIGumE ils
O h I I I I I I I Q M A-W WO sg - o , W N
~I 7 J id AM _ m _._
g 7 ,Av . - --- - ') . .
.c 1
~
W o O Ce O I i l l l l l T 3. 5 4. 0
- o. o 0. s 1. 0 t. s 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 TIME, SEC e
3 h l I I I I I I O FREE FIELD 5 W me sg - o W
' N p a gpun= 1 AlO Wi E O l U a coC i i i l i I y_ i
- 3. 5 4. 0
- o. o 0. 5 1. 0 1. s 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 TIME, SEC l
I P"9 JECT NO.: 83 184 W N
**'** N W SCE&G }
3 RECORDED SMA-1 VS COMPUTED FREE-FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 090' DIRECTION 1978 AFTERSHOCK NO.1 1-83 s FIGURE ISb
l l l O , s W i i i i i i i o SMA 1 W WO O N - - U w 5 (n
% h
- a. , _ _
] rg g ,,,
f( A A y y m_
~
I" ' ' irf.e o
?
o Go j i i i t i I i
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME. SEC g- o
] O i i i i i i i y FRi!E FIELD W
(n o sg - O s W * (n N. I I rg - i- ,A, bA^ ,~- _ - - - - - -
'y .- -
5 h.e 1 - I o . a o Ce i t i I I j i i i 0. 0 0.' 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 l' TIME, SEC PaoascT NO.: 83 164 g ""W W W SCE&G 13
- RECORDED SMA-1 VS COMPUTED FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS
'} 6 ' 090* DIREC'ilON 1978 AFTERSHOCK NO.2 143 P 'aV AE 15c
n e O I I I I I I I U SMA 1 LU (n o sg - - o W 5 (n l 9 [ g ^. N -
-r.-- -- e v- -
.s iij? - -
U U CO I I I I I I I
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME. SEC E
1 " O I I I I 4 i i FREE FIELD (D C s sg - O Lu (A x9 A A f j k;p., . - .--- - . = 2 :O I JO a W7 - O O CO O f I I I l I s y I D. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME. SEC , emoJECT NO. 81164
** '** N W SCE&G g - ] RECORDED SMA-1 VS COMPUTED }6 FREE-FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 090' DIRECTION 16 OCTOBER 1979 EVENT 1 33 FIGURE Ild
O O
'f 8 I I l l l l % SMA 1 mo o s - _
o w m N di A g [c? 4 :v9^,p.we.---- _: . - - - - 1 1 :o ao wT - - o o
' CO O
y I l I I I I I
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME, SEC C
O I T I I l l l l l 1 FREE FIELD me o sg - - w s m s j 1 l g9 J g> ^y Aw. . _- =z--
', o -
ao . E wi - - o . I o a ce , I I I I i 1-I h 1
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0
- s ,
TIME. SEC 83-164 W PROJECT NO.: mErtec
** '"* N N SCE&G g -
RECORDED SMA 1 VS COMPUTED L FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS d 180' DIRECTION 27 AUGUST 1978 EVENT 143 FIGumE 16e
l l v i i i I I I I SMA 1 Oc sg - - o W W
.E. %'
I E9 f(: : :::: :: - - __
.O J C w? - -
o O Co j l' I I I I I I
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME, SEC 1 8
- l l l l 1 I I 3
5 o FREE FIELD y Oc sg - o w O N r9 01/ivf f_ . - - _- - -_ i o T ip t
'o P
w?
~
5 ~ - g o a o Co I I i i I i I 7 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 l 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 l s TIME, SEC - g PROJECT NO.: 83-164 Ma* N w SCE&G g RECORDED SMA-1 VS COMPUTED FREE-FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 180* DIRECTION 1978 AFTERSHOCK NO.1 143 FIGURE 16b
-.. . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ . . - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . , . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , . .. _ . - . _ . . _ . - _
O W I I I I I I i o SMA 1 Lu (D C sg - o W (D j r9
\
(A^- _ m,
- 3. _
.c a 0 W7 o
o CO l l I I I I i
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME. SEC z 8 W I I I I I I I
)
F REE FIELD g (D C sg - o U \ en to 1l h n AA . - - - yyvv gI (- [ .O I O ~ A WT - U I U d - Co I I I I y_ I I I
- 3. 5 4. 0
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 s TIME, SEC 1
i PnoJEcT NQ.: 83 164 8=WWah SCE&G g
] RECORDED SMA-1 VS COMPUTED FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS
}6 180* DIRECTION 1978 AFTERSHOCK NO.2 1 83 FIGUmE 16c
c
- I I I I I I .I SMA 1 0C sg o
I.u LO N I 3* g ilI l a .h 8A 2_ _ . . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ _ __ _
] o f f rr i :e 0
a? tu o u CO y i I I I I 1 1
- 0. 0 0. 5 - 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 TIME. SEC C
I h l I I I I I I i FREE FIELD tn O sg - - o t.u
, in 1 g 4! 6 A k.$ 4. . __j ._ _ f__
. I
.O 1
7 - o I o 1 a Co .
~1 I l l 1 1 I
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 5 4. 0 s
TIME. SEC l . PROJECT NO.: 83 164
*"NW SCE&G g ,
] RECORDED SMA-1 VS COMPUTED
}6 FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 180' DIRECTION 16 OCTOBER 1979 EVENT 1 83 FIGUREted
.o.
y 2o is so - 2 s 3 2 '"'"'E"f' .s s .2 ., ., ,.
. . . . . .,,,m.. .. ...., ,
Eh /,( l
\ X \
/,Ml /
b5 / \/ '
,/A ,/
r i '*% *e
" EA NI I 'c '/
o
/NA NX X/ AA M /N "o 1 " EN X N N e / '> < NY'o//X / "
j iA >DR A/^s X*XA/V' /N XNN//X s /N .
! i
; /\ K X , ^e 'X c
' I N
,o
?
,h/%' -)() bol s
,o p(i )(
, _ )(i o
- Ex < N < N
< . ' :x . . s. - e /\/ # /:\ '
/ ,0
.s
~
E/\ NM X/ A A NM 4/ AA NX i X A /N , EN MN NV/'X /N XNTe'Y e /\ XN\V/X / , 5 / '\ O* _
~
! z fI / b [ , 'f $h .' jd
'I
\ . g'\
3 3 f LLJ . j N / i ds i x ' i [ .ojc L/ ,
/' * '
2 ' ,~ /-- N Q _ gm O r
;/ \ /.
- \g \ l s '
/,
- A nix A A A N X ! X/ AA NN _/ A .s e Eh QO f b Mf / b \ #
/ 6
, i/c['k'}M/\ /x[W//\ A) c /\ ,
,I $[lTk'h [N'Dx(
'rpy yy)'(
s , x
.04 C6 .C8 : .2 4 .6 .8 ;
1x%@ y 2 4 6 8 IC 20
' PERIOD (secs)
. PROJECT NO.: 83 164 SMA 1 h
"" SGE&G I F REE. FIELD 3 RESPONSE SPECTRA OF SMA 1 AND FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 090' DIR ECTION 27 AUGUST 1978 EVENT 143 FIGURE 17e
'"'s"'E"..,,.....s...-. f", .s so ao is so - 1 s 2 .3 .2 .i .o, .
i\ 'X/N
, \ X X/ \ '
,X VN /
ace E
@p
// / \h / /\/N N /,
/
/
\ goo l f,0%',, [h X X Xsj/y'Y s ,
v y
'*% /X
' :-A s / / P lda ki//i/s '
= A N M. _i , '/ AA XX X/ AA NY s so !\ X\% /X /\ X\V/X /\ Yo/M / <
40 !/\ ~
/\/ / \ / 'o /
EN , 'T /\ 20 /N eo "Xl
/
' ' ! 'o zo P(' /*./ -
/
' zo g
- X i
Ke #
=
X)' X//N S' \ . i\ / - .. 1 \ # _/* l ' , . / 30
.5 EA NXi i X/ A A NM R/ AA NX i
[s EN M\INV'/>I /\ M\f 'og'X /\ X\\V/X / e 5 a / / .o / . / 4
,/? \.
> .X ' hh s /' '
\ ' i X. \\ 7/I /\ /h N '/6 _
'/ /t / x A N M Y / .A '8 j f x X:'cM/M / N MN{'M/X /\ ^XNNo'c?j /
c s
/ ,i / N D < > %x /NMX/'N / N N f'N o _ ,
3 o \ , w
/ \
! ,LCj#)[\\ N 'NhI : - / x 4x z
/ . N s -
- 6 8 10 ' 20
.04 .G6.C8.4 .2 4 .6 8 4 2 4
~PERidD (secs) 3 83-144 W PROJECT NO.:
- - SM.' )
**8"* SCE&G A F REE. FIELD i
3 RESPONSE SPECTRA OF SMA-1 AND FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS l 090' DIRECTION , l 1978 AFTERSHOCK NO.1 143 FIGURE iTb
l r
=. =. is .
to - ,. 3 2
'"'."',"?'.
.3
- 3. . -
400
!N N N )( " -
)( l 200
/\ \/I \ '
\ /- !/ f N $'# h,
,$ VN NI:sI r '/ /\/NNX X/ /\/xNV '
X//N ' * * ;
'D /\ XNV/X /N X //X /
E\ D so
- l / _
j / O / 49
,a \ ' !
3 5o f.! O '
' 2O s
20
;K,/ ')( W^/y '
/ 7 e Ex > r
'- / 10
.5 10 g
ONM'I X,d A d NN [ M. A NN ' X _[ [ g
~
6 i/WWh NS. . xsch<yXWM/.% 6 x B, - , a s ;x - .;4 4,y,m ,
/n1 't ,/ \ i 6\
/
' \ \ .I j
/ . 'ih ! ((l /\XI\ NX] I
// /N /\ Yh Y/ A DN
/
' //M /\'\MNNV/M /\ '
i EN l8
/
4 Y'k 4
! , IN$b [/ >
x . 2
,\ N .,. N i \ ,
4 6 8 10 20 f' .04 06.C8.I .2 4 6 .8 PE'RIOD (secs) 1 2 enoascT wo.: sa is4 8*
- SCE&G 3 FREE FIELD RESPONSE SPECTRA OF SMA-1 AND FREE-FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 090' DIRECTION 1978 AFTERSHOCK NO.2 PlGumE 17c 143
so 2o is
~
ia - 2 . 2 2 '?s uE,m.;, , ., ., ., ., ,, ,, !
. . . . . . . . . . .. .- , . . . . . , , .,3..
,oo , ,
200 ! zoo _ qp ' ( '
,X
/, {4 ;
- N "% / s / / P' a j
,00 so VN N%i l 'e ' /\/\NX X/ AA NY1 h/ /s ' l 2 so Eh XY' ODYM O YC@ * / !
4c l '
/ / / 'o / ao
~-
A
!\
- i JV ,
'N /Te, )Q go / \ / . c/ 2 p( )( s tg y ; V- ^/7 >
8 EX - > I e N
$ic :x -
t S i A . . < /\ / ,0
.s 3 EA NX~ '
X/ /N A N% i #/ AANX1 i X//s * [s E'N MN!\/A /N MNp 6^/ /N XNN//X / , E 4 / ' / - C* / ' g
'hok/.
'- i 4\ j y hW s X, ;N
, ov ,
- N N g -_
\ ( j I/\ D- _ _
Y'\ d N X_I l X/ bbYh Y/ [ 8
$ I'. .
no % l g
\ -
' ~
. _/ .
f o f/f ,!s j ;/' Y'- 4j/ 3 s hCh[/ d )\pA / k' s
] ,E/' d's s Vi' v% ,
l
% .04 .06 .C8 . I .2 .4 .6 8 . 2 4 6 8 10 20 l PERIOD (secs)
PROJECT NO.: 83164
-- SM A.1 tilEN N N W SCE&G 1 F REE. FIELD ] RESPONSE SPECTRA OF SMA-1 AND }6 FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 090* DIRECT!ON 16 OCTOBER 1979 EVENT 1-53 FIGU'tE 17d
2 ,o ,. . . . , .
, '?"Pv .;=
. . .... . . m.
goo i
&p '
o /N e,.'% k/
? X
/.
l/j/v,N
. J o
2ao s^ nf i e/ /v\ x'x x/ ^^ x xi 'h// '* I EN XND /'x'/N XNN //X /\ XV!o//X / ," 40 t 40 l *t, EO f 20
='
ix
\ '^
!v >
! x v' 'r I
O-x
\ 20 8
.E 10 EX Eb \'XI I Y[ /\ /\N
'- 4'S-V sd "/ M /\ N
- x) X/'[
Xl ! N# 10 g [g EN MNN//M /N X\Me'X /\ X\N//X e
/ 3 I \ v ,0 / / 4 I i^ j'N4>'! 'i WR y'-Q"x' M ,
1 b NN ! ((I b/\ N Nj I Y/ b/\N / b
- N x'o-vm fx xNN//><' /x 'xweg f,8 a
D / O a 2
? ; / 2 iwnst
.04 .06 .08 .i .2 4 6 .8 i 2 nN3 4 6 8 10 20 PERIOD (secs)
PROJECT NO.: 83 164 M
- - SM A-1 F REE. FIELD
" '"* N h SCE&G 1
1 RESPONSE SPECTRA OF SMA 1 AND FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 180' DIRECTION 27 AUGUST 1978 EVENT 143 FIGURE 15e
,00
?.? '.5 ?..'.5 ,
' 2 f5 fI3I5 , ?,2 3..,. ? , , *,'. "
.jN,3< x x !
, 7<
/ h ~/ /~ a f/ (*"'eg/.fo' j
Xs ' EA N q [I's /\/NN)X X/ AA N // / ' s so E\ X\NP /X /\ D\//X /\ Xo//X / I 40 !/\
,X T /\
\/ \/ 'S b\ o j\ 'Ns /^eo ^X
/ \ / / of \ 20 zo
!X, K
%'/* X
e *- X 8 EX v. 9 ,o :s . \ . . \# / . \ / ,o
.s , E A N'X X/ AA N>2 I #/ AA NX X/i/N ,
6
\ \ -
/ 6 E O 4 l / .. l -
= ,0* .
/ 4 I O $sh [zo,,yk T ; ,> 7 I
- ? a p\
p)s ,
* ,~ \ i # 4i \_ . '/ \ ./ _ s \ . / g
'/ A Ni X '\l #/ /N/N NIX X/ AAN / A e E\ \/ \ / 6 4
4 g 00 4 l f
!f ' \- / / \ \ 2 2@~( -@'!f Yg il ' '/2 N, 20
- 04 06 .C 8 . i .2 4 . 8 1 2 4 6 8 to I PER (secs) guy enoJact No.: as-iu
** SCE&G A FREE. FIELD 1 RESPONSE SPECTRA OF SMA 1 AND FREE-FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 180* DIRECTION 1978 AFTERSHOCK NO.1 143 FIGU RE 18b
30 20 15 to ' 7 5 3 2 15 1
*' f' .5
.3
.2 .1 .07
.05
a'
400
'\\\ -
/ h lY..
200
' / \ / ' ' \' A/\ '/ \ [ #og s_ l. i e ,
E/h \N _t,I
- P I / l ['\ /h h >']
I X/ /\/\ D'i N/ /N l 60 ' '
#o -
4: _
$ / ,_ / / o zg
!\ '
A/ /X/ ' /^eo Xl
/ / / -I
/
O ' I\ \^I\ g 20
='xyY V
y i + xV- ^ X)/\ '-
- X X}
= i i >.
,$ # t
/
NWT*X/ /\/(' NIX 10 l .5 , E/N N Xi , Y /i /s A i X//s '*
- [, E\ M\N//X /N Xxh%^A /N XN N!//x s / ,
1 i5, i/N[X4X .'\ ,6)jQ%% /Nj')iW/s , g c\ / F G / k [ p p y % { g ;(- ,
\'
N Xo/4 # /M /\\WN//M /\ MNS#g,b
'8 ' N -' '
o /
/
!-lj=g A x g
= O g
\ >y N 5 2
\ ' '
- \ '
2
//'M i
js ( / )Ii'Id [ [ ' / 'l'; .. I l 04 G6 .C6 . .2 4 .6 6 . 2 4 6 8 0 20 PERICD (secs) m PROJECT No.: 83 164
- - SM A.1
"'** SCE&G 1 FREE. FIELD 1 RESPONSE SPECTRA OF SMA-1 AND FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 180' DIRECTION 1975 AFTERSHOCK NO.2 1-83 F tG U R E 18e
F REQUENCY, cps 30 20 15 10 ' 7 5 3 2 1.5 1 .7 .5 .3 .2 .1 .05 ini- . 07 i.,,, 400 iX / \' s 200
/'
'\/ b/ \ \' \ #
i/{'\ #',# ' ' 8 *."
?;g'
;xi i
/ N'l
! %[* N ! b. i i x /
- f M e, '
. /.
g ki
!- ' d _%
- \ l ..
7 [j ' toO
/\ \ . I s NN NXi X/ /\/\NNi / /s *#
'*/'X /\ XX\[/X /\
8C
# EN Xh XX /X /
D'N *! 60 ' l 40 I/\ l' A /\XVX/\/N" o
- s ex ;v s ,,
N / , 20 -
' i I\ N 'C
/h .I X 'g #
' 'h g' ;
$ ,, IN '_ . \
l /' :, 8 '\\ ' i X/ \ I
^/ /\ ' \ \4 XI Y
[e E'N MNiN//X /N XV QX / Ni XNN/fX ,/ $ 4 b/ . / '
~
a q> _
' ,)',\ , /\ ~ l i J ! / ' /. h
- hi / ', ,
'O- / - I (C' 'D . \ 2 2 g X .
s N /$ i \ '\ %,[ /
~
f/\ h b, i SA /. _/' V 'I / '* s4 /
~ ~
l
=h/X W L XNi'V/ A / +X '
Ni/cd & "= I f' X / ' 'M ' ( X X ' / ' x / \ ) d _ ,j '.'N /
~
3 f'Og [
'h , pe I\ / \
p r'4 s / .
\ / tf \ x
, jri, ; , s
.,. ~l 'M
( ,/ ',{
~__ ' l , s . / %* / '; ,
'g
% 20 04 A T,3 2 4 e d . 2 4 6 8 to i
PERIOD (secs) e enoJect No.: 83 is4 N '** , SCE&G I FREE. FIELD 1 RESPONSE SPECTRA OF SMA-1 AND FREE FIELD ACCELEROGRAMS 180' DIRECTION 16 OCTOBER 1979 EVENT 1 83 FIGURE 18d
s E l i RVERRGEO SPECTRRL RRTIO FOR HORIZONTRL COMPONENTS O d i I I I I O
"m CO - - -
g - J* ~
~
g C 1 a t-* ()W f tu a - Q. (D N ~
&b
~
s C o I I I I I I
%.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 FREQUENCT. HZ z
1 6 s
~~
rnosacT no.; sa ts4 8* t** W h SCE &G 7 3
} AVERAGE RATIO OF THE FREE FIELD 8 TO SMA 1 RESPONSE SPECTRA 143 FIGUME 19
- , ,, ... , . , , '?. "'F .P , , ., , .
"c f'6N/b;g' x' j '"
jx' 200 Eeg , / x 'xN'V/ , N f '
/N rt 2:0 X e' w h )//s '*
' s i vx N# i , c/ ^^ x:x xA ^^
2 NXW/X /\ XNN//X /\ X','oV/>< ^/ ,$ } ., iA>DNAA>ZK-'N/ EN X /\ /
\ ^eo
^ J" 1/
X/ x .o
\
zo
/' / '/ ' J zo EX/ , I ,
%' @/ 'e * ' ,X X\ '
r k!' i XA A A NM ! #<A AA N. X: ! X/:/N I. - ia
.s ' EA NX e
[ EN M\N//X /N M'\fc '# 'M /\ X\N//X / e e j $, !,bNb (( eb \ /\ 3 ; i n g,' 1/ v ;,q./x xi l 5/ 'A/ . i .,\, . /b Lk cGe ! X !
/:
/ V'.'<X i
#/' AA NX ij X/ A A Y'8;i N / ^ ',e
/' 'i\ >'olo' o //M /N MNN//M /\ MNNf$E?"g / s l ~.i / 4 X /'N ex tM A b/NM #b .
; sE 'v<,N!=yx4 x f 34 V a , A/V /
A x / rx A 2 b, b' . , ' . y. 20
.G4 .L e, ',6 . I .2 4 .6 .a i 2 4 6 8 10 PERIOD (secs) guy PmoJscr wo.: es is4 g *%h SCE&G y -- NRC (1982) MONTICELLO SPECTRUM REDUCED RESPONSE SPECTRUM REDUCED SPECTRUM (FREE. FIELD)
RECOMMENDED FOR MONTICELLO o ACCELEROGRAMS VS ORIGINAL NRC RECOMMENDED SPECTRUM 143 FIGURE 20'
( l URS EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF RELATIVE RESPONSE OF ACCELEROGRAPH PAD, FREE FIELD AND STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONS AT THE VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION February 1983' prepared for South Carolina Electric and Cas Company Columbia, South Carolina prepared by L'RS/ John A. Blume & Associates. Engineers 2855 Telegraph Avenue
~
Berkeley, California 94705
l l l l 1 NOTICE This report is being released prior to completion of all QA documentation and thus must be treated as preliminary until QA release. l l l l f URS/Blume
CONTENTS ITEM PAGE_ I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ! II. OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Shot and Recording Site Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . 4 B. Instrumentation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Data Acquistion Systen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 D. O pe ra t i ona l Fa c t or s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 l IV. DESCRIPTION OF DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. Representative Seismograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Travel Times and Group Velocities. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 i C. Particle Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 D. Polarization Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 E. Suamary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 l V. ANALYSIS METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A. Calibration of Geismograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 B. Data T*ansfer and File Structure 24 C. Spectral Ratios-Theory and Methods Applied . . . . . . . . 25 D. Band Pass Filtering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 l E. Free-Field and Foundation Motion for 16 October 1979 Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 l VI. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 B. Accelerogrpah Pad / Free-Field Spectral Ratios . . . . . . . 39 C. Foundation / Free-Field Spectral Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . 43 i D. Free-Field Motion for 16 October 1979 Earthquake . . . . . 48 E. Foundation Response for 16 October 1979 Earthquake . . . . 48 F. Direct Pad / Foundation Structural Response. . . . . . . . . 49 1 VII. 00NCLUSior1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 VIII. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 URS/Blume
I I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKCROUND In October 1981, two explosion tests were conducted at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) and were reported in Applicants' Additional Seismic Testimony (1981). The 1981 explosion tests (Tests 1 and 2) wars designed primarily to investi pte the possibility of anoealous site response where the USGS acclero-graph station is located. The location of these tests is shown in Fig. I.1. In these experiments, seismometers were installed close to, but not on, the USGS accelerograph pad at the das abutaent. Motions recorded near the accelerograph pad were not discernibly anomalous in relation to actions ! recorded at free-field sites elsewhere. In addition to an array of free-field recordings near the das abutment, records were obtained on the Auxiliary Building foundation for Test I and on the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility (hydroplant) foundation for Test 2. In b th tests, there were significant reductions in the high-frequency foundation actions relative to free-field motions recorded at equal distances. The analysis of the 1981 active field experiments presented in Appli- ! cants' Additional Seismic Testimony considered Fourier spectral modulus ratios of record pairs. In the 11 to 16 January 1982 Atomic Safety and Licensing l Board (ASLB) hearing, a Board witness testified (Tr 5716) that the fundamental Rayleigh wave mode shape "could be very significant to the entire explanation for the reduction we see in the building," in comparison with the free field. On rebuttal, Applicants' witness testified (Tr 5992-5994) that the observed l reductions are comparable for the P-wave train and for the train of S waves and surface waves, so that the reduction cannot be attributed entirely to the decrease with depth of the fundamental mode Rayleigh wave amplitude. Appli-cents' witness also testified that, in any case, explosive tests reported in i FSAR Section 2.5.4.4.4 indicate that fundamental mode waves are not generated to any observable extent by explosions in the Monticello Reservoir area. 1 (l588/Blum8
In its Partial Initial Decision (P1D), 20 July 1982, the ASLB, following the NRC staff position, found that although "the analyses of blast test data demonstrated a trend toward significant reductions," these were not considered
" conclusive in a quantitative sense so as to define the final magnitude of reduction" (Find. 48 at 43).
In November 1982, 3 series of explosion tests (Tests 3, 4. and 5) were conducted using 3 different shot point locations, and 3-component record-ings were made on the foundations of 3 VCSNS structures, at free-field sites in the vicinity of the Nuclear Station, on the accelerograph pad, and at nearby free-field sites on the dam abutment. Motions generated by Test 5 were also recorded in the foundation of the hydroplant. Results of these ! tests are used to define the magnitude of the spectral reductions to be applied to the 16 October 1979 earthquake response spectra to obtain founda-tion response spectra. l l l l i 2 UR8VBlume
l l II. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The objective of the 1982 tests was to spectra 11y compare the signals observed on the VCSNS foundations and on the das abutsent accelerograph pad, , with free-field signals. Foundation / free-field spectral ratios were to be documented for different wave types, and for 3 basic foundation types: mat or fill concrete overlying bedrock, caissons through the saprolite to bedrock, and sat foundation on saprolite. The applicability of the explosion tests results to earthquake response of the foundations was to be assessed. Ques-tions as to the response of the accelerograph pad relative to its immediate surroundings were to be resolved with data from a small-aperture seismic array l at the dam abutaent. l The free-field accelerograms were to be obtained by applying these transfer functions to accelerograms recorded on the USGS pad at the dam I abutsent. As an end result, accelerograms and corresponding response spectra for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) building foundations at floor ' l level were to be computed by applying empirical transfer functions to free-field accelerograms of reservoir-induced seismicity (RIS) events. i l l 1 3 URS/Blume
III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES A. Shot and Recording Instrument Site Selection Criteria The recording sites and shot locations were carefully chosen to satisfy the program objectives discussed above. In addition to meeting the specific requirerents of these objectives, the shot locations had to fulfill the ! following general criteria: l o The distance from the shots to each receiver had to be sufficiently large to allow a clear separation between the arrival times of com-pressional and shear waves; o For the Nuclear Station SSI tests, the shots had to be equidistant from structure foundations and free-field stations; o Tests had to be conducted at locations within the project boundary that were accessible by a large truck mounted drill; o The blast holes had to be located such that there was little chance of causing damage to any structure, roads, or power lines. l l l The specific requirements of each shot location are discussed below. Figure III.A.1 shows the location of all shots and receivers, and Table l III.A.1 gives the locations at which records were obtained for each shot. The explosives tests of November 1981 were previously designated as Shot Points 1 and 2. l A geologic map of the basement rocks, digitized from FSAR Figure 2.5-13, is shown in Figure III.A.2. The saprolite soil layer is extremely variable in thickness over this ares, ranging from 0 to approximately 100 ft. Shot Point 3 was located to provide a direct comparison between actions in the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) foundations and motions in the free field around the plant. 4 SI%/Blume
The free-field recording sites were deployed along the arc of a circle centered rt the shot point and passing through the Auxiliary Building (Figure l III.A.3). The free-field stations were installed on both sides of the VCSNS and far enough from it (more than 3 overall foundation dimensions, or approxi-mately 1200 ft) to insure that the response of the plant itself did not influence the free-field motions. Shot Point 4 was placed equidistant from the USGS accelerograph pad and the foundation of the Auxiliary Building (Figure III.A.4). This atrangement allowed a direct comparison of the response of the pad relative to its own immediate free field, as well as a direct comparison of the pad motion with motions on that of the foundations of the VCSNS. l l Shot Point 5 was located as close as practical to the computed epicenter l of the 16 October 1979 earthquake, and was specifically intended to test the response of the USGS accelerograph pad relative to its free field (Figure III.A.5). Therefore, the explosively generated seismic pulses impinging on the accelerograph pad have propagation paths identical or very similar to those of the 1979 earthquake, and the pad-to-free-field behavior is expected l to replicate that of 1979 for each wave type; this is particularly the case for explosions detonated close to the hypocentral depth of the 1979 event. A recording station was also established on the foundation of the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility during the Shot Point 5 experiments. I Pertinent details about the shots and receivers are presented in Tables ! III.A.1 through 4. Ta.ble III.A.1 lists all recording sites and their identi-fication labels, their grid coordinates and the specific tests for which data were recorded. Table III. A.2 gives charge weight, depth and detonation time for each test shot. Table III.A.3 gives the shot-to-receiver distances (as measured from the center of the array of drill holes) for those recording locations that were active for each series of tests. Table III.A.4 lists those stations which recorded dets from specific test explosions. O 5 @$@lume
, _ , _ , , , . , _ _ . _ . . , - . . - , . , _ , , . _ . , . . . - _ . - . ...-_.,-._m
l l , Locations of seissoineters installed in the VCSNS foundations
- are shown in Figures III.A.6, 7 and 8 for the Auxiliary Building (AB), Diesel Generator Sump (CS) and Service Water Pumphouse (WP), respectively. Noise levels on I
these foundations were recorded during a preparatory site visit on 23-24 September 1982. Seismometers were installed in the Auxiliary Building fe,cnda-l tion, at elevation 374 ft, as in the 1981 tests, but were located in an area (Room 74-08) that was quieter than the location monitored in 1981 (Room l 74-09E). The Auxiliary Building is founded on lean concrete fill overlying bedrock. Figure III.A.7 is a section showing the seismometer location in the sump of the Diesel Generator Building at elevation 400 ft. The Diesel Gener-ator Buildit, is founded on caissons that penetrate the saprolite to bedrock. Figure III.A.8 is a plan showing the coismometer location at elevation 425 ft on the Service Water Pumphouse foundation, which is a mat foundation on saprolite. I B. Instrumentation Plan I The characteristics of the data acquisition syst o used for the confirma-l tory program were dictated by the following considerations: 1 l o A large amount of data was to be collected, and it would be necessary to rapidly rd'.ew the adequacy of the data after each explosion. o There were large spatial separations of up to 7000 f t between data collection points, and it was essential that channels be recorded with a common time base. o The data acquisition system had to suppress a 1.trge amount of 60 Hz interference and other electrical noise generated by the dense network of high-voltage AC power transmission lines present in the .trea'. l l o The data had to be acquired in a format that was suitable for subse-quert transfer to a " main frame" computer for analysis. I
- Throughout this report " foundation" refers to the structural basement floor level.
l 6 Mlume l l- - _ . _ - _ , - - ,- , . - , , , _ _ - _ - - - - ._. . . , . - - . -
o Because most of the instrumented sites were out in the oper.. it was necessary that the system be capable of operating in adverse weather conditions. o Each element of the recording network had to be checked and calibrated independently of other elements. l o System reliability was an important consideration because of the 1ogistical and other scheduling constraints. o The system had to be partially reconfigured between sets of test l explosions without relocating the central recording equipment. Several options were eliminated by the above factors. Telemetry was I considered and rejected because of cost, difficulty of installation and potential reliability and calibration problems. The use of separate analog or digital 3 channel recorders at each site was not seriously considered { beause of problems previously experienced in using this type of equipment; it would have been particularly difficult and time consuming to verify that all instruments operated properly after each test explosion. A "hard-wired" l analog signal transmission system was selected, feeding into a digital data acquisition system; the instrumentation fulfilled every requirement demanded i by the program. The elements of the data acquisition are described in more detail in the next section. I C. Data Acquisition System
- An overview of the entira system is shown in the block diagram in Figure III.C.I. Each element is described separately below.
Geophones. Mark Products nodel L-22 geophones with a natural frequency of 2 Hz were chosen for the transducer. The 0.7 criti-cally damped amplitude and phase response (obtained from an on site 7 URS/Blume
l l l l calibration) of a representative geophone is shown in Figure l III.C.2. The voltage output of this self generating device is proportional to the velocity of the geophone case. The L-22 geo-phone (suitably rugged and weatherproof for field use) exhibits no hysteresis and has excellent resolution of low-level motions. Preamplifiers. The combication of low signal levels (microvolts) and long cable lengths in the high-noise environment of the VCSNS dictated that the signals be amplified before transmission to the recording site. Three-channel, twelve-volt powered preamplifiers l were fabricated for this project because of the unavailability of suitable units from commercial sources. A differential output was necessary to drive the signal lines which were terminated by differential-input amplifiers at the central recording site. Preamplification and the use pf individually shielded, twisted pair [ i signal lines virtually eliminated the common problems of noise caused by ground loops and 60 Hz pickup. The preamplifiers had a l l fixed voltage gain of 200 and an input impedance of 860 ohms, a value selected for proper damping (0.7) of the geophones. A con-ventional 12-volt automobile battery wac capable of powering a i 3-channel preamplifier continuously for about 7 days. l Cable. Multiconductor shielded cable was used to transmit all signals to the recording site. The cable was simply laid on the l ground surface and all splices and branches were made in weather- ! proof junction boxes. Screw-type terminal strips in the boxes were labeled according to a standard industrial color code for multiple-pair cable. A tr*.a1 ef approximately 25,000 f t of cable was in-stalled and few problems occurred. The most serious trouble encoun-tered was severe damage to several cables caused by vehicle traffic inside the plant area; new sections of cable were spliced in and no further problems were experienced. 8 URS/Blume I . - -, _ ___ . - _. - , _ - _ _ _ _ .
i j Amplifiers. Calex Model 178 instrumentation amplifiers were used in the final stage of amplification at the central recording site. Voltage gain of the 24 amplifiers was continuourly adjustable from 3 to 1,000, and the gains were set to the desired values by measuring the transfer function of each emplifier with a Hewlett-Packard Model ! 3582 dual channel spectrum analyser. This gain-setsing procedure also insured that the amplifers were functioning properly just prior ( to acquiring the data for each set of explosive tests. The Model 178 amplifiers employ a differential input and have a very high common mode rejection. Total voltage amplification of the system ( i (including the preamp 11fiers) ranged from 600 to 15,000. l Anti alias Filters. The output of the final stage of amplification was fed to a Preston Scientific Model GMF-8-40, 24-channel, low l pass, 8 pole, Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency (-3dB) of 40 Hz. The attenuation rate above 40 Hz is 48 dB per octave. The ! transmission characteristics of the filters are represented by the plot in Figure III.C.3, obtained from a filter calibration. l Multiplexer. A Preaton Scientific Model GM-91032, 32 channel multiplexer was t?e interface between the analog transducers, transmission system and signal conditioners, and the digital record- , ing system. The multiplexer is an analog device, and operates under l the control of the Hewlett-Packard Model 5451 (HP-5451) Fourier Analyzer (discussed in the next section) which was the principal data recorder. The multiplexer simultaneously samples and holds up to 32 channels, the number of active channels being set by switches on the unit. The voltage levels in each channel are then sequen-tially converted to a 12-bit digital signal by the HP-5451. It is important to note that all input channels in the multiplexer are sampled and held simultaneously, rather than sequentially , and no interchannel phase shift is introduced.
, QNSS/Blume ~_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _
l ' l Digital Recording System. The primary recording system was the t HP-5451 Fourier Analyzer with its internal hard disk storage (SMb) and external tape drive (HP-7970E). The system is built around the Hewlett-Packard Model 2100 S computer and incorporates a 2-channel, 12-bit analog to digital converter, low pass filters, l CRT display, dual 2.5 Mb disk drives and all necessary interfaces for plotter, printer and keyboard. The system can sample up to 100 kHz, a capacity far exceeding the requirement for this program. Each channel of the multiplexer is sampled at 5 meec intervals, and the data are transferred to either magnetic disk or digital tape in real l time, along with file headers for later identification and re-trieval. The data were acquired and stored as blocks of 2048 data points, corresponding to 10.24 seconds of recording time after each test explosion. The data acquisition is started when the analog-to-digital converter is triggered by a zero-time pulse generated by the firing pulse from the bissting machine at the explosion site. All j data channels have, therefore, a common time base which starts at the instant of the explosion. l A significant advantage of this system is that all data channels could be displayed and reviewed immediately after each test shot in l ' order to confirm that all channels operated. Furthermore, the data could be processed, e.g., Fourier transformed, to spot-check i the results as they were obtained. D. Operational Factors The f ollowing sections discuss various aspects of field operations j in the experimental program. I Drill Holes. Four holes were drilled at each of the three shot locations. A fif th hole was drilled at Site 5, but was abandoned because of drilling difficulties. The holes were cased down to the top of rock and then drilled with a 6-inch-diameter bit to a depth of 10 URS/Blume
l 50 ft below the bottom of the casing. The hole depths therefore varied as the depth to rock varied; total depths ranged from about 110 to 110 f t, with the greatest bedrock relief at Site 5. The holes were drilled 50 ft apart in a line that was generally perpen-dicular to the source-receiver alignment. Preshot water levels were ( within a few tens of feet of ground surface in all holes, and the water provided the only steacning for the test explosions. In several instances, water was pumped into holes prior to loading repeat shots to compensate for the water blown out of the hole by the previous explosion. The decision to drill 4 holes at each site reflected a balance between the need to improve signal-to-noise ratio (by averaging the data for many shots) and the practical constraint of drilling costs. Four holes would result in data with twice the signal-to noise ratio as data from only one hole. Further, it was believed that some of the holes would survive the first explosion and allow repeat shots in the same hole. Repeat shots were fired in some holes, up to a maximum of 4 in hole 4A; conversely, some holes ceuld not be reloaded l because of damage from the first shot. A total of 8 to 10 shots was recorded for each group of 4 holes. Explosives. An ammonium nitrate-based water gel explosive was used for all the test explosions. (Both DuPont Tovex and Ireco Iregel were used.) The bulk of the explosives were packaged in 5-inch diameter 30-lb bags. DuPont 1-lb HDP primers initiated by DuPont SSS seismograph blasting caps were used in all cases. A list of charge l weights, depths and detonation times is given in Table 11I.A.2. j l l Zero-Time Pulse. The data acquisition system was triggered by a pulse originating in the blasting machine. The 225-volt firing pulse from the capacitor-discharge-type machine was transformed down to about 5 volts and transmitted over wire to the recording equipment. 11 URS/Blume 1 . _ -
l Because DuPont SSS blasting caps fire less than 1 millisecond after application of the firing current, the sampling of the data started at virtually the instant of detonation. Shot / Recording Procedures. The general procedure for recording any one shot was quite straightforward. Communications between the shot point and the recording point were maintained over South Carolina Electric and Gas's (SCE&G) FM radio net. As a first step, the I integrity of the zero-time pulse-transmission system was verified by firing several blasting caps and observing the pulse on a storage oscilloscope in the recording shed. Subsequently, it was simply a matter of assembling the explosives and primer, loading the explo-sives in the hole, and confirming the readiness of the recording equipment. Ten seconds of ambient noise were recorded for each channel prior to every shot. A countdown from 10 was then broadcast over the radio net for every shot. The average time between shots fired in a sequence was 40 minutes, although the actual interval times varied from 10 minutes to over 2 hours. Calibration. All calibration functions were performed on site with a Hewlett-Packard Model 5423A (HP-5423A) Structural Dynamics Analy-zer. This instrument, the calibration of which is traceable to NBS l through Hewlett-Packard, can be used as a versatile and fast, FFT-based, dual-channel spectrum analyzer. All calibrations were dynamic and broadband rather than single frequency and resulted in complete amplitude and phase response of the system elements over the full frequency spectrum of the measurements. The geophones were calibrated by mounting them on an electrodynamic shaker together with a standard geophone as a reference. Band-limited random noise is used to excite the shaker, and the transfer
- The standard geophone was calibrated on site against a standard calibrated I accelerometer.
i 12 ES3/Blume
1 function between each geophor.e and the reference standard is computed by averaging in the frequency domain. An annotated record of the saplitude and phase calibration is preserved on magnetic tape in the HP-5423A. The preamplifiers and transmission cables are calibrated in a similar fashion using the random noise output of the RP-5423A; i.e., by measuring the complete transfer function of the preamplifier or cable. Finally, an end-to-end calibration is performed on each data channel by physically exciting each geophone with pseudo-random vibrations and comparing the response of one channel to another. The gains of the final amplifiers are set with a Hewlett-Packard Model 3582 (HP-3582) dual-channel analyzer; and the gain-setting potentio-meter is adjusted until the amplitude of the transfer function between the amplifier's output and input, with random noise input, is equal to the desired level of amplification. The calibration of the HP-3582 is based on that of the HP-5423A. i .) I3 MSlume
t TABLE III.A.1 COORDINATES OF RECORDING SITES State Plane Coordinates Receiver Location ID North East Shots Recorded Hydroplant Foundation HP 475,600 1,899,840 5 (all) 50 ft NW of USGS Pad P1 474,856 1,900,673 5 (all) USGS SMA Pad P2 474,816 1,900,703 5 (all) 4-1 to 4-6 15 ft SE of USGS Pad P3 474,806 1,900,713 4-3 to 4-6 50 ft SE of USGS Pad P4 474,781 1,900,738 5 (all) 4-1, 4-2 250 ft SE of USGS Pad P5 474,635 1,900,874 5 (all) Free field, West of Met. F1 472,785 1,002,300 3 (all) 290 ft NW of DSA Pad FR 473,096 1,903,059 5 (all) 4-3 to 10 3 (all) 260 ft SW of DSA Pad F2 472,811 1,903,131 4-1, 4-2 DSA Pad DS 472,987 1,903,325 5 (all) 15 ft S of DSA Pad F3 472,972 1,903,325 4 (all), 3 (all) Dcwnhole DSA DR 472,984 1,903,325 5 (all), 4 (all), 3 (all) Auxiliary Bldg. Foundation AB 472,615 1,904,590 5 (all), 4 (all), 3 (all) Diesel Generator Sump GS 472,532 1,904,900 4 (all), 3 (all) l S2rvice Water Pumphouse WP 472,547 1,905,427 4 (all), 3 (all) ; l Free Field SE 3-1 F4 471,625 1,906,025 3 (all) Free Field SE 3-2 F6 470,652 1,906,584 3 (all) Free Field SE 4 F5 471,157 1,905,257 4 (all) l I ( Ncte: The coordinates of the midpoint of the linear array of 4 drill holes ) at each shot point are as follows: 1 l Shot Point 3 469,160 1,903,303 Shot Point 4 470,552 1,900,887 l Shot Point 5 476,991 1,898,502 ' 1 14 (LE S/Blume
TABLE III.A.2 RECORD OF TEST EXPLOSIONS Charge Shtt No. Mole Weight Depth Date Time Remarks 5-1 5E 1 21 10 Nov 15:30_+ Abandoned hole, no usable signale 5-2 5D 13.5 108 10 Nov 16:23:00 5-3 5D 13.5 46 12 Nov 13:46:30 5-4 SC 122 116 12 Nov 14:53:30 5-5 5B 122 157 12 Nov 15:29:30 Casing pushed up 20 f t during shot 5-6 5A 121 210 12 Nov 15:50:30 5-7 5C 13.5 67 12 Nov 16:11:30 5-8 5C 13.5 50 12 Nov 18:29:30 5-9 5A 121 190 12 Nov 18:39:30 Signals clipped at some stations 4-1 4A 121 117 16 Nov 13:12:30 4-2 4B 121 143 16 Nov 13:57:30 4-3 4C 121 133 16 Nov 16:18:30 4-4 4D 121 125 16 Nov 16:40:30 4-5 4A 30 115 16 Nov 16:50:30 4-6 4B 122 100 16 Nov 17:24:30 \ 4-7 4A 121 102 16 Nov 17:48:30 ( 18:19:30 4-8 4C 91 130 16 Nov 4-9 4A 122 102 17 Nov 13:37:30 4-10 4B 122 92 17 Nov 13:50:30 Partial detonation, 90 lbs of explosives ejected 3-1 3D 121 125 18 Nov 14:30:30
! 14:41:30 3-2 3C 121 104 18 Nov 3-3 3B 121 107 18 Nov 15:11:30 3-4 3A 121 120 18 Nov 15:23:30 3-5 3B 121 103 18 Nov 16:32:30 Partial detonation, 60 lbs of explosive ejected 3-6 3B 90 60 18 Nov 16:48:30 3-7 3A 90 65 18 Nov 17:45:30 3-8 3D 121 85 18 Nov 17:57:30 Natcs:
(1) Total weight in Ibs, including primer (2) To center of charge (+) in ft (
~
(3) 1982 (4) Eastern Standard Time 15 EJ88/Blume
r 1 s TABLE III.A.3 DISTANCES FROM CENTER OF TEST EXPLOSIONS TO RECORDING SITES (FT) Receiver Location _ID Shot Point 5 Shot Point 4 Shot Point 3 Hydroplant Foundation HP 1930 - - 50 ft N of USGS Pad P1 3045 - - USGS Pad P2 3094 4268 - 15 ft SE of USGS Pad P3 - 4258 - 50 ft SE of USGS Pad P4 3144 4232 - 4 250 ft SE of USGS Pad P5 3343 - - Fras field, West of Het Tower F1 - - 3761 290 ft NW of DSA Pad IR 5995 3345 3944 l 260 ft SW of DSA Pad F2 - 3184 - DSA Pad DS 6268 - - l 15 ft S of DSA Pad F3 - 3435 3812 i , D::wnhole DSA DR 6270 3444 3824 Auxiliary Bldg. Foundation AB 7498 4239 3687 Diecal Generator Sump CS - 4475 3731 Sarvice Water Pumphouse WP - 4959 3998 Free Field SE 3-1 F4 - - 3672 Fras Field SE 3-2 F6 - - 3604 Fras Field SE 4 F5 - 4412 - i
)
l l 16 M lU m e
\ TABLE III.A.4 SHOT / RECEIVER COMBINATIONS FOR EXPLOSION TESTS SHOT 5-3 4-1, 4-3 4-7 3-1 THRU THRU THRU THRU Raceiver Location ID 5-2 5-9 4-2 4-6 4-10 3-8 Hydroplant Foundation HP x x 50 ft NW of USGS Pad P1 x x USGS SMA Pad P2 x x x x 15 ft SE of USGS Pad P3 x 50 ft SE of USGS Pad P4 x x x 250 ft SE of USGS Pad PS x x Free Field W 3 F1 x 290 ft NW of DSA Pad FR x x x x x 260 ft SW of DSA Pad F2 x DSA Pad DS x x x x x 15 ft S of DSA Pa/. F3 DR x x x x x DSA Downhole Auxiliary Building AB x x x x x x x x x x Diesel Generator GS , Service Water Pumphouse WP x x x x x Free Field SE 3-1 F4 Free Field SE 4 F5 x x x Free Field SE 3-2 F6 x 17 URS/Blume
f IV. DESCRIPTION OF DATA A comprehensive study of the nature of the explosion test signals was undertaken to address more fully questions raised by Board witnesses in the 11-16 January 1982, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing. The
) ) seismograms were analyzed by a variety of techniques for decomposing signals by wave type. Although the signals are characterized by prominent energy arrivals in P-wave and S-higher-mode surface wave intervals, the rccords were found to be too complex for further decomposition by particle-notion discri-minants. It is evident that auch of the complexity of the signatures is due to secondary waves generated in the immediate vicinity of the receiver sites.
While the saprolite layer has a significant influence on the seismic signa-tures on a local scale, there is little or no coherent wave propagation within the saprolite layer over significant distances. Because of the complexity of r the particle motions, the principal decomposition method chosen for further analysis was selection of separate P wave and S-surface wave time windows by s group velocity on each component of motion. A. Representative Seismograms Examples of the vertical, radial and transverse components of seismograms vith good signal-to noise ratios recorded for the 3 test series are shown in Figures IV.A.1 through 9 (see Section V.B for nomenclature). The traces for any one shot are plotted with true relative amplitudes. Visual inspection of these records leads to several important conclusions. i The most noticeable feature is that notions observed at the free-field sites typically exhibit larger amplitudes than the corresponding records obtained at the same distance on the foundations of the Virgil C. Summer. Nuclear Station (VCSNS). This phenomenon is quite apparent, for example, in
- Figures IV.A.5 and 6 which show the horizontal components of motion from 2 of
- the explosions at shot point 4.
18 URS/Blume
J A comparison of the shot point 5 seirmograms recorded in the foundation r of the hydroplant (HP) with those recorded on the den abutment (P1, P2, P4, PS), shown in Figures IV.A.7, 8, and 9, clearly shows that the amplitudes in the hydroplant are significantly lower than those on the abutment, even though the hydroplant station is much closer to the source (approximately 1900 ft) than the abutment (approximately 3100 ft). From an inspection of these figures, it is apparent that there are two principal group arrivals, the first being the P wave and the second resembling the S and surface wave arrivals seen in typical reservoir-induced seismicity (RIS) earthquake seismograms recorded at comparable epicentral distances. This topic is discussed further in the next section. B. Travel Times and Group Velocities it is of interest to partition the seismograms into their fundamental wave types (P, S, surface) in order to examine the relative c.ontribution of each wave type to the overall excitation of the VCSNS foundations. In parti-cular, it is important to determine the relativs contribution of fundamental f mode Kayleigh waves because of a Board witness' testimony during the 11-16 January 1982, ASI.B hearings (Tr 5716), suggesting that foundation-to-free-field reductions were explained by the smaller eigenfunction amplitudes at the foundation depth. The principal discriminant that can be applied in order to identify wave types on the seismograms is simply to examine the propagation velocity of the principal (i.e., large amplitude) groups seen on the records. As dis-I cussed elsewhere, the particle motions of both earthquakes and explosion records of the various arrivals typically do not conform to classical seis-mological behavior. This complication is largely attributable to modification and transformation of the energy during propagation, but especially that near the receiver sites. 2' EN8S/Blume
A travel-time plot -was constructed for the dominant arrivals on typical records. Figure IV.B.1 shows the arrival times for the first P upkick on the vertical component and for the approximate onset of the S arrival. The travel-time curves in Figure IV.B.1 are drawn approximately along the lower bounds of the data points; these shorter travel times were observed at sites where the soil cover was thin (FR, F6), or where foundations were in contact with rock (HP and AB). The slightly longer travel times of points falling above the travel-time curves are due to propagation through the low velocity saprolite. The P and S velocities in Figure IV.B.1 of 18,200 and 10,250 f t/sec, respectively, are entirely reasonable for the granitic rocks that underlie the VCSNS site. These velocities correspond to a Poisson's ratio near 0.25, a value that is typical of crystalline rocks and atypical of soil or highly weathered rock. These velocities are confirmed by refraction surveys con-ducted on site by Dames & Moore (Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.5.1, 1972). The travel-time curves in Figure IV.B.1 have been superimposed on representative seismograms from shot point 3 shown in Figure IV.B.2. The superposition clearly ~ illustrates the two dominant arrivals on the records. Because seismic velocities in the saprolite are so much lower than in the granitic basement, group velocities of fundamental mode surface waves are auch lower than those of the higher modes and of compressional and shear waves propagating in bedrock. Thus, fundamental-mode waves would arrive much later (at velocities of about 500 f t/sec) than the groups identified above. As will be shown below, the contribution of such waves to the explosion test signals is negligible. If the coda termination time is defined as the point on the seismogram beyond which no further significant energy (<10 percent) arrives, then the velocity corresponding to this termination time places a lower limit on the group velocity that can be assigned to the transmission of energy at levels 20 N
i ) capable of exciting the VCSNS structures. The velocity corresponding to the observed coda termination times is approximately 6000 ft/sec; no significant amount of energy propagates at velocities less than this value. A clearly identifiable fundamental mode Rayleigh wave was observed at the tailrace site during explosion Test 2 in the October 1981 field experiments. In this case the shot-to-receiver distance was about 1100 ft and a conti-nuous surface layer, consisting of dredge fill and saprolite, was present. This is the only case where fundamental mode surface waves were observed on any seismograms for Tests 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. On the basis of the coda termina-tion velocity of 6000 ft/see and a fundamental mode surface wave velocity of 500 ft/see observed in the 1981 test, it is concluded that almost all of the energy arrives from the source as body waves and higher mode surface waves propagating through rock rather than through the surficial layer of saprolite. It is also apparent that any fundamental mode Rayleigh waves present on the records for earthquakes and explosions are generated in the immediate vicinity of the receiver. This means that the observed reduction f actors apply equally to earthquakes and explosions because both sources will generate them. These observations are consistent with the absence of a continuous and uniform layer of saprolite throughout the area. In fact, the saprolite shows large lateral variations in thickness, approaching zero in some locations. C. Particle Motions In order to investigate further the nature of the seismic wave arrivals, a study of seismic particle motion was conducted to see if waves of different types could be distinguished from one another by their characteristic particle motions. Results are shown on particle-notion plots in which the radial (R) component of ground motion (positive away from the source) is plotted as the abscissa (positive to the right) and the vertical component (V) as the ordi-nate (positive upward), with the epicenter located to the lef t of the origin. On such a plot, a simple P wave, characterized by longitudinal motion parallel with the direction of wave propagation from the source, should appear as pure rectilinear motion confined to the first and third quadrants of the plot. 21 "JRS/Blume
SV waves, having displacement perpendicular to the direction of wave propaga-tion and in the V-R plane, should appear as pure rectilinear motion confined to the second and fourth quadrants of the plot. Rayleigh waves have particle [ action that is generally retrograde elliptical in the V-R plane, and should appear as counterclockwise motion about the origin in particle motion plots. A program PARTICLE was written in FORTRAN 77 to construct particle motion plots l of this kind. First, an examination of the velocity records (Figure IV.C.1) computed from USGS SMA records for the earthquake of 16 October 1979, reveals that the whole-record plot shows quite chaotic motion. Figure IV.C.2 shows particle motions in the S-wave window; however, motion in the second and fourth quadrants, which would be characteristic of SV, is not prominent. The largest arrival on this portion of the record (near sample No. 70) appears to be rectilinear in quadrant 3, which is typical of P-wave motion. No clear Rayleigh wave is seen, except for one retrograde ellipse between samples 80 and 94 (Figure IV.C.2). This figure includes the largest arrivals on the accelerogram. Even for this smaller time window the motion is quite chaotic, except for the samples mentioned. Particle motion as recorded during Test 5 on the USGS accelerograph pad (station P2) is then compared with the foregoing results. Test 5 produced a number of recordings from shots located near the instrumentally-determined hypocenter of the 1979 event. The whole-record particle motions shown in Figure IV.C.3 are complicated, but nevertheless era ;
- Jer than the earth-quake data. Careful examination shows that the ' r.y % mtion is elliptic retrograde, indicative of Rayleigh waves. Figure. . hows the particle motions for the first 20 samples following the onset of P (the first arrival).
The motion is rectilinear in the first quadrant for only the first 6 samples (0.03 sec) before becoming chaotic. Figure IV.C.5 shows the motions at the time of the largest arrivals on the records. The character of the motion apparently is a mixture of P and Rayleigh, producing a highly-eccentric retrograde ellipse. Comparing the motions on the pad with those for the same shot at site P4 (Figures IV.C.6 to 8) approximately 50 ft away from the pad, 22 DAS/Blume
it can be seen that the motions for the whole record shown in Figure IV.C.6 are dominantly elliptic retrograde. The largest arrival on the record at P4 which occurs in the S-wave window, seems to be quasi-P, i.e., almost recti-linear in the first and third quadrants, ac shown in Figure IV.C.8. The particle motions for the 16 October 1979 earthquake exhibit a degree of
) complexity comparable to the particle motions for the explosion generated waves.
D. Polarization Filtering Polarization filtering has been used to investigate the particle motions of the records. In this method, a filter is constructed which reject s energy not showing the appropriate phase between radial and vertical components for the wave motion considered. For example, in the case of P waves, the motion should be up and away or down and toward the source. Therefore, if complex Fourier spectra are computed for the radial and vertical components, the phase angle between them should be zero. A program PHADIF, written in FORTRAN by Dennis O'Neill (O'Neill, 1982), forms a filter by rejecting each frequency for which the phase of the radial and vertical differ by more than some specified value. The output of the filter is large at those times when the vertical and radial are in phase but small at other times. Similarly, filters for SV and Rayleigh waves can be constructed based on phase differences. Application of this method to the explosion signals shows, as did the particle motion
~
analysis, complex polarization of the wave trains atypical of simple seismic
> phases.
F. Summary A comprehensive investigation of the particle motions produced by the explosion sources has revealed the complex nature of the seismograms recorded at the VCSNS. Because of the complexity of the particle motions, the decompo-sition method chosen for further analysis was simply selection of time windows by group velocity. This permits us to treat separately those waves that have traveled as P waves from those that have traveled to the receivers as S and higher mode waves. M!*dlfie
V. ANALYSIS ME'I.iODS A. Calibration of Seiemograms . All seismometers (velocity transducers) were calibrated before field setup, and each recording channel (preamplifier-transmission line-amplifier) was field-calibrated before every shot sequence. The product of a seismo- r
) meter's motor constant with total channel gain is the effective motor cot.-
stant (in volts /ca/sec) of a given recording channel. Upon returning from the field, a program was written to divide each digital record by its associated effective motor constant. This task was performed on the same Hewlett-Packard Model 5451 (HP-5451) computer used for data acquisition, and calibrated disk files had a format and sequence identical to that of the raw data. True seismometer base motion is valid only in the frequency band from 5 to 40 Hz, in which the transducer response is constant (in both phase and amplitude). No correction for the instrumental response was done, as it was unnecessary for present purposes. B. Data Transfer and File Structure In order to facilitate data handling and computation, all 672 digital records required in this program were moved to files on a Prime 750 computer. This was accomplished by: (1) writing a digital magnetic tape having the desired file name and structure on the HP-5451, and (2) reading the tape and writing disk files on the Prime 750. The files were named using the convention ("Tn. Sam.Rxys") that "T,"
"S," "R," and "S" are literals and the lower case letters denote variables: "n" (a3, 4, or 5) is the Test number; "ma" (=01 to 10) denotes shot number in the sequence; and "xy" is the receiving seismograph's identifier. The suffix "S" distinguishes signal data from noise data files with suffix "N." Each named file contains the 3 components of motion recorded for event (test-shot)
Tn. Sea. at receivar Rxy. The 3 components are stored serially in the fila, 24 URS/Blume i
in the sequence vertical (V), radial (R) and transverse (T). Each component record comprises 2048 data points at a sample interval of 0.005 second, for a L record length of 10.24 seconds. The first s'ata record in each file contains the file name, and the distance and azimuth from shot to receiver. C. Spectral Ratios - Theory and Methods Applied This section describes the methods used to compare motions at different recording sites. It is possible and meaningful to construct a " transfer function" between 2 sites, and in particular, between measurements made in the free field and upon foundations. Through this transfer function, it is then possible to estimate quantitatively the motions to be expected at a foundation site, starting with free-field motions. Because a true transfer function is complex valued, one way to construct it is through the complex cross spectrum. Let x(t) be ground motion as recotJed at a particular site (e.g., the USGS pad) and let y(t) be the linearly-dependent motions that would result at a different site. The signals x(t) and y(t), along with their complex Fourier spectra X(f) and Y(f), can be related linearly through the impulse response h(t) with complex Fourier spectrum H(f). The unknown time trace y(t) can be computed from the input signal x(t) and the transfer function. The estimate of y is the inverse Fourier transform of the result obtained by dividing Y with H. Brillinger (1981) and numerous other workers suggest the estimate: R(f) = Y(f)X'(f)/[X'(f)X(f)] where ' denotes complex conjugation. Statistics associated with this estimate can be obtained from the coherence between X and Y, where coherence R (X,Y:f) is defined as: . R(X,Y:f) =
/X'YYY';
URS/Blume 25
The advantage of forming the estimate in this way is that uncorrelated [ noise in x and y will be reduced in the estimate of the transfer function. L However, if x and y are only weakly correlated, then the linear dependence implicit in a transfer function will fail to apply. In spite of high signal-to-noise ratios, correlation is generally poor between stations recording the same shot. Therefore, estimates of the transfer function obtained in this way are not clearly applicable to this analysis. An altert tive method is available for the estimation of the transfer function via: H(f) = [Y'(f)Y(f)/[X'(f)X(f)] In this case, the transfer function estimated is res1 and the phase informa-tion is lost. To complete the estimate of the transfer function, an ad-hoc assumption about the phase must be made. Nete also that the effect of uncor-related noise in either the x or y series will not be reduced by these estimates, and another way to reduce the effects of this unwanted noise must be found. A program named SPECTRUM was written in FORTRAN 77 for performing the computations needed in the estimation of amplitude spectral ratios. The procedure has been to compute ensemble averages of the spectral ratios from several shots. In this way, statistics can be developed for the ratios. The calculation scheme used in SPECTRUM is described later. t Plotting Format. Figure V.C.1 is a representative plot of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of the signal together with the corresponding noise spec-trum (dashed line) obtained from the last one-fourth of the record. The time 4 trace that was Fourier analyzed is shown below the spectral plot. The run namber (306) is a reference to the QA cataloging scheme. 26 URE/Blume
Figure V.C.2 is an example of a spectral modulus ratio. The title indicates the tests, shots, and statistics used in the computation. As the legend indicates, in this case a spectral noise correction was applied. This information is also listed in Table V.C.1. Preprocessina. The user specifies an appropriate starting time and a sample record length for each trace, and 2 record segments of that length are then placed in working buffers. The mean value is subtracted from each signal prior to Fourier analysis. Spectra. The data traces are converted to discrete Fourier transforms via the Cooley-Tukey (1965) fast Fourier transform method. Noise Removal. Experimentation has shown that the best way to obtain the noise sample is from the last 512 points of the signal traces, which are sufficiently long (2048 points) that the event coda has dropped essentially to the preshot levels of noise. Because noise is primarily due to heavy machi-nery and depends on the starting, stopping and loading of this equipment, obtaining a noise sample from the end of the record is preferable to using a sample of noise that was recorded a few minutes before each explosion. The steps followed in noise removal are as follows. First, power spectra are computed from the spectral amplitudes of the signal and a 6 ample of noise. Second, at each frequency, both the numerator and denominator of the spectral ratio are computed by subtracting the noise power spectrum from the signal power spectrum and then taking the square root. To reduce the impact of spectral nulls, 2 point Bartlett (triangle) smoothing is applied before subtraction of the noise. Processing proceeds identically on the nurerator and denominator power spectra. If the noise exceeds the signal at some frequency, then the value of the estimate is set to zero; smoothing will take care of the few points for which this is the case. 27 URS/Blums
t s The approximate magnitude of this correction is illustrated by Figures V.C.3 through 6 which show the Fourier amplitude spectra of a 512 point time L window at the foundation sites (AB, GS, and WP) and at a free-field site (FR), along with the corresponding noise samples (dashed lines) for comparison. Smoothing. In addition to the light pre-smoothing to make the noise subtraction more stable, the final noise-corrected spectra are smoothed using a 6 point Bartlett (triangular) window. This smoothing is a convo-lution in the frequency donain and is, therefore, equivalent to a time domain multiplication by a window function (the square of a sinc function, sin x/x) Statistics. Lognormal statistics are appropriate for use here. Standard formulas are used to estimate the mean and standard error of the logs of the ratios. For plotting, the antilogs are taken so that the means shown are geometric, and the 84th percentile estimates are obtained from the mean value through multiplication and division of the mean by the geometric deviation. The statistics of spectral modulus ratios can be computed to express the variability among different free-field sites, the variability among different shots in a shot seque.nce, or both. Figure V.C.7 gfves the statis-tics of the accelerograph pad /iree-field spectral modulus ratio in terms
) of the variability among free.-field sites. In this calculation, one trial is the average pad / free-field ratio for a series of 6 Test 5 shots for a given free-field station and the number of trials is the number of free-field sites.
Figure V.C.8 shows combined statistics for site-to-site and shot-to-shot variability. In this case, one trial is the spectral ratio for just one shot and one free-field site, and the number of trials is the multiplicity of sites and shots. Figure V.C.9 gives statistics of shot-to-shot variability of the spectral ratio. One trial in this case is, for one shot, the ratio of accelerograph pad spectral modulus to the average spectral modulus for all free-field sites, and the number of trials is the number of shots. 28 URS/Blume
Comparing Figures V.C.7 and V.C.9, it can be eeen that the site-to-site variability is cf the same order but larger than the shot-to-shot variability. This indicates that geologic heterogeneity on a scale of tens of feet at the shot point location contributes less to the total variability, but not much less than does the heterogeneity of the dam abutment where the free-field recording array was deployed. The mean spectral ratios are similar for the 3 different statistical calculations, all br,ing enveloped by the standard deviation bounds for shot-to-shot variability (Figure V.C.9). For the spectral ratio results given subsequently that involve more than one free-field site, statistics are computed on a shot-to-shot basis and so the variability if free-field site motiin is not included in the standard deviations. D. Band-Pass Filtering When the input time series is complicated, then narrow-band or band pass filtering is a useful adjunct to conventional Fourier analysis. In this procedure, the time series under study is passed through a bank of narrow-band filters and the resulting outputs saved. A number of different time series similarly processed can be compared in amplitude, frequency, and time. An advantaFe of band pass filtering over Fourier analysis is that it provides more informatiot than just the maximum amplitude of the filtered output (which scales with the Fourier spectral modulus). The distribution of the energy in time is also available, and in particulcr the approximate time at which the maximum amplitude associated with a particular frequency occurs. Thus, individual spectral ratios can be computed for waves propagating with the same group velocity. Subsets of relatively small time windows can also be selected for band pass spectral analysis, and interference effects commonly observed using Fourier analysis are thereby alleviated. Another advantage of band pass filtering is that it permits the portrayal of coherence of signals between stations. For receivers having approximately egr.al source distances, 29 URSVBlume
1 body and surface wave coherence can be easily viewed for each band pass r frequency. The degree of coherence can indicate the degree to which geologic structural complexities have influenced the signal waveforms. Filtering is accomplished by a frequency-domain Gaussian operator with constant bandwidth. The filter window function is given by: 2. F,(w) = exp "n k"/d where W is the selected center frequency. A filter bandwidth is selected based on the degree of resolution desired in the frequency domain. A tradeoff exists between resolution in the time and frequency domains, and is controlled by the selection of a . For computational purposes, the filter is band-limited: truncation of F (m) occurs at 30 dB down from the maximum filter response. This means, for example, that for a 30 dB cutoff at 13 Hz, 99.8 percent of the area under the Gaussian function would lie in a band of i 3 Hz centered at w and 90.4 percent would lie in a i 1 Hz band. - A stable procedure to derive the amplitude and frequency of the filtered time series uses the " quadrature function" or " analytic signal." The Hilbert transform (Bracewell, 1965) is utilized to provide the envelope and instan-taneous frequency of the filtered time trace. This procedure is used to compute the envelope and instantaneous frequency of the filtered data for any desired number of group velocity windows. It requires construction of the complex analytic signal f(t) - iF H ' *** H the band passed time function f(t). The envelope of the analytic signal is then l f(t) - iFH (t)l. In practice, the analytic signal is easily produced by eliminating the negative frequency components of the Fourier transform before inverse transforming to generate the filtered time series. 3o QNBS/Blume
l E. Free-field and Foundation Motion for 16 October 1979 Earthquake Free-field motion estimates, given as time histories and response spectra, were developed for the October 16, 1979 Monticello earthquake. These are based upon the dam abutment accelerograms of the 1979 earthquake and the spectral modulus ratio of free-field to accelerograph pad motion developed from the explosion tests. Steps taken to accomplish this task are listed below: (1) Compute Fourier transforms, P(W) and Q(W), of pad motions (90 and 180 ) recorded during the 1979 earthquake. (2) Compute the average ratios, R(W), average free-field-to pad Fourier spectral moduli of explosion generated horizontal motions. (3) Inverse Fourier transform [P( W), Q(W)].R(W) to obtain free-field motions p(t); q(t). The above procedure was also followed using Ertec's complex pad response functions, H(W), measured parallel to the pad's axes. It was necessary first to rotate the 1979 accelerograms (90* sad 180*) into the pad axes obtaining p'(t) and q'(t) in order to produce results to compare with Ertec's. Then H(w) replaced R(W) in step (2) above, and after step (3), p'(t), q'(t) were rotated back to 90 and 180* components for comparison with the first results. Foundation motions were estimated for the Auxiliary Building, Diesel Generator Sump and Service Water Pumphouse from the 90 and 180* components of the 1979 earthquake as follows: (1) The free-field motion was Fourier-transformed (step 3 above) to obtain P(W), Q(W); 31 URS/Blume
(2) The average ratio of foundation to average horimontal-free-field Fourier spectral moduli was computed from the explosion generated actions denoted by F(m); (3) F(m).[P(ty), Q(w)] was inverse Fourier-transformed to obtain f(t) and g(t), the foundation time histories; (4) The 5 percent damped response spectra were computed from f(t) and g(t). 4 32 M lume
t TABLE V.C.1 IDC OF SPECTRAL MODULUS RATIO CA14ULATIONS Code Run Receivers Revision i Test Shot is X/Y Component # Comments 1 4 3,4,5,6 P2/P3 V 2 Whole record (512 points) 6 point Bartlett smoothing
- window.
110 4 3,4,5,6 P2/P3 R 2 " 111 4 3,4,5,6 P2/P3 T 2 115 4 1,2 P2/P4 V 2 116 4 1,2 P2/P4 R 2 117 4 1,2 P2/P4 T 2 119 5 3,4,5,6,7,8 P2/P4 T 2 120 5 3,4,5,6,7,8 P2/P4 R 2 121 5 3,4,5,6,7,8 P2/P4 V 2 183 4+5 3,4,5,6,7,8 (5) P2/P1 R+T 2 Whole record (512 points) P2/P4 6 point Bartlett smoothing P2/P5 window. 1,2 (4) P2/P4 3,4,5,6 (4) P2/P3 212 3 2,3,6,7,8 AB/F1 T 3 Whole record (512 points) AB/F3 6 point Bartlett smoothing AB/F6 window. Power spectral noise AB/FR was subtracted. 5 groups, 4 pairs per group.* 213 3 2,3,6,7,8 GS/F1 T 3 . CS/F3 CS/F6 cS/FR 214 3 2,3,6,7,8 WP/F1 T 3 WP/F3 WP/F6 WP/FR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __33__________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M lu m e
t TABLE C.V.1 (Cont'd) IDG OF SPECTRAL MODULUS RATIO CALCULATIONS Code Run Receivers Revision
# Test Shot is X/Y Component # Comments 215 3 2,3,6,7,8 AB/F1 V 3 Whole record (512 points)
AB/F3 6 point Bartlett smoothing AB/F4 window. Power spectral noise AB/F6 was subtracted. 5 groups, AB/FR 5 pairs per group.* 216 3 2,3,6,7,8 CS/F1 V 3 GS/F3 GS/F4 GS/F6 CS/FR 217 3 3,3,6,7,8 WP/F1 V 3 WP/F3 WP/F4 WP/F6 WP/FR 218 3 2,3,6,7,8 AB/F1 R 3 l AB/F3 I AB/F4 AB/F6 AB/FR 219 3 2,3,6,7,8 GS/F1 R 3 GS/F3 CS/r4 CS/F6 CS/FR 220 3 2,3,6,7,8 WP/F1 R 3 WP/F3 WP/F4 WP/F6 WP/FR 221 3 2,3,6,7,8 GS/AB RfT 3 Whole record (512 points) 6 point Bartlett smoothing window. Power spectral noise was subtracted.* 34 URS/Blume
P r TABLE C.V.1 (Cont'd) LOG OF SPECTRAL MODULUS RATIO CALCULATIONS Code Run Receivers Revision i Test Shot is X/Y Component # Comments 222 3 2,3,6,7,8 WP/AB R+T 3 Whole record (5123 points 6 point Bertlett smoothing wirdow. Power spectral noise was subtracted.* 223 3 2,3,6,7,8 AB/F1 R+T 3 Whole record (512 points) AB/F3 6 point Bartlett smoothing AB/F6 window. Power spectral noise AB/FR was subtracted. 5 groups, 8 pairs per group.*. 224 3 2,3,6,7,8 GS/F1 R+T 3 GS/F3 CS/F6 CS/FR 225 3 2,3,6,7,8 WP/F1 R+7 3 WP/F3 WP/F6 WP/FR WP/FR 226 4 3,4,6 AB/P3 V 3 Whole record (512 points) AB/F5 6 point Eartlett smoothing 7,9 AB/F5 window. Power spectral noise was subtracted.* 227 4 3,4,6 AB/P3 R 3 AB/F5 7,9 AB/F5 228 4 3,4,6 AB/P3 R 3 AB/F5 7,9 AB/F5 229 4 3,4,6 AB/P3 R+T 3 AB/F5 7,9 AB/F5 35 Of@'Blume
TABLE V.C.1 (Cont'd) ( IDG OF SPECTRAL HODULUS RATIO CALCULATIONS Code Run Receivers Revision
,;f _ Test Shot is X/Y Component # Comments 230 4 3 GS/P3 V 3 Whole record (512) points GS/F5 6 point Bartlett smoothing 7,9 GS/F5 window. Power spectral noise was subtracted.*
231 4 3 GS/P3 R 3 GS/F5 7,9 CS/F5 232 4 3 CS/P3 T 3 GS/F5 7,9 CS/F5 233 4 3, GS/P3 R+T 3 GS/F5 7,9 CS/F5 234 4 3,7,9 CS/AB V 3 235 4 3,7,9 CS/AL R 3 236 4 3,7,9 CS/AB T 3 237 4 5,7,9 CS/AB R+T 3 238 3 2,3,6,7,8 CS/AB T 3 239 3 2,3,6,7,8 CS/AB R 3 240 3 2,3,6,7,8 GS/AB V 3 241 3 2,3,6,7,8 WP/AB V 3 242 3 2,.1,6,7,8 WP/AB R 3 243 3 2,3,6,1,8 WP/AB Y 3 244 4 1,2,3,4,6 AB/P2 R+T 3 36 EJRS/Blume
TABLE V.C.1 (Cont'd) 1DC OF SPECTRAL MODULUS RATIO CALCULATIONS Code Run Receivers Revision
# Test Shot is X/Y Component / __
Comments , 245 5 3,4,5,6,7,8 P2/P1 V 3 Whole record (512 points) P2/P4 6 point Bartlett smoothing P2/P5 window. Power spectral noise was subtracted. 3 groups, ( pairs per group.* 246 5 3,4,5,6,7,8 P2/P1 V 3 Whole record (512 points) P2/P4 6 point Bartlett smoothing window. Power spectral noise subtracted. 6 groups, 3 pairs per group.* 247 5 3,4,5,6,7,8 P2/P1 V 3 Whole record (512 points) P2/P4 6 point Bartlett smoothing P2/P5 window. Power spectral noise was subtracted.* 248 4 1,2,3,4,5,6 GS/P2 R+T 3 P2/P4 P2/P5 249 4 1,2,3,4,6 AB/P2 R+T 3 P2/P4 P2/P5 250 4 1,2,3,4,6 AB/P2 R 3 251 4 1,2,3,4,6 AB/P2 R 3 , 252 4 1,2,3,4,6 CS/P2 R 3 253 4 1,2,3,4,6 GS/P2 R 3 254 4 3,4,6 AB/P3 R+T 3 37 M!Ullte
i TA3LE V.C.1 (Cont'd) IDG OF SPECTRAL MODULUS RATIO CALCULATIONS Code Run Receivers Revision _f__ Test Shot is X/Y Component i Comments 255 3 2,3,6,7 8 3 AB/FR V 3 P-window (64 points). No smoothing. Power spectral noise was subtracted.* 256 3 2,3,6,7,8 A3/FR V 3 S-window (128 points). 2 point Bartlett smoothing window. Power spectral noise was subtracted.* o 2 point smoothing was applied prior to noise subtraction. l l 38 URS/Blume
VI. RESULTS A. Introductica This section presents results concerning spectral modulus ratios, band-pass filtering, and foundation response spectra computed for the 16 October 1979 earthquake. First, the pad / free-field spectral ratios (both direct spectral modulus ratios and ratios of maximum envelope amplitudes from band-pass filtered records) are discussed. Next, the foundation / free-field modulus ratios are similarly discussed together v.Ith the additional consideration of time windows. These results provide the means to make a two-stage calculation of the foundation / pad spectral ratio. This end result is then compared to a direct, single-step calculation of the same ratio for the Auxiliary Building. Free-field motions for the 16 October 1979 earthquake are computed by a deconvolution of the pad notion using the empirical transfer functions developed from the explosion test data. A separate deconvolution of the pad motion was performed using the transfer functious provided by Ertec. Response g spectra for these 2 separate estimates of free-field motic.n are presented. Finally, foundation response spectra for the 1979 earthquake at the Auxiliary Building, Diesel Generator Sump, and Service Water Pumphouse are computed based upon the deconvolution of the 1979 pad action. In addition, response spectra are computed on the basis of a direct transfer function (obtained from Test 4) between the USGS pad and the plant foundations. B. Accelerograph Pad / Free-Field Spectral Ratios In Tests 4 and 5, seismometers were placed on the accelerograph pad , and in the immediate vicinity of the pad on the das abutment. The sensors on the accelerograph pad (Station P2) were placed at the same location and elevation as the USGS SMA accelerograph. For Test 5, 3 stations were in-stalled in a linear array in the azimuth of shot point 5, at locations 50 f t NW (PI), 50 ft SE (P4) and 250 f t SE (P5) in relation to the accelerograph pad 39 URS/Blume
\
f L f [ (see Figure III.A.5). In Test 4, sitz P4 was occupied for shots 1 and 2, and r then the station was, moved to a point (P3) 15 ft (approximately 3 pad dimen-t sions) from the pad for shots 3 through 6. For shots 7 through 10, the P2 and P3 sites were unusable because of noise generated by the operation of the nearby Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility. Fourier spectral modulus ratios were computed from the first 2.56 seconds (512 samples) of the shot records; the records were not corrected for the low level of ambient noise. The free-field spectral ratios exhibit substantial f variation across the array. The topography and complexity of the bedrock f geologic structure and of saprolite structure at the dem abutment probably i contribute to the lack of coherence of seismic signals. Coherence is poor even for the pair P2 and P3, separated by 15 f t. ' Coherence functions and Fourier spectral ratios for P2 and P3 are shown in Figures VI.B.1 through 3 for the vertical, radial, and transverse components for Test 4. Spectral ratios for P2 and P4 (50 ft separation) in Figures VI.R.4 through 6 for Test 4 are only grossly similar. Substantial differences are observed when the spectral ratios for P2 and P4 for Test 4 are compared with the corresponding ratios for Test 5 shown in Figures VI.B.7 through 9. Pad-to-shot point azimaths are 180 and 315*, respectively, for Tests 4 and 5. On the basis of these comparisons, it is evident that the computed L spectral ratics of pad to free field contain anomalous propagation effects that cannot readily be separated from the pad / soil response per se. The . explosion test data neither resolve nor were intended to resolve the pad / soil interaction phenomena, nor do they separate any interaction phenomena from propagation effects. However, there is a sound rationale for using the pad / free-field explosion data to obtain a more robust estimate of expected or average free-field motion. A grand average of Test 4 and Test 5 pad / free-field spectral modulus ratios for horizontal componerts was caputed for all available data as shown in Figure VI.B.10. Test data included in this average for Test 5 are: P2/T1, P2/P4, and P2/P5 for shots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; and Test 4 data URS/Blume 40
s included are 72/P4 for shots I sad 2, and P2/P3 for shota 3, 4, 5, ard 6. This spectral ratio is used to compute the foundation response spectra, using [ the USGS accelerograph data for the 16 October 1979 avant as a starting point. A similar calculation was done using the Ertec pad / free-field complex transfer function. Band pass filtering analysis ns performed for pad sites P2 and P3 for Test 4, shots 2, 3, 4 and 5. The proximity of P3 to P2 (15 ft) provides an excellent opportunity to study waveform coherence frequency-by-f:equency using this technique. Figures VI.B.11 through 14 show the envelope plots for the vertical, radial, and transverse components (numbered 1, 2 and 3) for sites P2 and P3. The first 256 points (1.28 see) of signals from shots 2, 3, 4 and 6 are shown. The center frequencies selected fo- the band pass filter (upper left of each trace) are indicated. The envelopes for P2 and P3 are given as solid and dashed traces. respectively. The numbers to the right of the traces give the maximum ampli:ude of the envelope for the 256 point window. The upper number corresponds to P2 (solid) and the lower to P3 (dashed). Some general remarks on the P2 ar.d P3 envelopes follow. (1) The coherence of motion from one shot to another is generally very good and is higher at the lower frequencies. (2) The consistency of motions from one frequency to the next for a given shot and site is generally poor. Except for a few frequency bands (e.g., 24 to 30 Hz, vertical), the domin:nt amplitude gener-ally moves in an irregular fashion over the time window. This means that over a broad range of frequencies, there is no single group arrival (or phase) that dominates in amplitude. 41 UU@'Blume
M {
, Figures VI.B.15 through 26 are the band pass spectral ratios computed from the P2 and P3 envelopes. Four different time windows (0 to 1.28, 0,16 to 0.48, 0.48 to 0.80, and 0.80 to 1.28 sec) were selected for the spectral ratio calculation; these windows correspond to portions of the record that differ considerably in trace amplitude, dominant frequency, and group arrival time. For the vertical and radial components, selection of group velocity windov generally has little effect on the trends of the spectral ratios. The transverse components exhibit considerably more scatter when compared in the 4 windows.
s 42 URS/Blume
C. Foundation / Free-Field Spectral Ratios Before presenting the foundation / free-field resulte, it is appropriate to discuss the differences between spectral ratios derived from different time windows of the seismograms. One objective of the test prodram was to compare spectral ratios for P waves, S waves, and surface waves. As notad in Section V.E. the complex nature of the recorded data allows consistent categorization only in terms of the major wave groups rather than by individual isolated phases. This discussion presents an example of the analysis of records on which easily identifiable groups travel at the P and S-wave velocities. In Figures VI.C.1 through 5 are presented seismograms and spectra recorded at the sites AB (Auxiliary Building foundation) and FR (free field) for 5 shots of Test 3. The windowed first arrivals (P waves) at each site t.re presented, together with their amplitude spectra; the free-field spec +ra are indicated by a dashed line. The free-field signal amplitude is comparatively larger and its spectral modulus is higher over the en:; ire frequency range shown. When these 5 ratios (i.e., AB and FR) are grouped individually (similar to the arrangement in Figure V.C.8), the result is the spectral ratio plot shown in Figure VI.C.6. Similarly, consider a window around the SV interval for the same records, shown in Figure VI.C.7 to 11, and the corresponding average ratio shown in figure VI.C.12. The average P-wave spectral ratio in Figure / VI.C.7 is very similar to the average SV-wave spectral ratio in Figure VI.C.12, and both are similar to the whole-record ratios given in the next sec. tion. A similar result is obtained when ratios are computed within group velocity windows using narrow-band filtering, as will be discussed. Collee-tively, these results support the use of whole-record modulus ratios for the estimation of foundation versus free-field ground-motion effects. All foundation / free-field results reported below were obtained from Tests 3 and 4. In Test 3, 5 equidistant free-field staticas were arrayed in an are subtending an angle of 80*. (The transverse component at one free-field station, F4, was lost due to an amplifier malfunction.) Records with satis-factory signal-to-noise ratio were obtained in all 3 instrumented foundations for 5 of the 8 shots in Test 3. For Test 4 there were 2 free-field stations, separated by 80* and equidistant from the Auxiliary and Diesel 43 BS/Blume
Generator Buildings; satisfactory signal-to noise ratios existed at the e Auxiliary Building for 5 shots, and at the Diesel Generator Building for 3 l'- shots. The epicentral distance of the Service Water Pumphouse from Test 4 shots was about 500 ft greater than for the other foundations, and usable ' signals were not obtained on the horizontal components because of high levels of ambient noise. A2=ai. all results given below were obtained from the first 2.56 seconds (512 samples) of the records, and noise estimates were obtained from the last 2.56 seconds of the 10.24-second records. Signal spectral moduli both for foundation and free-field records were estimated by subtraction of power spectra and subsequently smoothed with a Bartlett window of halfwidth 6 points. Log normal statistics were computed for the ratio of foundation to average free-field spectral modulus, with the number of trials equal to the number of shots. The standard deviations shown in the figures express the variability between shots, but not between equidistant free-field sites. Test 3 results for the Service Water Pumphouse are given in Figures VI.C.13, 14, 15 and 16 for the vertical, radial, transverse, and combined horizontal components. Foundation / free-field ratios are less than 1 for frequencies above about 5 Hz, and are generally less than 0.5 for the hori-zontal components. Figure VI.C.16 is adopted as the horizontal spect:-1 modulus ratio for the Service Water Pumphouse/ free field. This ratio was computed from the horizontal components for Test 3, shots 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, and free-field stations F1, F3 F6, and FR. Test 3 results for the Auxiliary Boilding foundation are shown in Figures VI.C.17, 18, 19 and 20 for the vertical, radial, transverse, and combined horizontal components. As in the case of the Service Water Pumphouse data, the spectral modulus ratios are basically reproducible from shot to shot in the test series. The apparent fine structure in the Auxiliary Building / free-field spectral ratios seen in Test 3 is not reproduced in the corresponding results for Test y ERWBlume
k r L 4, shown la Figures VI.C.21 through 24 For example, a prominent peak of about I at 20 Hz in the radial component ratio for Test 3 does not appear on either horizontal component for Test 4. Similarly, the fine structure in the vertical component ratios is dissimilar for Tests 3 and 4 However, the general spectral ratio levels are not appreciably different. f Note that the free-field sites are different for the 2 tests and so . differences in free-field site spectra contribute to the variatica between Test 3 and Test 4 spectral ratios. A third set of foundation / free-field spectral ratios (for a third azimuth [N30 E] and shot point distance [14,000 f t]) is available for the Auxiliary Building as a result of Test I conducted in 1981 (Applicants' Additional Seismic Testimony: Active Field Experiments, [1981]). In Test 1, seismograms were recorded at the dam abutment (close to P3). The Auxiliary Building / free-field spectral modulus ratios for Test I are similar to the Test 3 and Test 4 results in terms of average ratio (about 0.5 or less) in the band 5 to 40 Hz for horizontal components, with an overall tendency of the ratio to increase with frequency above 10 Hz; the Test 1 Auxiliary Building / free-field spectral ratio is shown later in the report. To obtain an average horizontal spectral ratio for Auxiliery Building / free-field, results for combined horizontal components for Tesc 3 (Figure VI.C.20) and for Test 4 (Figure VI.C.24) were later averaged geometrically to compute response spectra. For Test 3 the data comprising this average are: shots 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 and free-field stations F1, F3, F6 and FR; for Test 4, shots 3, 4 and 6 for P3 and F5 and shots 7 and 9 for F5. Free-field site P3 was unusabls for shots 7 to 10 of Test 4 due to noise generated by operation of the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility. Test 3 results for the Diesel Generator Building are given in Figures VI.C.25 through 28 and the corresponding results for Test 4 are shown in Figures VI.C.29 through 32. Spectral ratios for the radial and transverse components exhibit peaks exceeding I at frequencies near 20 Hz and 10 Hz, 45 QRS/Blume
respectively, for Test 3; for het 4, neither horizontal component has a [ maximum at either of these frequencies. The combined horizontal component L spectral ratio for Test 3 (Figure VI.C.28) uses the records for shots 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 and free-field stations F1, F3, F6, and FR. E. Test 4, the combined horizontal component ratio (Figure VI.C.22) consists of cata for shot 3 (sites P3 and F5) and shots 7 and 9 (site F5). As before, the Test 3 and Test 4 horizontal results were combined for the Diesel Generator / free-field spectral ratio to compute response spectra. To examine the relative response of the various foundations, spectral ratios were computed for the Diesel Generator / Auxiliary Building for Test 3 (Figure VI.C.33 through 36) and Test 4 (Figures VI.C.37 through 40), and for the Service Water Pumphouse/ Auxiliary Building for Test 3 (Figures VI:C.41 to 44). As in the case of the foundation / free-field results, the ratios differ considerably between Tects 3 and 4 The differences are smaller when the 2 horizontal components fer each test are combined (Figures VI.C.36 and VI.C.40). The average Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building foundation spectral ratio is approximately 1.5 in the band 5 to 30 Us. Service Water Pumphouse/ Auxiliary Building ratios for all 3 components show similar form. From 5 to 40 Hz, the combined horizontal-component spectral ratio WP/AB , decreases by an order of magnitude. Of all 3 foundations, only the Service Water Pumphouse with sat founda-I tion on saprolite shows response as high as, or higher than, free-field response at frequencies below 5 Hz. Compared to the theoretical ratio of about 1 (or higher, due to inertial resonance) at low frequency that applies to a structure embedded in an elastic halfspace, foundations of both the Auxiliary Building and 91esel Generator Building exhibit low response relative to the free field. In the frequency band of 10 to 40 Hz, the Service Water Pumphouse spectral reductions are even more pronounced than the Auxiliary Building / free-field reduction discussed earlier. Horizontal component spectral ratios were computed for the Auxiliary Building and Diesel Generator Sump relative to the USGS pad (P2), as well as 46
I the Auxiliary Buildir.g relative to P3 (all for shot point 4). The former allows one to compete a single step, direct transfer function between the USGS accelerograph pad and the VCSNS foundations. Computation of response spectra using this direct transfer function serves as a method of confirming the two-step process, i.e., pad to free field, then free field to foundation. The AR/P3 spectral ratio was computed in order to compare it with the ratio between the rame 2 locations that resulted from Test 1 in the 1981 field , program. Combined horizontal-component spectral ratios AB/P2, CS/P2 and AB/P3 l are shown in Figures VI.C.45, 46 and 47, respectively. Figure VI.C.48 shows the north south and east-west spectral ratios that were computed for the Auxiliary Building and Dam Abutment recordings for Test 1 in 1981; these 1981 records are reproduced in Figure VI.C.49. These spec-tral ratios can be compared directly with the combined horizontal cociponent l spectral ratio AB/P3 shown in Figure VI.C.47. With the exception of the band from 0 to about 5 Hz, the agreement between the 2 ratios is good. An analysis of foundation to free-field spectral ratios derived from band pass filtered recordings for the Auxiliary Building, the Diesel Generator Building and free-field was performed for one Test 3 shot. This analysis examines the sensitivity of the foundation to free-field spectral ratios to the selection of time windows. Figures VI.C.50 to 67 show the band pass ! spectral ratios for the selected windows. Three windows were selected for AB, , CS and free field; the windows for AB and free-field are O to 1.28, O to 0.39 j and 0.39 to 1.28 seconds; the three corresponding windows for GS are O to 1.28, O to 0.45, and 0.45 to 1.28 sec. The second and third windows corres-j pond to group arrivals P and S+, respectively. Although the overall signal amplitudes for the P and S windows are different, the spectral ratios are very l j similar. The spectral characteristics also differ according to the component of motion, but the spectral ratios computed for the P and S+ windows are 1 similar for each separate component. Comparison of Figures VI.C.50, 051, and C52 shows the character of the spectral ratios to be similar, whether ti.e P and S windows are treated separately or whether the whole record is analyzed. l l nn lume
l D. Free-Field Motion for 16 October 1979 Earthquake The calculated free-field motion (in the 90' and 180' directions) for the 16 October 1979 earthquake was derived from the transfer functions developed from the explosion test data according to the methc,d outlined in Section V.E. The 5 percent damped response spectra are shown in Figure V1.D.I. A comparison to the 5 percent damped response spectra for the 2 components of motion measured on the pad during the same event (Figure VI.D.2) indicates significant reductions. 8 The ratio of acceleration spectral values for the free field and the 16 October 1979 earthquake is shown in Figure VI.D.3. These values are approx-instely 1 from 0 to 10 Hz, 0.85 at 20 Hz. 0.75 at 25 Hz, and about 0.75 from 25 to 33 Hz. The results are almost identical for the 2 components of motion. 1 The 5 percent damped response spectra for the 2 components of the free-field uotions ger, a.d using the transfer functica (modulus and phase infor-nation) provided by Ertec are shown in Figure VI.D.4. E. Foundation Response for 16 %tober 1979 Earthquake The calculsted foundation motions for the 2 horizontal components of the 16 October 1979 earthquake were obestned using the method outlined in Section V.E. The 5 percent damped response spectra (2 componente at foundation floor levels) for the Auxiliary Building, the Diesel Generator Sump and the Service Water Pomphouse using the appropriate foundation to free-field spectral ratios discussed above, are shown in Figures VI.E.1 through 3. The motion and response spectra for the foundation floor levels of all 3 structures are significantly less than those corresponding to the free field. The ratio of acceleration spectral values for the 16 October 1979 earthquake and the foundation notion in the Auxiliary Building are shown in Figure VI.E.4. The ratios are approximately 0.20 from 0 to 15 Hz and vary between 0.20 and 0.30 in the frequency range 15 to 33 Hz.
The corresponding spectral ratios for the Diesel Generator Stamp are shown in Figure VI.E.5. The ratios are 0.3 or less from 0 to 15 Hz, increas-( ing to a peak of 0.45 at approximately 24 Hz, and then decreasing to approxi-mately 0.33 at 20 Hz and above. Similarly, the response spectral ratios 'or the Service Water Pumphouse foundation acd the 1979 earthquake are shown in Figure VI.E.6 All ratios are below 0.4 in the frequency range from 4 to 33 Hz. ' The equivalent spectra using the free-field motion derived with transfer functions from the Ertec report are shown in Figures VI.E.7 through 9 for the Auxiliary Building, Diesel Generator Sump and Service Water Pumphouse, respec-tively. F. Direct Pad / Structural Foundation Response It is of interest to compare the pad to structural foundation spectral ratios obtained directly fro: Test 4 in which the stations P2 and AB or GS are approximately equidistant from the shot point. It is apparent from the plot of spectral ratio of AB/P2 or GS/P2 (Figures VI.C.45 and 46) that the directly measured ratios are comparable to the cumulative effect of the pad to free-field ratio and the f ree-field to AB or GS foundation ratios, which confirms the two-stage procedure. The 5 percent damped response spectra at foundation floor level for the Ar tiliary Building and Diesel Generator Stanp using these spectral ratios are shewn in Figures VI.F.1 and 2 respectively. These are comparable to those obtrined using the two-stage process. 49 FMlUM9
[ V11. CONCLUSIONS Seismic motions in the frequency band 5 to 40 Es from shallow explosions in bedrock have significantly lower amplitudes 'in the foundations of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) than at equidistant points in the free field. Time and frequency domain analyses show that there are no dis-carnible differences between the reductions of foundation motion relative to free-field motion for wave groups with velocities corresponding to P waves and P coda (18,000 f t/see to 10,000 f t/ sea), and wave groups corresponding to S and higher mode surface waves (10,000 ft/see to 6,000 fc/sec). Very little of the total energy arrives in wave groups with velocity less than 6,000 ft/sec; in particular, there are no discernible later arrivals for groups with a velocity less than 1000 f t/see which would correspond to fundamental-mode 4 surfsee waves. There are no systematic differences between the reductions of foundation motion relative to free-field motion observed for the radial and transverse components: reductions of the horizontal components are systen-atically greater than for the vertical component. Because reductions of the horizontal motions in the foundations are observed to be essentially the same for radial and transverse compor.ents and for both wave groups containing significant energy in the band 5 to 40 Hz (including body waves of different incidence angles), it is inferred that reductions of the same magnitude as observed for shallow explosion sources would be found for shallow earthquaka sources. Thus, given free-field actions for the 16 October 1979 earthquaka, the horizontal response of the VCSNS foundations can be calculated by applying the empirical foundation to free-field transfer functions measured in the experimental program. Motions recorded on tue USGS accelerograph pad at the dam abutaent show significant amplifications in the band 5 to 40 Hz, compared with motions recorded nearby on saprolite at the dam abutment. The pad / free-field transfer function obtained from the seismographic data incorporates local site effects at the accelerograph pad as well as pad / soil response effects. Free-field motions calculated by applying s ue empirica? pad / free-field transfer function 50 QRS/Blume
to the horizontal components of the 16 October 1979 accelerogram are approxi-mately 20 percent lower than the recorded p.ad motions in the band 10 to 40 Hz. Horizontal fouradation/ free-field spectral modulus ratios for 3 VCSNS buildings all show significant reductions in the band 5 to 40 Es. For the Auxiliary Building foundation, the average ratio in the band 5 to 40 Hz is 0.5 or less for Tests 3 and 4. These results are very similar to those for Test I reported in Applicants' Additional Seismic Testimony (1981). Therefore, essentially the same reductions of foundation motion are obtained for a considerable range of distances and azimuths: 14,000 ft, 3,700 ft, and 4,300 ft; and 30', 200', and 240' respectively for Tests 1,3, and 4. Compared with the Auxiliary Building foundation, motions in the Diesel Generator Sump with foundations on caissons are approximately 50 percent larger in the band 5 to 30 Hz. Motions in the Service Water Pumphouse with sat foundation cn sapro-lite are significantly higher than Auxiliary Building motions at low fre-quencies (below 10 Hz), but significantly lower at high frequencies (above 25 Hz). Horizontal accelerograms, calculated for the VCSNS foundations by apply-ing successively, the empirical accelerograph pad / free-field and the empirical foundation / free-field transfer functions to the 16 October 1979 earthquake accelerograms, show substantial reductions; the peak foundation accelerations are no more than one-third of the recorded peak pad accelerations. Similarly, horizontal-response spectral amplitudes in the hand 5 to 40 Hz are sub-stantially lower in all 3 foundations than on the accelerograph pad. This conclusion is confirmed by a direct comparison of Auxiliary Building founda-tion and accelerograph pad motions recorded in Test 4. 51 ENS /Blume
VIII. REFERENCES Active Field Experiments in Applicants' Additional Seismic Testimony, Vol. 2. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, December 1981. Bracevell, R., 1965. The Fourier Transform and Its Applications, McGraw-Hill, New York. Brillinger, D.R., 1981. Time Series Data Analysis and Theory. Holden-Day, Inc., San Frtacisco. Cooley, J.W. and Tukey, J.W., 1965. An algorithm for the machine calculation of comp 1Ex Fourier series, Math. Comput., Vol. 19, pp. 297-301. O'Neill, D., 1982. Development and Application of a Frequency Domain Phase-Difference Polarization Filter, Chapter 4, Ph.D. Dissertation, Pennsyl-vania State University. 52 LRS/Blume
L. kN3hEh,.Ehe .' kh,
,k t G , d ,M W Qm bk[+hn?.!
t y;. igg se % , w y e m
~
mz. c g.gt~ ~ ~ ;n . , 3 <q:iw s t is_ g.m- m_; . .. u . %q \.. - - - ., %. g=_; q. 9
'!.j -h, .gyc ,,
\ '\l* .%).%L9 7
u
- i. y'- , p 3\ -
6 ,e,...&3""p-
,.__,, (/
u
& .# . .. --.8 cm.: x -
7 ')[ . .
/ - - I ,
* '.'"de er oa.
O t
't . %~O ' f. /. 4, f _
.w.a-::N' 9' - " *~ k 5' .. . W ;
mn,'; M"-
.;t.
.,, L
~
l y ' .'Cf" ~ x** a; :'
- 3
. v,.. 1,4k1u. a.u q ; : a' ' .
f %v # Q
. g ,4,, i . s, .
- n. . .,
J -
.w -
. . . .p,, ,_
Q .$3M , ## c- - p...e s.).8n .. Q . %e . 3/,dg'. a$W8 .
' Ya 3;$:1. Mb .l" ]lk.. dk?'.?hibER.hy.~M p.;-j.. p
*3, -
L. , s. '
=.? - _ - -
sg .r
- Ur$fes'*25NI.'SE" -
gFel FIGURE 11 SOURCE LOCATIONS FOR EXPLOSION TESTS 15
1897 1900 1903 1906 1909 479 i g i. 479 9 i POINT 5 YDROPLANT MONTICELLO RESERVOIR ( 476 -
~
- J- 476 i.t I
/
/$' qP3s i P4 MET' TOWER p
473 ; FR.gDR - 473 Il F 2-8 OS D B GS ' epi!! F3 VcSN y \ ,. .
,e
\ "i \. ,.
SHOTPOINT 4 470 - - 470 f SHOTPOINT 3
' ' ' 467 467 1897 1900 1903 1906 1909 Figure III.A.1 Overview of Shotpoint and Receiver locaticas for 1982 Explosion Tests 3, 4 and 5 UFRS/Blume
l I cotoR ro m rio. CHARLOTTE BELT GNEISS h g fi $ !b Nd NsN It[N V//// "!M'!!Pah:8;'d41"*- GRAN0DIORITE(Adarallite] 1897 1900 1903 1906 190
\ 4/ , '%((///g
\ x k' /
~
f [ 476 -
,,7/ , \/ [ 476 l
473 N g 473
, 8 % /;
470 - 470 467 1897 1900 s 1903 s4 1906 1909 467 i Figure III.A.2 Geologic Map of Test Area BJFe/Blume
h / k 1897 1900 1903 1506 1909 473 i .. 470
.... . . . o. .s.
i HYDROPLANT MONTICELLO RESERVOIR 476 - 9 476
. ' - 9::. 5 MET TOWERI:
- s 473 -? iJ 473 F1 e '" ' 40R
~
F3 AB e ~ypj VCSNS F4 9 1 F6 9 470 - 470 SHOTPOINT 3 467 ' ' ' 467 1897 1900 1903 1906 1909 Figure III.A.3 Receiver locations for explosion test 3 URS/Blume
s < 1897 1900 1903 1906 1909 [ 479 i j .;_ . ,. 479 s HYDROPLAEI MONTICELLO RESERVOIR 47c -
- 4- 476 P2-g -
P3/ P4
. , MET TOWERi
- c....- ...........
473 ':: FRg(}DR R - 473 F2 p3 .AB S ^yfijj VCSNS
, O F5 SHOIPOINT 4 470 - -
+70 467 ' ' '
467 1897 1900 1903 1906 1909 Figure III.A.4 Receiver locations for explosion test 4 LURS/Blume
s 4 1897 1900 1903 1906 1909 479 , 4; ..., 479 SHOTPOINT 5 MN DIR HYDROPLANT 476 - [..:HPJ I .:. 476 PI-P2 P4
' ET TUifER':!
473 ay FR 9 _ 473 VCSNS w 470 - - 470 467 - - 467 1897 1900 19C3 1906 1909 Figure III.A.5 Receiver locations for explosion test 5 UR9/Blume
s- , ,x , , e Y,- 3 6 8 6 i 1
^
..-0. 09 -C.
*,C. S't Q"
. .... f r?A%a ,
I. t- ~ .. - - @O
,..... 3,;:-
g _ _ __. - -- l
~-.g. u . .,
/
n-a
...3 ,
fi I,
- .= A 4=s .... . . , x . . .
um% - kg =
..-..s, wv 67 "'"
. ..,,> a - so <? k; a . - _ ..
u(Y PtAN
.= - .....
, , , y,.
O v (.....<.,.... .. m g '*::'A
\=-
W, , .
,:::::::t.
e l " "' :""'" M.';',"l, u-. (7) -- ( a % . .'".. ,. . i G - - - -
-w ,,
FM _ , , , ,, i
. .... m . .. /
I
- , G ,./ q.;. .
i; r.j~"~ t W /,
" ~ d' 6.aosa ?
- ,: r .... .., 1 .... ..
e -.m
.> a2 -
d, \
-) -
p, G s I i i ;' plt i
\p. _-\ ~~
=:. '"w
- Pt ape AT E L E v_&T.I.ON.
- - r 3 74'-O*
Figure III.A.6 Plan showing selected instrument site for 1981 tests (Room 74-08) and October 1981 instrument site (Room 74-09E) at elevation 376 ft. on the Auxiliary Building foundation C 3 t)
\
% \
6.ee.. _ % ,.Q- _ _ _f.",I_____=_===....og y~
---{;;.,, . --Lg---p- y-
.......s.
. - . . ...~: .. . ,S E$);~
s ... , , s wI_%_< _ - l'!.. ,r, i;r.;* , _
} ~) '_We..'." s"^
~
'~
t;== e...,,
~
fre::. VGW .2 i [."'$5!)1 E~ 2 (*O.f*'.*.*.L%y' ,,,_N Edi"
't:*t.:/;
s - i lu{[
"r
- r _,
l[3 h. % ~ g q a,[.. t 1
.r --
E33
. .. y 2'
" '- ~'
-,0 w ra an a e . . -
r----------- ,, . .3
! !I '
h E.l.{l..
\ .. n. .- _ n.._ . .% _s..
f,t. s..... u ,,a w
\
n f,
. - . - .-~
M=: I. , _. *._r.2 n .-.. ....L 1d
; Ih--- ,
.%c.,o ...
( 1 Figure III.A.7 Section showing instrument location in the sump of the Diesel Generator Building at elevation 400 ft. UFRS/Blume
v . )
. ,; b. '
m;.,'s , #' c :... :' . 'a'r.- b .c
.5
.' - a mar 4 i
. . M. 1.
%fr Ar1 N x i lt Ig
- y. . r3 .-- . . .n ,5.Ye.m..-v
+. _
3.n.:~ y, .
~
l E: EN"E . %
'aC
.3T ,. a i
t f _ .. -k__-_ . _ ._. _ r 4.4
~
.g he .i /
d $ ~~~'(lEE'Lp
'r n: EN" 3E -
DN g _ ' :: ..,.j. _ ,, j.. b
-. pg *
....'.s -
.gg_
3p*a I NJ =" % . gi:. 'i g-.< -<n r = = = g ;$jj; 2 :.., 2*c::r . . .fJhy,' T"4 I g F x !g , j ,c -
, -: m.,,,
<4- g .- -. ... , . . .. aw
- .y 1_ , ,. .. . . . e. yk e h " ~u I . .F <':::1.".:.::. - ' -
~
'.s.& '
y u
~ at:mb
- - p ;;s s \ C <~.- $
22 um m m...T774%._. a
-s -- -
Wy [.
=r_ u : :.r.
. .";\ x., u,t : : x .
i~: L
= t. -
. .J m.au..n.n.
.a <t -
ad T, ,4 d4u .',, (",I , ,- e"g eum B&BJ tt&AJw
'a -m=
n .. .
- 't. : *.: fE j-127.n:.::.~.ar-p*w W
s=c Pt An ettow tt 4 %'. o* Figure Ill.A.8 Plan showing instrument location on the foundation of the Service Water Pumphouse at elevation 425 ft, URS/Blume
s N GEOPHOE P2! AMPLIFIER - JUNCTION BOXES gv-DISK DRIVE ANTI-ALIAS MULTI-FILTEF [40Hz]
~'
PLEXER DIGITAL TAPE l 3 PPINE _ , ',' 750 Figure III.C.1 Block schematic diagram of Data Aquisition System QJRS/Blume
u _ _--- __ m n - _-_-_-- y ~ -- N h E . 4 2 - o
. > .10 -
8 5
~
C 0' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I O 20 40 60 80 100 FREQUENCY - Hz 180 m I h - 4
,O -
I
- o. .
-180 . . . . . . . . .
0 20 40 60 80 100 FREQUENCY - Hz Figure III.C.2 . Sensitivity and phase characteristics of typical L-22 geophone LURS/Blume
h 5 - 10 c 0-S s 1 z o g t
< -70 . . . . . . . = =
0 20 40 60 80 100 FREQUENCY - Hz m - t E - 4 1 0" E .
-180 - - - - - - - - -
0 20 40 60 80 100 FREQUENCY - Hz Figure III.C.3 Transmissioti characteristics of anti-alias filter URS/Blume
Y / I I I I I s I a L M (O (A (O th (O (O (A L L L L L L 2
=s == == == == == == == ,;
b $ $ $ E$ $ $ $ co o 8d 8d Ed Ed 8d 8d 8d 88 _ *to a_
- F1 (O
F) F) F) F) F) F)
. cue OWm N p p p p p p p p >
i / i l i e -o 4 i TN
) ( 'I <
r ,
> ) o
( I f eM4 j
) t :
J , i 329 Mo
> i ( ,
( h ) k oE
""~
' f
>o 5 j C
> i j l
< _ m u ..
( EmW
? f
\
J (L >
< E $ To e u
) <
J>
/
(
/
( h' I 5 ()> oem EO "Ue
) <
3 <k { r %{ - 1
> I i
k p E 5 J 5 i 5( t 2< ( t*> o > % > > > < _ no. c> 9 c: 3 <
> t < tty
<t'___> c -4 > c (
s (
)
b
<, e-.
ET8
) >
7 < C>C ;> 3 I > 1
> (> u v e.
D. O E
.)
5 > <> < ( DC ouo e G>
~
,}>q f, -
1 <-
<C' L=
y3 Jh f C' m _ => ". w 1 e _ (j S __
') A{ M f_
~
* ?
c < e (? 1* ( 4, I ,) < 4
> T
> e o
{" cn > < < f5 ,3
) [
ln ' tJI l-- o o d o - N F) W Ln CD N CD 0)
s L i s a a a i e : W fn (A V) (h (O (A (O (O w (f) W LD (C G3 (A (L
* * * * * * *
- g
*O N'O *O *O iO N'O N'O N'O C c-4 No o No No CNo o o o eg .
O _ kd d d d d d d d - g( $ N
. a a
a 5 a a a i se* u e ) l f I'
$ I c
do J
, 1 j
> Duo
) 1) [ I O00 Wd *
\ ( / I
() > ( , ( u"$ Odb
> > > 4 d>
cc o* ( < >> > < 1 ; 4' < _ E"e
- ) (
! l <
6 , /, nat w o 9 < I 1 , 4 OEm EO ( < < > 2 u-y
) <
> l
) Y mm-
<8d c>
i i < ( > < ( ) e0%
> < >-o
( >C <L c> ~=> 4>, <)> < > u e o w> < l > ( 0c 3 c-
) 7 e
N < (> ) C >p q $d eO G - (' ~
) <
> g o
u m o. l C 7-
=- dA n b /
2<
<> h$!
' i C T, xTyy -
/ 1>
- ) 9) y ~
p - h < < o e-- z> >
~ 4> __ c Py>> _
~
<a
( d N / [ >> e
<# f
) u m 9 2 ? q? $=>=-< >
h* l-- l
<n ?
i l- o o d O w N (r) v in (O & 03 C)
1ll ~ 0 i 5 2 ~ S S S S s S S S 1 S 4 6 a B S P F e F f F A G N e R n' R4
.a li a' R
g gg g go s r g . i 2 2' 2o 4
! 2' 2 2 2 de 0
0 I 0 S 0-S" 0, So U 0-S 0 S O S 0, g I nv. as nc
. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 nae 2 T T T T T T T T ors it/
~ - - t ,m v
V - v - a c n -
-- d2
^ " -
^
~ -
^
- n 0 ut4 oo0 v
v-n" ~- ^ ~ -
- ^ fh S0
~ r v_~-
- - o ,"
=
m - v T 0 5 I
^N -
n V ~ -
^^ v v
I f31 st: mse v
'v _
- ael 1
^
^% m ^ v rTa g c J
n
~V A m"-^
~ m v
^
^
v oms mo srl ifa e
' c
^ ^v v \' m~ ^
^
v
- ssi et
_ 0 0 l
^"
V A
^
v v n
^
^
v v N
^
v I t et r vie isV ad . 1 A v A ^ v ^q tlt nen
^v A U ^- "V ^
eie sf n b U
^
pA7 y A n v A^v
^
v
^
^
v eo rep pem ero Rfc A y ^ ^ ^ a v A y %
^ 3 a
[v y -- .
- y 0 - I l
h Ay A. 1m N<e-5 y
^-
\ .
g
- V 0
- m n
~
1" M~ - - i e nv c y nv - r u
^4
- m- m- g 3 -
e- - i F T - S - E T0 , 0 0 U 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 g l 1l I
1 TEST 4 V U 0.00 0.50 1.00 1. S0 2.00 2. S0 i l l I I
..5 A A A T4.S01.RF2S V v vv" i 7 j
y V \/ W o.02ss
/ L A. _a ab, A nA _. n M - T4.S03.RF3S 2 -
y- y y v -- 1-v - g 0.0255 An%/yy N M y% y g _% - ,T4.S03 RFSS g I A b 4 y y ^^ M .-.----e ___- _T4.g0 isgFRS yy ._ -_ _
^
y [y w
^
m ^ y g _ --_ T4. {03 RP2S
^^^ #
6 y v - y *
. -4 A m
- T4.{03 RP3S _
AhnAA A . _ _ . _ /\^ ^A A ^ A ,- T4.S01.RP4S y V y "W b/ \/ " V \/ o.02ss 8 "y^--- - ' - - - ^ - - - -- - = - - - T4.S03g RABS _ _ _ - _ t - , .-- p#- _--v - - - _ , _ _ _-
-__T4.S03,gGSS j
b 10 =- -
- - v - v^A^y^y y^vN-w^w^ ^-- +^ v-n Tegopj,gNPS _
I I I I 12 - - - Figure IV.A.4 Representative seismograms for foundation and free-field sites from Test 4, Shots 1 and 3, vertical component. Vertical scale:1"=0.026 cm/sec.
l ' 0 5 _ _ _ _ _ 2 S S S S S S S S S S c 2 3 S R 2 3 4 B S P e F F F F P P P a G g N s Rss Rss Rss g 3 Rs
.s g, Rs
.s2 g, s g, /
1o 2 30 2 3o 2 g 30 2 g lo o. g 0 b g o, d n,c m
- 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0 0 a3 0 So So 5o S So S So g S g I 0 . . . . . . . . . .
6
. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nd2 2 T T T T T T T T T T on0 ia.
i
- . _ t 0
- ^ e a1 =
v ~ v - d
~ n s "1 "v
h /m . - v
- ut oo:
v - r==- v
\ -
- f hSle.
v A . r
-- m- ^ v - o,ac R0 5
WA v - v^v^ v - I f4s stl msa v A - A ^ aec b~y n/A^V 1 g v ^^ -
\- ^
rTi g t (n yA v
^
- %_p^ f\ v/ -
omr moe srV vb\ \ - - if e
/ -
y -
=
sst en y-w-w
/ -
wA v
" [ et e
- nv _ -
^
y- - vin i so A ~ t p Nn ym 0 " v ~ o I ad m 0 [ v \ - tl o
. - / - -
nec V 1 y v b ei V A
. v v g av -
v n V - m_. v sfl ea rei
-'y
{1
/
I j b g ^y v
^
a n v V -
^
_ ^ v v ped era Rfr A(ap^.e y
^ M h A Av vy 5 wFA i
v - A v gy 0 4
, A.
.-v
}
5 I V b
^ . - I A
0 - . 4 . v
.v A
- e d
a -y A hy y a -v _ %mV - r u 4 / A y m
#~ -
i F g T _ S - E
- c T 0 0
0 0 2 2 4 6 8 1 1 l f! ! ;
I 0 5 _ _ _ _ _ 2 c S S S S S S S S S S e 2 3 5 R 2 3 4 B S P s F F F F P P P A G N / R55 R55 R R55 R q, g g m Rss Rs R, 2 .s 2 2 j 2 g 2 3 g 3; c 1 0 3o 30 3 30 3 10 6
- 0. 0. 0. 0 0. O 0. 0 0 d 0 I So So S0 S Sa S S0 S S S I n ,2 0 0 . . . . . . . . .. a3 .
. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 2 T T T T T T T T T T nd=
/ ' _ - _
iton a "1 v vA^ ~- A~ -
^~ :- .-
~
a1 ; d e
- nsl A -
uta vA N ooc h A y ~ W ^
^/ -.-
fhs r l S A - \ o ,a T 0 a A - ' 5 I b w
^
^ ^
^ ~
I f4c stt i
- ^' # msr 1
yA "Vm A
^
m
^v -
aee rTV b V g
^
v
^^n" om.
- \ -.
A_. -
/v [ N mot
~. srn
- ife
~
e n y
" Ay ~v -
^
sso
% ^
^
M - etm ep uV A y vio 1 n-- 0 0 I yb M ^- vd v I isc t ade 1
. a v U y -
tls W- p. v
^ , ner A ^rv eie
, p - sfv es Av ^- - bv ren
/
A v A ^
- ^ pea err y
V ' - i A by -- ^-- Rft M - Q,- A - 'v 3 A y ^v
,r v a - y ? -- -
6 0 5 uv ay
, M V
^-
^v -.
I .
- n ^ -
A.
- a 'y ^- A V
p- x-0.I y a A I a.vi a v .v v u v mv #-
. e
^ fgw 2 -
a , -- a g - r
- - -- u 4 , a_--
^y T
- g
__ . - i T : F S - E - T 0 e ! 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 6 8 1 1 ll l l l l! l.
lll 0 5 _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ 2 S S S S S S S S 1 2 4 5 R B S P P P P P F A D H Rs Rs Ra Rs g, g, g g,
.s 1 .s i .s t .st 7 7 i s
4, d 40 da 4o 4o 0, 4o 4c nl 0 O- u. O. O. g o g 0 0 aa. I So So So So So S, ic C . . . . . . . .
. 5 5 5 5 s 5 5 5 nde 2 T T T T T T T T oas i r/
r '
. _ t m
~ \ a,c
" ^
v Aj - d4 n ut1 5 A \ -
- v - ^ -
oo0 fh S0 y V ^ v -
- r o ,"
=
A v \ - -
- f51 V0 5
I V / y =
^ st:
mse 1 b y/ \ ^ v - ael V rTa v -
^ g c v oms
}
y v -
^
v -
- mo srl
\ ^ -
- ifa e
by y Ay ^ v
- - ^
~
v m - ssi et c A v -
^ etr A v O
\
/
y
- ^-
^
vie isV V yA - t 0 0 I b = - ad . O e tlt 1 v ^ -- nen
$ yA ^
y - eie sf n y
'y -
^ - - eo rep
- ^v pem yb A^w ^v v-ero
- Rfc d-
- ^
J ( t 7 S 0 I
\ \ - -
A. 5 ^/ ^ -- A V 0 y y y -
^v v
I V ^
^v A _
m' ^
^
- l e r
n 5 A A V ^y A A. -y A .w - i u g
- t F T -
- Af y
- ^
S E - T0 l 0 0
. 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 l
t 0 . . . . _ - _ _ 5 2 S S S S S S S i 2 4 5 R S P P P P P F D H Rs
.s R= Rs
.s R85 q,g
$s g, 7
g . da l i .> i *i 4o 4 4o 4 g 0 f o 4c g 4
) nc O. O- O. O- ( ai .
0 I So S- So S- g ! g S tc 0 . . . . . * . . nre
. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 oes 2 T T T T T T T iv/
, t m x
x \
/ -
' a ,c
' d4 n
m b1 V - ut1 5 _ pv\y / A
\ -
- ^
^
v oo0 fh r o ," S0
=
v "
=
~ f51 R0 vA ^ -
^
^
st: y I 5 O- ^ /
\
- mse ael 1
rTa A b A - g oms c [v
~
/
y
\
mo
\ - srl
/ - - ifa V
- - _ e c A -
- -_ ssi et
/ y -
etr vie 1 z\ / b / < ^ isV t 0 I v \ - - ad . l b _ 0 - tlt 1 yb ^
^
^
nen eie sfn
. g - _
eo Rv ^v i V ^ rep a -
^ _ pem
\
'c N ^
v ^
; ero gA .
w Rfc
. ^ n k
k A' v W -
^
^
v v 8 i - A .
- ^
0
\
= = ^ I A.
I 5 mV ^ V 0
.y y b .
a'
^
v
^
^
v A , I
^ e g-av b e dV r u
5 h 4 y A A a r a v k' V b i g A-y F _ -- A T - A _ S - E - T0 0 O S 5 6 7 g 9 O 1 2 4 i '
g . . . . . . . . , 4 l L m m m e a, m an .
- N W ID IC ID to 4.
- k. k. k. k. k. 3 g. E. .
=
e . . e . . e . e .
=e O - th=
=
- e (O=
=
- e=
(O = (O =
=
=e (A =
=
th =
=
gn =
=
coo
=
o0 C> 98
- O . . . . . . . .
4 la la la la la la E !" CE8 Okm
) ( $
('> ',
- t. " eo p > ; is
<, < -> 2 ;
aus mm.
< mo
\'
sg ( ))< )>( ) i
>) ' ' <
8 -:"
~~
E tl 'd
< I M%
4
< , rea eo
>)
< [<>> <:-
>)
>}
det
. .S c >d y
.3
>- t.
< i t">
g
> <-( S T
.s =
5 2 L 4,
) 83a S*S
% g v { ?*
< =c w > < J
, J (J l0"t 8 s.t it y < 4 y
g ><%3 1 c , <==; f { , ea8 p ~~
?
Y e
; k $ e 3M7h<>%
g <c t <
' b< 5<
4 -
<=; *:: 9 >,
< 3 c
J < 5 E f: f > != <> <: . Ln
? $ >
- l' h- $
W ' (O . LLJ HQ < Q d O -a N (V) W in CD P- O CD J
l I ,' j1 0
- _ - _ _ 0
- ~
p-0 8
/ ,
s e s 0 a 0 h c 0 p e 7 s l V.
/t a p
ei f i o 0 c 0 n 2, 0 i-8 0 p 1 0 6 o w t ce e . h . s 0 t
/t i
f A ^ i 0 0 r 5 o. 0 fs 5 d 2, AA t sr 0 A f eo 1 vc
^ A ' - re ur
- 0 E c i
o /g i 0 0 C n 4 N eo f " na A T mi 0 S is I to A D l 0 ^ *a-A lp ex 3 A ve 0 0 a i i 0 rn 0
- 3 To i
SoAo O'
#/ .
i 0 0 0 2 1 B. V I e r PeAe / i F u g 345 0 i 0 t t t I 0 nnn iii 1 ooo ppp t t t ooo hhh SSS w _ - - ~ - _ ~ - - 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2* 3 wI P lG>e il ll l Ill !ll,\ l!I 1 l ll 1'11 llllli
lll I 0 5 s ~ - - - - 2 2 0 l 0 0 6 4B g1 3 g P 2 r F FA gF F p W o 2 f _- ] - n
- _ - o i
- t
_ o f m
- v ~ o
_ m t V
^ -
- 5 l
_ v n s -
- 1 e m n.
o2 2
~
- p
^ c mt
_ _ e
^7 -
- s oo
~
m ch S
- - v ^
l
- A E a,
_^ V - v M I i c3
- ^ v T tt
- v f
^ ~ ^
0 rs ee VT l
- ^ I
^ v Y
1 f_ y 2 y - ^
^ -
- v 7 A v
^
v 2 c " ^ f.~ ^ ^_ e ^ ^ B s \
/
y .
/t A V h V c
f Q-
~ \
/
y a I e 0 V e s 5 " hy r (m
/t 2, f u g
f 0 y ( 5 i 5 l 0 1 A y b V F VA 0 0 2, J I gf
~
k' l l I 8 1 ,
~ %y ^
- m -
h. f- N 3 l 7 4 i ;
^
" I L y aV l I l I
^ -
T S E T - - - - - O 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 6 7 8 9 0 1 S 3 3 3 3 4 4 0 l ll
N r VZ L VM I f I l I vz -- - -. ---- -- h I 1 i i I _ l I ano 400 ibo to5 1600 1300-sample number I f l A g_ #---_r_ -e ygy .k Note: Traces labelled VZ and VR are vertical and radial velocity. The source is to the left on these plots. Figure IV.C.1 Particle motion, 1979 accelerogram, whole record URS/Blume 4
.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u'
5 s u sa ss L , ,, s?
- n n
[ .a I b42 64 e is?
. e4-, I ,
yg is :is VZ 1 I I I
.to 40 so lo soo 120 l ,,_ ____ __ __ _ _ __ ___.
Note: Traces labelled VZ and VR are vertical and radial velocity. The source is to the left on these plots. Figure IV.C.2 Particle motion, 1979 ace 1erogram, S-wave window URS/Blume
4
^
n MTP ) " ( [V [ ( r
)
1 t I vz, - I (
\ \
i l ! I l I
$ q v s, M - -- - - -
./
t
;;:<:e:runzui.::a:::';c::""-'-
Figure IV.C .3 Particle motion, T5.S04.RP2S (Pad), whole record , QBS/Blume
- Si s H f te k _ _ SS ( ,
/ VR SS b'
N 97 4 VI ------- - - - - - - - --------- s so is so is ygy__ f
)
Note: Traces labelled VZ and VR are vertical and radial ve'ocity. The source is to the left on tMse plots. Figure IV.C.4 Particle motion, T5.SO4.RP2S (Pad), P-wave onset QRS/Blume
/ ts4 iss tens ST st?
- q. - -
i sta VZ 1 I I I I m soo ato tan aso tso
/
s VR i Note: Traces labelled YZ and VR are vertical and radial velocity. The source is to the left on these plots. Figure IV.C.5 Particle motion, T5.S04.RP2S (Pad), S-wave window. QJRS/Blume l
9
~
;7 1aiim re- .
j} L A A R f f I}/ l-y- ---- -- -- - -- -- - VI, - V u I 6 k L -
. '. L _
f
\
VR, - - --- - -
-(-
( \ k Note: Traces labelled VZ and YR are vertical and radial velocity. The source is to the left on these plots. Figure IV.C.6 Particle motion, T5.SO4.RP4S (near Pad), whole record URS/Blume b , 1
/ a s ) es " s [ is t [ so
/ i es
% - vn
/
ss se gg 4 yg _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ -- __ _ _ _ l es m m m m VR - - - - - - - - - - ------------- Note: Traces labelled VZ and VR are vertical and radial velocity. The source is to the left on these plots. Figure IV.C.7 Particle motion, T5.SO4.RP4S (near Pad), 1 P-wave onset ggglgg
1 m: 05 12 2 110 333 _ ( __ 1 +
- g. .J
" /
d les toe I VI ---------- -- 1 i i I I L tao ano too m soo ano 8 i yg _ _ _ , , , , , _ _ ____ ------------- \ Note: Traces labelled VZ and VR a N vertical and radial velocity. The source is to the left on these plots. Figure IV.C.8 Particle motion, T5.SO4.RP4S (near Pad), S-wave wiadow. ggg
f 4 - { p , - modulus of signal spectrum (receiver F3) s : , i i< \ h$i a E-h E hp-c - /\ f o e T {7J
~
yz- modulus of noise,(receiver F3) kY I i ' h. di 10 20 30 4 0 ' 50 Frequency (Hz) 13.S08.RFRS T3. S08. RFRS s-identification
- 0. 02 -
t 0.01 - oe ' 8 39 0.0 A _
>$ V J N , pj_ _ .,_ . , . _ .
-0.01 - l E l g -0. 03 -
- 0. 0 3 -
1 I I I I f
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 l
Time after shot (seconds)
/
internal run identifier + PLOT NO 30. AUN N3 306.+ QA catalog number Figure V.C.1 Example of a spectral plot showing Fourier amplitudes of signal and noise. The icwer figure shows the signal 4hich was Fourier analyzed. URS/Blume
[ O \. CO f S to t
. E N
l . O I N { < y bLD . E
- M
.W I
, 3 5 ', EO { h g jT / \A-Mean times one: standard error h \\ , {~ l \ W \\ I v Mean
/ %\ r'^
a
\\ '
Hean divided by one standard O ' gg 7 e ' sgj g v
%j
/ N. *ff0f lb^~_
~
O l l
~
-q d 10 20 30 40 50 Frequency (Hz) i TEST 3. WP/FF, SHOTS 2,3,6,7.8. RADI AL. Title RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF S.+ seismograms per RUN NO 220.+ QA catalog number .
P0HER SPECTRRL NOISE SUBTRRCTED Fi 3 ure V.0.2 Description of spectral modulus plot. Given on each plot is the number of record pairs which make up one trial ratio (5 in the figure shown). URS/Blume
k r L Signal 4b-E I l\ Moice [y
\j\ fN\J$\ !
\ \ g l \n/ \
9 Yl v \ EI I I I t. ,1 10 20 30 4[hl 'g5 0 13.S08.RABS T3.S08.RABS
- 0.004-O.002-O. 0 #rf J y^ y^ y' }[ .+"C' "-
-0.00 !. 1 l
-0.C04- ll
-C. 001-1 I I I I i
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5
. PLOT NO 22. RUN NO 305. Figure V.C.3 Example o'f a signal recorded at the foundation site AB. (Test 3, Shot 8, transverse component). SJRS/Blume
s / L Mi _ Signal Noise
^ l 4' J VJ g
Mc ujo ; I-uii L-5 8.(
- I L I I I 10 20 30 40 50 13.S08.RGoa T3.S08.RGSS
- 0. 01 -
D.005- 1
^
D* D 'y'YYy'n ?h
-0.005-
-0.01-I I I I I I
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 PLCT NO 23. RUN NO 305.
Figure V.C.4 Example of a signal recorded at the foundation site GS. I OBS/Blume
s c
~
I - Signal 4 a-i5 F /\ EY Y J\ k 'l'p Noise
\\
N(
- \
YEl l I I I 10 20 30 40 50 { 13.S08.RHPS T3.S08.RHPS
- 0. 004 -
0.00 [ [
- 0. 0 n, yAy,.qf --
.i - .I i ,
h
,A
-0.002- l ,
-0.004-1 I I I I I
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 PLOT NO 24. RUN NO 305.
Figure V.C.5 Example of a signal recorded at the foundation site WP. URS/Blume
N Signal J' =- 5 n Noise
/\
f 5 w e-
' =/
kY I T I vg' TL INI 10 20 30 40' 50 13.S08 RFRS T3.S08.RFRS
- 0. 02 -
0.01 -
- 0. C II A
,"v"f- ^^.' ^/ ^ ^ -
p
-0.01 -
-0.02 -
-0.03-1 I I I I I
- 0. 0 0. 5 1. 0 1. 5 2, 0 2. 5 PLOT N0 30. RUN NO 306.
Figure V.C.6 Example of a signal recorded at the free-field site FR URS/Blume
i s o
.- r I
l\ l I tn I ;; l
- I g i W I l
\
O I I I f o s / l
. \
\ N I\ j\ l
\ \
j \ l \ l\ l n I
\I \
LD l \ j \ l l\ \ r- I v \ \
; \ l \ '
\
(/\\// \ I I
/
\
\ I l
\
/
l \
\
I l/ o 1 I l \ \
'I
\
1 J T ,7-^V
- A -~
j ~~ ~ ~~ - fl/
\
\s'
/ \
/ / \
tn \ /\ ,
. \ ,\
O
\. .e/
'/
o l o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST S SHOTS 3,4,5,6,7,8 P2/<P1.P4,PS) V RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 6 RUN NO 24S. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l L Figure V.C.7 Spectral modulus ratio for Test 5, using the eighteen l pairs of receiver sites indicated (6 shots, three pairs for each shot.) In this run the ratios are computed from 3 trials, each consisting of a numerator summation (over each shot) of the P2 spectral moduli divided by a denominator sum (over the same 6 shots) for each of the three free-field stations P1, P4, and P6. Dashed lines are the standard deviation for site-to-site variability. ODB/Blume
o m I
/\ ;
- It ;
[ w l\ g
\ l \
l
\ / l ;f l
o i / \ l AT l 's j \
\ I I\ \ ll \ l
\ I
\ \ ;
Ln \ l
\ l \1 l \ \
I \ I
. -\ g / \ i ;
~ / /3
\ g / i l i \ I /
\/ v g ;
\j/ s/ s'g I /
o \ ,l ~ _ __ _ _. 1_ I 'i _ /_ _ t
\ s' ,T.
J r\ \t I \
\7\
/ / \
to
. d-I \
/N / \
\ /\ j
)
o / NJ u s o o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 5 P2/*P1,P4,P5> NO GROUPS V RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 247. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure V.C.8 Spectral modulus ratio for Test f, using the same eighteen pairs of receiver sites as in Figure V.C.7, but with each trial consisting of a single receiver site pair. Dashed lines are the standard deviation for site-to-site and shot-to-shot variability combined. LRS/Blume
Ln N I I I O t N I\ /\ I l\ I .
\ 1 1
% I \
m \ j \
-t /svi \ lll
~ ( \ rl \ Ifl ,
z I \ / \ I l a n /\
\_
/\\/ / /
N- \
\
I l [ ; m U \ / ;_ _ _\_5 v I
\
\ \
I \ .n I f LO l I I
\ / *\ / 7
\
\/ \ \
\
t
\>/
/\
\
'/'/
/
I
\ /
a 7 sfu o d 10 20 30 40 50 TEST S SHOTS 3,4,5,3,7,8 P2/<P1,P4,PS> V RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 3 RUN NO 246. POWER SPECTRRL NOISE SUBTRACTED i I Figure V.C.9 Spectral modulus ratio for Test 5, using the same eighteen pairs of receiver sites as in Figure V.C.7. In this case, one trial is the ratio of accelerograph pad to aserage free-field spectral mo dulus for one shot. Dashed lines are the standard deviation for shot-to-shot variability. URS/Blume
L i f a r- g l " I i 1 I i 1 I i 1 1 I I l 1 fT to I J (
- -l- I 1 / \l j
~
\ l I I ; ;
1 /\ /
\ l I \ l e I
\ s I ; ; I ; ; g)
\
I ; p) p ; ; ; \
\ I \
o ,j\ \ i l 1 1 I
\, __ _ _
j_\__ f____LJ _ _ _.I I
~
jy s ', 7 u U \ \ l T
\ \ ;\
't \ ' ,\,,1 \\ l jf.
i\'l\
f \ \ l (h, lh' ! "'r \ l~'!
\\ l 2 i \j i i i \ \ \ /
in 'l 'l e i u \</ <\
' i. \ , \s /
o F ,I ,I
\ s \ I j '
I % \j I \. I
\s j
\ ,^\ \ > j \,I i
\' ,
'I' ^,
O
\ ,I \' \ / 's .I l 1,~} l '/
\ \( l d 10 20 30 40 50 RATIOS FROM MODULI i VERTICAL N = 4.
RUN N 1. T4. SOS.RP2S T4.S06.RP3S Figure VI.B.1 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 4. URS/Blume
i e s ( O 9 l l I lR
\ \
n\ n\
\
\\ , n l\ \
I \ \D\\ l I
\
l l\ \ \ Ln ll It si \l \ \
\ \ r\
\ I
( \ \
~
11 gl l' \l t I \ \\ ll l\ I \/ \ \
\ \ I\
ll l\ I- \/ / \ l \ l l Ij'
\\ \\ l \ I
\
\ l
\ll
\\
r; I \ l '\ /\ l \j \ ^J \ II \
\~
\I ; II ,
' O l\ g_
,_ \ \
LI g._.g_ l
\ l l
h _\g_f__\__ _ _lL \ _ _1_
~
l\ I% tj \ \,l \j
\ I\ j \
\'l I'
g u f g
\ / d \
~'
n _.v l u i' 6 O
. i l\ \
\
r. l \, iv\\ l' i l
;'\ \
\
l\ , , \ I l '\ I \
\, I! \ /\ ! \ l l
O
.l
~
\, \, 'f\, Q I
',/
\
O 10 20 30 40 50 RATIOS FROM N00ULI l RAOIAL N = 4. ; RUN N 110. T4. SOS.RP2S T4. SOS.RP3S l l Figure VI.B. 2 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 4. URS/Blume
L ( t o c' ['l ! f; P f 8
'p l
'Y t
i}h \ \l ll I I I I \ \ m I t \ l'. ; \ l I
\
\\ \l ;
\
I I I \ \l
\\ \l \\
;\ \
\ \ l \
f\ \l
;\
ll g I I \ y ;i
~ ~~~~
I j \ l
, l~~~~~~
fl , a j \t l \ l ; \I ,
\
w l v U l \, i,\ i' d r- p,\
. .~
\ !
,\ !
.\ l
!)f\ i'\ 'q! \
l
,I l'\
\.,l'\,j\.
l'. I l' \'Il' o 1 '; '\. u l' <\j \.;l '\,jl y;l l d 10 20 30 40 50 RATIOS FROM MODULI N = 4. ~ TRANSVERSE RUN N 111. T4.S06.RP2S T4.S06.RP3S l Figure VI.B.3 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 4. URSVBlume
t ( s r 1 o g T' I r l l '~ 1 I I
/ \ l !
I f \ l I, ! I r / \ l I' i w l I I ,
/
6 4 l r
\ 1 1l 't
. l l
/\
l i l - i 4 ; g i T \@t I \ l
\
\l ily 1 ;
l \ l I l l l 11 ' ( l g I l 1 ,
\ "\ \ f r
\ \ ;
I \ /
~
b-\fhy \\ v
\\
\
l-. L_-- I
\\ ri
\
",; \
i \ \\
\,
\ l l t;y\ \/\ ,l
\
l ! 's ~ i\ ' ! y,\ \
'l i '/ M\
m ! n
- \n'
\ l ,fx I ' > /'\
o, t-l\/ \, ,/ \ 't
,I i li
\si' \r/
\
'v' \ ,I ,\ '
I I,tj ! v i j / \,
\,f i i f V \, , \ ,I \ ,*
\ I \l o \' \)l d 10 20 30 40 50 l
l RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDURLLY VERTICAL N = 2. RUN NO 115. T4.S02.RP2S T4.S02.RP4S l Ffgure VI.B.4 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 4. ElRS/Blume
[ o [ k 11 i i' [It l v/[s .
'I t
)
l 3 il < 1 l
/
1 1 I l l 1 ) I *I l/gI I 1 1 i u i I' (1 I I ' d I 11 I to 1 \
. 4- l l d I / g l 11 1
~ l ;\ 1 1 V 1 14 l i 1,1 Il
{ l I I I t \/ / a 1 1 I ^
, g l\____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
le\ \ l j s ,. ' i l . I,/
' r I j ,\ {\s '
tn l' l 't j \
\l
~
d l\\. p i \. 8 ! \ !\ j\ i \! \
*,. ' \
f.
<^\\\\\ ,
\\
a.; L'
\.4 ,j ']'
t, ,jY '\)'l ') d 10 20 30 40 50 RATIOS FROH N00ULI INDIVIDURLLY RADIRL N = 2. RUN NO 116. T4.S02.RP2S T4.S02.RP4S Figure VI.B.5 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 4. URS/Blume
[ L ( o
;I \ l\ \\ l \,I h\l lI v If l Il l Ln
, ql Il \Iv \\\ ;
I lg 1 \ l
~ ; \ , I l\ \; \j lI \1 Il\ \
l l I \\ lI l\l l / ll i
~
, L______$
l NI l il l
\l Il ll U r, r I j\' /
l ,/ ' ts ,
,/
Ln d
'\\' ls *
'\ \
\
\nl
{r'i !
\
. \\l\jti\
U \i \ l\
!\ i l\!
\!
\!
\l
'i
' ,i i i ! i '
o y !j ip/ \i,/f.\( p'j
\ \l d 10 20 30 40 50 RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIOURLLY TRANSVERSE N = 2.
RUN NO 117. T4.S02.RP2S T4.S02.RP4S Figure VI.B.6 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 4. URS/Blume
r o d[ I 'l if f ( f I \ Il
\
i li\ II
\ I 1 ;\ \ I I I l f\Tf I
\
l1 ; ,
) tn \ l I\ I I -
)
~
. -4 I
\ l
)\\ It I
\
\ l \
\
\
l l
\ l \ I
\ Ij\' I ^)\\ (3\ ; \ 1 \ I \
I ; \
\ It \ l l\
z , ; \ [ \ Ii 1 I ;;\\I\; \ l \ g I l\ \ I I l
-- __ I s! D \ ;I _ y_I __ _
- ~ JJ p!i l_ _ _\_ l \l
\ l i
I l \ [\\/
\ /
\
\ l l
{ t I
\I \
tn l \ /
. \v \/
O *' " l Coherence ,
,3
,/ T.vI \il> 'g r,
rs / \' i /\
\.
o _ . _f' , f' / l 'gr- ' o 10 20 30 40 50 RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDURLLY VERTICAL N = 6. RUN NO 121. T5.S08.RP2S T5. S08. fiP4S Figure VI.B.7 Pad / free-field spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 5. QJRS/Blume
f \ [ o l'1iji
~
d' l't /T ((l1 ( { \l" \( [ g l l fI I
/
ll Il I 1 I ll' l l I I I
/ l I l l I I II I I
ll l I I I
$ t -
f If i I I l I Il i I I I
~ gg ; I 1 l I
II I Il I I I I I it / I I I I l Il t
\\ l l nl \ l \ l 1\ u;l \i \
/ II II I
\I I
'l-4)----1L
\
I V
*! '\, \l v
\ /t'\, 7, /,\
\ ,f\, l \. l \. !
tn , ; , y e ; \.
\'/ . ; e' , \
l\ o 1. .I . I b
\! \v,\ \
11 \/
! \ 'i %' \ '
l \'
\,\y! '
i
. y '
\,i\!
l a j v i,I l o 10 20 30 40 50 RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RRDIRL N = 6. RUN NO 120. TS.S08.RP2S T5.S08.RP4S ' Figure VI.B. 8 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, radial component , Test 5. QJRS/Blume
f I o i I i I\ fI g I l \ f
\ \ I\ I
\
I I
\l 1g I I I tn \ \ In\ g g
\ l; \ I
\\ \
l y\
\
\ '
gj l J \q l l\
\ \
L I l
^
\^/j fi Jl k\y ll a 1 I\ I \
.h
---+jI-------
~
-y
~
k\g/ \tgjl i
\
\J tn
\)I
\
o r !,\
' /r\ si/'.\I! i n' jf \
'l o
. !'JU 'I\. '
t_ o 10 20 30 40 50 RRTIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDURLLY TRANSVERSE N = 6. RUN NO 119. T5.S08.RP2S T5.S08.RPiS I Figure VI.B.9 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 5. URS/Blume
o W
\ g-- \ ;
'l /\ l \ l H
\
1 /\/ J\I g/
\/
\ I
[ w \ l 1 g/
- -T1 l .
6 o a /T I\ j 7s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y _g_ p_ _ I \~ ^ l \ l \
\ /N /T / % f \j g
/
^
N \ / \/ \ j
%/ \/ #
\s \
m . \ , o
.l\s j \ ,\ tr e o j -/'h/ (,x, _s' \s ,. ,~
n\,/'s f o 10 20 30 40 50 RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY TRANSVERSE N = 48. RUN NO 183. T4.S06.RP2S T4.506.RP3S Figure VI.B.10 Pad / Free-field spectral modulus ratio, Radial and Transverse components combined. All Test 4 and Test 5 data are included and given equal weight. Dashed lines are standard deviations for the combined effects of shot-to-shot and site-to-site varinoility. URS/Blume
u .- y'-y/@ .-- day
- t g/
}
'""*!'u A t- A ! . A '""*"u ni / >! s . ',""hu N h A ,
s'< ynry
*yj-
~~ .
y;v u . . . , , , [ . .. t u -, ** r __
- . A~ ,,-::
L. m, a.::
] m AcAp::
- m :: "
s:: { M;:: O f :: i Re:: 5~m:: Mi:: W :: p _ w :: M m :: Lw.:: W :: A:: he:: 2 >o.:: h :: LN:: c a :: m :: tre:: h m.:: LA:: th.:: m :: i th: Eh: L" h :: C se % :: I N :: 7%:: N :: hm::
'm::
c; o w :: M s :: i n s:: [" A :: 2 % :: h :: W :: tm:: W'w:: Lm:: W_.. _,..,
,s a,, %-~ ,.-. i ._
B" ._i ,, /_^.__ W. a
~~ ._
F=i ,- lh:2 h :2 h :2 m:: m :: A :: -
^;ceA:: mm:: ~^:cch::
Mw:: h_.:: G e w c::
'N.. .. ::
- u. ... .: n i;n
'h:2
.. (n i; ,.
0%.. __.:m:. .,
.... n .. n vEsmCE , RADW. TRANSVERSE Figure VLB.ll Band pass envelopes P2 and P3, Test 4, Shot 3 @@S e
'*"?l#
g 333333g .
..P25
'"-(41 GH . . .P2.
'~%/g e'. Men- .
en.P2.
. s.n .
u'i f,
,g 1T y .
. ...P., ..P. .P.,
"J'%::
!"._~ M ::
Q'M::
/ , ,s._
._ - . . _ J, n- ~~._
i. s, . O. g S :: M :: Qc"'s::
.. s;... -
s ._ f.,. y . ._ e .. .
&. s.. .n._
,,,,,, fg : f. ,_
D .,,,, A -- n .- D%: ms n ._ C&%: l-. ,. ._ CACN : c.
. ~'~ D F v c-
- p. . ._
'%~ n- s_ . _. _._ c.n '-
I w . %.
,... , ,, ._ .. ._ ...-=r.'.
n v.... m. g a.. . t.
- n. . ~. ,, ,...\. ,_ x.
is ,
._z. u..-
. a.. . ,
s p. . . . . .. . ' ' m._..- - ~ .w . . N r_ ._ N;.. _.__.t ____o . _
. . , , , i-.
--e._ -.
QOg%:: h!:2 Q,; h :2 h :2 t hh:2 $.h:2 h':2 !hm:: h :2 i EM. ,Nz-c:: 1A:: A. ,p. d_.'.' j N.
,.' -es;,; **
, ._ -.,,n 1
.w . , ,, h**"" \'N/ '"
h :: h_:: h :: W :: re %:: Q%:: Nw:: h::
^y-cew::
2%:: 7
- s. -
9 A :: ._ . . , -, [@%g;::
--c._-
s._
..=n E. . 4.._.,", 'dL n'. . ..
u - :-
.. .n .n
-u :
.n s.a u wu
.L. ...
n .. a VERTICAL RADIAL TRANSVERSE Figure VL8.12 Band pass envelopes P2 and P3, Test 4, Shot 4 E9/Blume
i h 4 i v' v' W - t === a.=..== ., .... u . . ..a
'""'lhakAIA. '""'?l A AM.b s a mp4%(f.}Ig e y vpp, qy yv ip l u== u.m.== ,,,,,,,,, ..,,,.,, .--. .... n s
u D.~ n %.:: i. r u . n._
/ . v. ::
. u . n L ,_N__pra._ _
'p::
in:: p :: h.y::
;" m :: L u '::
- i. . ._
W. M. .
._ - s._
'm:: .w::
M,.... m_-w%._h- .. ._ .... ._
,k /... . , , -. ._~ _
L. ..a' A..'h - M.... ,, - I.- o .' . . -
n,]D.-
s ' e
- ~
[@A::
' n. .
'W_:
n..
...s . . _ . .
u i n. . D v_%,.,,,,., i u. . ,,,,,, ,,,,,,
. Is.. ,- ._ .
l 'h:2 L" M : : L"r g'3-g:
- "n_::
- "N ho.. . . __ _ .. . s
.:: S..w. . ._. .._::
Ogg;%:: [? a % :: Phz::
"h_ _.:: l'"Kh___ .._ ::
pd___ 'h_.___ _ . . .. ::
,m::
i A:: C-m :: h :: m_:: h :: L m_:: th :: W._. ..__:: r th:: th:: ; h.::
- h:: i h :: D . 1 --,::
2 ' n :: ! Z A :: h -:: A m :: h:: Fh::
!h:2 1"? sZ' - :: L M g ::
Fu r s,_
- .,--3..~...
A.u , se. .. J . ,x , _ ,- ._ uui. n -n u....-.3.o ..
. .. . n
.. n . u an i. m .f.. - - e.
au .n VERTICAL RADIAL TRANSVERSE Figure VLB.13 Band pass envelopes g$lgg P2 and P3. Test 4, Shot 5
h Wyg "q. wqqg
- 9. #00000. T. 508.5M. . 3000000 T. 906 GP2. g g3gg gg,ggg gygg r
g,.
"""")4 'g NM
- "yo: "m:
,~,sW. ,- : . Mu g a.
iu "e c ._. ._ w.3 _ _ ( R-- m: --- CW.~- -m: --C #. .: [W: IM: Mm ( hr pur W: hr Mm: W':
?-%:
Lm: LW: W: .Oc ec': h: t Rh: hr R%: hm: l
""gz%:
h 2h: .h h ihr h. r C; c_ x x._ : Mm
;'" e.%: M'x:
5;2s3z: CN-- b':'A: h: hr '" N:
! 2.. h
.. R.z%: 2.. . y
&?:+ A: 22:
hmx Q%_ = lbm
' N_ .- :
N....-: r _ mu.g. _ : .. um: . ht.: ht:n. .
' M..:
-- A e . .
s ..:--- 4 e
.h.w..n um
.n
. __i. u.-n
.. n h:
k u.m.a. .
.n 3.. --n
- i. n u.
U ,:
.c.. . u
- i. =
VERDCAL RADIAL TRANSVERSE Figure VLB.14 Band pass envelopes gg P2 and P3, Test 4. Shot 6
S t f L [] RUNS 22. WINS 1. t []
- 2. 0 -
- 1. 5 -
[] [][] , ( k3 [] gg
- 1. 0 -------
-cy- ----- - - - - - ---- -
.. []
g3 []
~ '
g) [] . {) [] () ' E 1 [] El O. 5 -
.. "[] ..
[] , I I I I I
*b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI..B.15 Test 4, vertical P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios, window 0-1.28 sec.
URS/Blume
[] RUNS 22. HINs 2.
- 2. 0 -
- 1. 5 -
[3 " c) .. [] El [] . ..
- 1. 0 - A" 3- - -- - - - - - -
E3
@ [][] []
[] [] .. g) E3 O. 5 - [] []
*b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.16 Test 4, vertical P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.16-0.48 sec.'
J ' URS/Blume
L r l RUNS 22. WI is 3. g ,
- 2. 0 -
[] []
- 1. 5 -
[][] gj .. [] l 3..
- 1. 0 ------- U-[] ,
g g
. U ,
O g - i []" []g U. ,, O O O O. 5 - .
-[] -
I I I I I
- 0. b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.17 Test 4, vertical P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.48-0.80 sec.
URS/Blume
k. RUNS 22. HI is 4. ()
- 2. 0 -
[]
- 1. 5 -
() [] [] h ["3 [3 l l . []
~
- 1. 0 ----- --- - - - "--- --- - - --
[] [] . []- [3 [] . [][] []. [] (] W .
- 0. 5 g()
. []
I I I I I
- 0. g 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.18 Test 4, vertical P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.80-1.28 sec.
URS/Blume
L RUNS 23. MINS 1. [] [3
- 2. 0 -
C3 [] g)
- 1. 5 -
E3 . [] []g) . g) []
- 1. 0 - -
[3 [] [] c) .. [] . () []
- []
- 0. 5 I I I I I
*b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.19 Test 4, radial P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0-1.28 sec.
URS/Blume
s [] a .. t
. []
E3 RUNS 2 . HINE 2. []
- 2. 0 -
[]
- 1. 5 -
[] < ,() [] .
- 1. 0 W - - - - - -
E3 []() [] () []E3 [] []
- 0. 5 -
[] . [] [] [] O. O. 8 ' ' ' ' u 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.20 Test 4, radial P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.16-0.48 sec. EJRS/Blume
L [] RUNS 23. MINS 3.
- 2. 0 -
[] O
- 1. 5 -
O [] . 0 0 U " '
- 1. 0 ----- -- -
U[M]y-() U .. O El E3 O U O - O. 5 - "E3 []
*b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.21 Test 4, radial P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.48-0.80 sec.
M lu m e
[] g) RUNS 23. MINe 4.
- 2. 0 -
()
. []
[3
- 1. 5 -
[] - [] [] [] El" .t) E3 () (g[3 []
- 1. 0 -
[] g) .. [] [] ..
- 0. 5 i
i i i i
- 0. b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.22 Test 4, radial P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.80-1.28 sec.
URS/Blume
[] [] [] l
- []
[] E3 [] ,, g RUNS 24. WINE 1. [] []
- 2. 0 -
- 1. 5 -
[] ..[] [] '[] , [] [] []
- 1. 0 -----
----gp -- -- ---------.
[] E3 []
- 0. 5 -
I I I I I
- 0. 4u 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.23 Test 4, transverse P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0-1.28 sec.
URS/Blume
[] E3 [] L [] t RUNS 24. W I'We 2. [] [3 ..
- 2. 0 - ,
[] l []
* []
g) [] " [] [] ..
- 1. S r- ..
[] , []
- 1. 0 --------__ _______ _______ ,
[] E3 []
- 0. 5 -
[] I I r ,
- 0. g 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.24 Test 4, transverse P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.16-0.48 sec.
URS/Blume
g L U l! ( RUNE 24. HIN. 3.
- 2. 0 - U f .
- 1. 5 - f
[]
"t3 [3 g O O "
{ .. O g h"O O
- 1. 0 ----Ib
() ,
- 0. 5 -
1 I I I I
*b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.25 Test 4, transverse P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.48-0.80 sec.
ElRS/Blume
[] [] s r O [] i, RUNS 24. WINS 4."
- 2. 0 -
[] E3
. []
[] []
- 1. 5 -
, []
I --
.L E3'() ,
[]
- 1. 0 ----- ---- - -
---e'"..
[]
,, []
. []
g .
)
U[] l l 1 I I
- 0. g 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.B.26 Test 4, transverse P2/P3 band pass spectral ratios window 0.80-1.28 sec. MlUme
r L . r%
/ \
r
/ \/\
j / \/\ N g/
- / \
{ YF: 1 I I i 10 20 30 40 50 3 T3.S02.RABS T3.S02.RFRS 0.01 -
\
7
\
I 0.005 - j) \ y
- 0. 0
_fMI k\ g A. -
\j J
-0.005 -
g
\
-0. 0 -
1
\1 l l t 1 0.1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 PLOT NO 1. RUN NO 255.
Figure VI.C.1 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 2, vertical component P-wave at sites AB (solid) and FR (dashed). M lu m e !
k (
/
l'\ / \
\
/ \l y i T/ \ #' h
/ \ \
\/
?
1 I I I 10 20 30 40 50 13.S03.RABS T3.S03.RFRS 0.006 - I\ 0.004 - I\ , O.002 - I /\
- 0. 0 w' l r'
-0.002- / \
l -0.004 - 1 / \)/
-0.006- If
-0.008- \l6 I I I I 0.1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 PLOT NO 2. RUN NO 255.
4 Figure VI.C.2 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 3, vertical component P-wave at sites AB (solid) and FR (dashed). URS/Blume
/ L r
/ \
' / 'N T / \ E/
\/\
) -f
\
) l
/ \'g f
. \I 9 -
\l 5 \l
-1 I I i 10 20 30 40 50 13.S06.RABS T3.S06.RFRS 0.006 -
[ 0.004 - I\ 0.002 - 1 A
- 0. 0
^# -
-0.002 -
\JNVY
-0.004 -
l
-0.006 -
}!
-0.008 -
\
I I I -l 0.1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 PLOT NO 3. RUN NO 255. Figure VI.C.3 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 6, vertical component P-wave at sites AB (solid) and FR (dashed). LRS/Blume
- r
/ x.s t I \/'\
/ \/
i VI/ /\
\
- /
\,
-l \ .
\/
. I T E-F 1 I I i 10 20 30 40 50 13.S07.RASS T3.S07.RFRS I \
0.005 -
/g l ea - _ _
/ ik II IA l -"""
i 7 7 ur Ig \/
-0.01 -
\l
\/
I I I I 0.1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 PLOT NO 4. RUN NO 255. Figure VI.C.4 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 7, vertical component P-wave at sites AB (solid) and FR (dashed). QJRS/Blume
_ '\ I _
/ N
/ N i E- / \
{ j/ \rg r/ g j g s i E i I i l I 10 20 30 40 50 13.S08.RABS T3.S08.RFRS I
\
I 0.005 - i
- 0. 0 -- ' - %O l -0.005-V
\l
\7 t"
\l '
\/
I I I l 0.1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 PLOT NO 5. RUN NO 255. Figure VI.C.5 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 8, vertical. component of P-wave at sites AB (solld)' , and FR (dashed). LIRS/Blume
l' W > o L MP l f I m l
" V1 I
o I W l
+
{ l m.1 J l
' \l \ t gt /\
O \ ^
~
11 _________ g/ ___
/ p\ _ _ _ _ _ _/\
kll I i
\ // \ /\
# \l l \ /
I o l /g ~~ / f f \ // y \/ /
\,
\ /
\
V sg N- . \/ \ \/ /g S f o / \ l l l O 10 20 30 40 50 RB/FR TEST 3 SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8 Z P DNLY RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 1 RUN NO 255. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.6 P-wave spectral ratio computed for AB and FR sites with five trials. URS/Blume li i
t
/\
L . / \ 7 E-
~
\
\
~
r/% 4i \ N N. g_ i i i I 10 20 30 40 50 13.S02.RABS T3.S02.RFRS 0.03 -
) , 0.02 -
1 lk l
/\
- 0. 0i -
I ;g n 2 kl i A / A IA rs r'-
-0.01 -
hf\Y\j
}
T \1
-0.02 - !
\j
-0.03 - ll I I I I I I I
- 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 PLOT NO 1. RUN NO 256.
Figure VI.C.7 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 2, vertical . component SV group at sites AB (solid') and FR (dashed). URS/Blume
/ ( M' - / \
! / \
- \
s
\
j \ f
\
- \
i' - \s E
- I I I I i 10 20 30 40 50 13.S03.RABS T3.S03.RFRS 4
0.02 - l\ p 0 01 ' ll \\ r
\p \ \ j\
o, o ~ T i IS i k /1 % ___ _
\\ ll \'Y \b [ W "
j -0.01 -
\\f \ */
-0.02 -
\\
y i I I I I I l
- 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 PLOT NO 2. RUN NO 256.
Figure VI.C.8 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 3, vertical .
, component SV group at sites AB (solid)'
and FR (dashed). URS/Blume
f i: ci =- / e\ t E / \
\
\. 3
^
v g j
\
- N.
Y =" l I I I A 10 20 30 40 50 13.S06.RABS T3.S06.RFRS 0.03 - 8 0.02 -
\\
g g 0.01 - I ^ l 00 -
~ I rk\ !y \^ y r-r n n re v
}
-0.01 -
\Iv
-0.02 -
Ill
; -0. 03 F i i I I I I I I
- 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 8 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 PLOT NO 3. RUN NO 256.
Figure VI.C.9 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3 Shot 6, vertical component SV group,at sites AB (solid) and FR (dashed). URS/Blume
J l I L -
/T\
/
ei =- \
'E \
F- vN C \" m
\
J \
'; \
- s i l i I J 10 20 30 40 50 13.S07.RABS T3.S07.RFRS
- 0. 0< -
l\ , O.02 - ^ l 0.0- _s
- f. L .l . i A 7%w O_7A .1
-0.02 -
\ g)
-0. 0 4 -
\; v g
-0.06 -
f' I I I I I I I O. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 PLOT NO 4. RUN NO 256. Figure VI.C.10 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 7, vertical' component SV group at sites AB (solid) and FR (dashed) URS/Blume
k ( 7f
.I I's\
c L
\
/
, & %m 8
\
r ;
\
N
\
l I I I I /I 10 20 30 40 50 13.S08.RABS T3.S08.RFRS 0.02 - g 0.01 - l p
- 0. 0 -~ ,Il lh,IWlL
, yy s, y --
ix
-0.0t - l
\J
-0.02 -
k! 11
-0. 0 3 - %
1 I I I I I I
- 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 i
t PLOT i0 5. RUN NO 256. l Figure VI.C.11 Seismic traces and Fourier amplitude spectra for Test 3, Shot 8, vertical component SV group at sites AB (solid) and FR (dashed). URS/Blume
O co tn cN f o - OJ tn N
/ \
, O/ r -y
\ j-\ ----------
,L n
\\ j N. /
in \\ / \ /
\\
f
/ \ r 's \ /
o
\N,/ f \/ \ ss j/
x_- x \ __ >f, v o ; O 10 20 30 40 50 AB/FR TEST 3 SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8 Z P DNLY RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS UF 1 RUN NO 2SS. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.12 SV-wave spectral ratio computed for AB and FR sites with 5 trials. URS/Blume
l L o co tn (M s,; i.
.t
'\
O , t l cv II. i; I l '. \. l Ln
' '\ ,\
-! l ',
l l 0 ayl .
~:
- e. , _.__4.
\ ,.
/- . .
[ f , '/ /~ \, , 1
's. [ \ i
' \ \ ' ^ g
,9: / N, f . \
&j
,1 _ . ,
slj / 1
" .\
3 . . l l g e / '. ,'. l ,-, '.
\,/, -
l ' -' _] l I l I o 10 20 30 40 50 l l TEST 3. WP/FF. SHOTS 2.3,6,7,8, VERTICAL RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 5. RUN NO ;' 17. POWER SPEETRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l Figure VI.C.13 Service Water Pumphouse/ Free field spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 3. 1 i QRS/Blume
o
.r-0 Ln \l
.r W li h
a h
. A csi 9 s
- 1,1 O E
~
7----------------------- i /\ /\
\\ / \' /\
tn \\ \ g
\\
\y/
jN\ e'. NN \\ / \ N/N_
\\/ c __
lL^
~
o l l m-q o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3. WP/FF, SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8, RADIAL RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 5. RUN NO 220. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.14 Service Water Pumphouse/ Free field spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 3. LRS/Blume
r t o co t
~ T
\
\
o \ m , ) - e' tn r
\i'
~ \
o i en \'N /\ .
' 's ~ 4, s O \ /
' \, j - %
[\
/ 'I s
\ / \
s_w N e i m w s./j ' ' s / o j l l 'e\ _ _"q o 10 20 30 40 50 ( TESTS, WP/FF. SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8, TRANSVERSE RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 4 RUN NO 214. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.15 Service Water Pumphouse/ Free fisld spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 3. URS/Blume
l l O co b
'\
\
tn l l d p\
\'
o g
- 7, W L a
tn
. -o I
l. a-
. a_______________________.
i n tn , c O
' \s\q / \
\ - s._
"'\\ / \-
l I s e n ._. A I
~1 y .
0 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3 WP/FF, R, T COMB., GROUPED BY SHOT +C0 RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 8 RUN NO 225. P0HER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.16 Service Water Pun.phouse/ Free field spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse component, Test 3. OTRS/Blume
I o cn W l N O N l Ln . jh
~
/
- \
/
\
g /\ / n \
, _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / \
__y_ I \
~
/ \ / /\\
Ir ./s v i i
' ' \
,f y '
y-l r'~- ji \ .',. \ l LD i lt ,, s .'
/
8
\ /
/ \
,}
\
g A , l O \ ' ./ \
/
./
?
i , w<,.
~
t ' I l l I I o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3. RB/FF, SHOTS 2,S,6,7,8, VERTICAL RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 5. RUN NO 215. 1 POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l l l l f Figure VI.C.17 Auxiliary Building / Free field spectral modulus l ratio, vertical component, Test 3. URS/Blume I
o r co i < tn L . m o m tn o . \.
- - _ -.- ..- _.-,: \_ -._ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ L u _
,' e. I i.
s/
.,' f r. ,, !
if) '
/ s
.. ,/ f X ,,..
i ; 'x' \\ i Q
\ l
/ m, \ j'j
\ \_ l.
'/ sj ., /
', 7 s_ /
I l l l I o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3. AB/FF, SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8. RADIAL RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 5. RUN NO 218. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.18 Auxiliary Building / Free field spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 3. URS/Blume
i ! o { tn m o - ! m / (
/
LDj l r I
~i I
/
o /
. ,b - -/-N-- -
~ j\ / ^
i / \/ /\ m '
/ n i / \
LDi\ i-
/N /
/ \/ \vl /s \
/
di '
\ // Ns/ r y r/
\
\ // \~ ,n w '
e x N , // x/' l_
~
l l i I o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3, RB/FF, SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8, TRANSVERSE RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 4 RUN NO 212. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI'C.19 Auxiliary Building / Free field spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 3. URS/Blume
r o co 4 [
'n
( . m o N tn
/\
/ \ s O I
~
/
/\ / '/
's tn
/
/ , ".
i
/
/ \/
- gy / ,j \ ,
a /\ y s i v n ~/,^'
,s_\ /
s .- I l l l I o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3, RB/FF, R, T COMB., GROUPED BY SH0T+C0 RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF s. RUN NO 223. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.20 Auxiliary Building / Free field spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse components, Test 3. URS/Blume
o ( m { tn I\ N I\ l I\ a- I \ ll
.-- /* \ \l ~' l
- I i\ l
\
to: I l
\
.u- n I y I
~'
l\ I 1 l\ n I \\jlI
! I\ l \,
c / v O [_ I i J\ ^ l ~T~~~~~~
, r\
~lTl. \
I I, r LD ' I \ lI \\
// \;
, ,,'\
/
j\ / \ - di/p\\ ) // o /
/ \. '. f
\
\
/
r (.+ %~/~j / d l i I I I o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 4 SHOTS 3,4,6,7,9 RB/<P3,F5> V RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 226. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.21 Auxiliary Building / Free field spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 4. URS/Blume
o co tn cm i l on - cN I tn
. -- /\
~
l\ l / \ O 7 ~\ l i f
. -____.._______________.____f___.L__/__y
/ \/
v f 1 I
\
/
/ /\
to
/
\ /\
.- x /\ / -
O / \/, / l l s s / /\ s / v / \ e- [ o ,
? l ls j j d 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 4 SHOTS 3,4,6,7,9 RB/<P3,F5> R RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY
( RUN NO 227. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED I Figure VI C.22 Auxiliary Building / Free field spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 4. URS/Blume
o m tn m o \ N tn IT
,\
\
~ /
l \
/
O l \ l
\
I __p___ l I \ I
, p T / \/
^ ^/ '/\
tn ;v \v l /
/
o .
\/
s x,//~
/
I
/ \>/,w /,, Nj
,,\'yj j
^
O s / s __/l l l , l l O 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 4 SHOTS 3,4,6,7,9 RB/<P3,FS> T RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDURLLY RUN NO 228. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRRCTED l l Figure VI.C.23 Auxiliary Building / Free field spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 4. i l i l RJRS/Blume {
o co
' g) :
W Ni i c: cm 1 LO !,
*F r
~! /\
l l \
/ \ T e o!. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,z _ _ L _ p/ _ k.
1 I
, \ ,
'/ ~
/
1
; fs 7% j .'\ ;,
lI)' / \j \m . ._-
\
7 - /
.- , .s ' j
(>; [ / 'i o j
-- , a I, 7. r\v N s ys / N _, ~, j m -
L--~ s / // - v \ ,, ~ c >[; < -N.L ' ' . ,\& ~Y s' Y
..-,.1.
l (
.-..-...1.. . . . _ . . .
- 3
_ rJ 7.- - J .. r u.
.r e .; cn aa 1
l TEST 4 RB/<PS.FS> R. T COME. N O C-R O U F . BOTIOS FROM MOD! ill li.:01 V I O U RL L Y R U N N'3 229. l l F0WER SPECTRRL N0iSE SUBTRACTED l Figure VI.C.24 Auxiliary Building / Free field spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse components, Test 4. MRS/Blume
o co tn m o m tn l o ;.
' , ~* e I\
~
, _ , ; -. ' - -.- - .- ,- \_ . _ _ p. 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
I fe .x '
, \. '
, i
\
N. / \ '\ j \- 'j 'j,\ \\
, j
'\
"' N,\g/ /\
tn d; N i \ / i /
/\ /
\x
\ ./
,'m) \g. I ,a ,e
' /s \-
N
/ v \ <f l I I l I o 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3. GS/FF, SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8, VERTICAL RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 5.
RUN NO 216. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l Figure VI.C.25 Diesel Generator Sump / Free field spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 3. DJRS/Blume
l o ( t LO l-l l\ h l\ lI o i 11
. l 11 N ,c- 11 lII il
'O
l l l,l i l l, J!
~ 1 1 J'
A Ii ii il nl 11 o li. 3 1-
\
Il IN I ll
.i
\- --i 4 L g - - - - -- - 1 ; -
~ 1 11 ll \\.~/ \ i tj i1 .
\ I ll , I \
Ln : j \ s i \ e '
/a\ 'y
\
\ l
/,
a c g g
/
\\. )/
/ \,. .: / \-
f sw N N. / I' o i I i i N
\,'lu/m - -
f 5/ l o 10 20 30 40 -50 TEST 3 GS/FF, SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8, RADIAL RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF S. RUN NO 219. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.26 Diesel Generator Sump / Free field spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 3. URS/Blume
l O cri Ln (N l o cN LO / \.
/ g , ,
~ '
,v l s 5
i
'/ ; 1 ll g o
\
4 -
,j --y-----------p
\
~ ,
1 / l y1
\ ' \. / I \
>l
\ \ l, \/ \ f\ , \
Ln ',
.' \ \'
n
\/ \ / \[\ s
- ' L '
l . , 9 g ,g l l o -
\ jv
\ es/ ,\
/ v v \
/
i o f l l l \y/^\'~] l o 10 20 30 40 50 1 TEST 3, GS/FF. SHOTS 2.3.6.7,8, TRANSVERSE i RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF 4 RUN NO 213. l POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.27 Diesel Generator Sump / Free field spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 3. l URD/Blume 1
o m (
- cN o
cN tn
/\
/\
O I \
~
T 7_____________.
// s
/ jj \ \ v fx g
m -s / / \ ,
\ N./N ps /
\r -~'
N o x,
\p L t'-" \,m,7 -
o
/
10 l 20 l I 30
\ 4/ \I 40 50 TEST 3, GS/FF, R, T COMB., GROUPED BY SHOT +C0 RATIOS FROM MODULI IN GROUPS OF s.
RUN NO 224. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.28 Diesel Generator Sump / Free field spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse components, Test 3. i URS/Blume
C
.- g m Il It LC!' I!
.L--- 11 L or ij ,
; I i t
! I i *~
Ci /\ I [
/ \/ g .l l l / \/ f\ l\
\
! l\ l ; l\ l \
Ln!
'~~
Il I \ l\ l \
~
I\ l I \ I \
\
In l I;\ l \f I, \ \ l ,' \.
\
l
\
\/ / ,\
j L,
\
O ll\\\ l I\
~'
._ 4 7 - - - - y\ h- '
- \ - .l-. _ _' _l- y-l't I
11\\\ \ \ !l ,\ ', l/\ ll\\\ l!l y 's, \ ,I ',\'~ tn x.l' .; y 11 \\\ Ill \ \, L I \
\\\ ,/
ol/INi f y /f \ c ^ .- '/
\
/
7 l \Q e
\c.,yc
./
, \/ \ s. j
/
\
o, , N r/ .. ,
,' I
_...h__..______.___.__.1_. ______}.__._. __ l c 10 20 30 40 50 ! TEST 4 SHOTS:3 GS/<P9."? & 7.9 GS/F5 V RATICS FROM t100UI.I iuGIVIDURLLY RUN NO 230. POWER SPECTRAi NOISE SUE'RACTED Figure VI.C.29 Diesel Generator Sump / Free field spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 4. URS/Blume
o m Ln DJ l' l O I
.-r- "i i
tn I /'g i .H /
~ \
l / g l 1 1
/ g a l I' . 2- - - - - - - - - _.Lh / r , - I^
l l , t I\ /T l I ! /\ 1 / \ / \ l mi l I )t ! I '~\ \ / \ / ' L
// \
l o
\ /
\
g ,i \
\
t
/g/ (/ o
/v \
/
/.' N i \ / '
O (A (3 .. \ x "/ '!
. \./
y 'j\ s/
/
H l l l d 10 20 30 40 50 1 TEST 4 SHOTS :3 GS/<PS. F5> & 7,9 GS/F5 R RATIGS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 231. l P0HER SPECTRAL NGISE SUBTRACTED 1 Figure VI.C.30 Diesel Generator Sump / Free field spectral modulus ratio, radial component,- Test 4. ( OFe/Blume
o cr> In m o W I\ Ln ,1 '\
~ ; \
l \e s I \ o
, _________________a___3___ ,
~ . c / \
/\ ,/\ i i
!\ l ' \;r\ I \
LD I, L 1,/ \, / \
. .. / ,
g Ir e / \ ,,.^ v m \ j n N. - g/ ,r\/
~
,./ v ,
' -~,
L g ,e p-c 10 20 30 40 50 T EST 4 EHG'.S :3 GS/<P3. F5> & 7,9 GS/FE T RATIGS FROM MGDULI INDIVIDUALLY 232. RUN NO POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRRCTED Figure VI.C.31 Diesel Generator Sump / Free field spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 4. URS/Blume
o co in W o l m tn
~
/\
,\
o fs/ q\ - - - T/ \~ - - - - -
~ \
\ I N
, /
i \ , v m T I / N
/ g tn \ j\ /\) , / \
/
I \
- 1 /\
O '/ N
\.f
\ / / T/ \
~s
' ' N /p mj N,_s i
o p l l ' 'jN s l o 10 20 30 40 50 r l TEST 4 SHOTS :3 GS/<P3, F5> & 7,9 GS/F5 R+T RRTIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDURLLY
- RUN NO 233.
POWER SPECTRRL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.32 Diesel Generator Sump / Free field spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse components, Test 4. OJRS/Blume
1 o ! co l I\ w I\ l l pI\ W r l \/ l l i I \ l n l I 0 1 /\ I l N i 3- r\\ l DII
' \\ I I \\ j \1
{ 1
* \ l \/
\
'~ l /\ /
i \\ 1
\ l \ I\ I
,\
o \, \ \
\
l \ I
;\
l ,
<' sik /#T'\ - //\ j c' l
, tk \
W I i / N/\ \// \ /
/
\
d i ,/ \ /
\ ._. / \ ,
o ! d 10 20 30 40 50
< TEST 3 SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8 GS/AB , V NO GROUP.
RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIOURLLY RUN NO 240. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.33 Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 3. URS/Blume
l l o cri /T ll l I \ II l ! Ln I \ ll I
; \ll ;\ ll d f l "I l
\ i l l\ 5 pj l l
;lI
\\
ll I t j I j \\ i o l i I
/l 11
"{\'i '
, i,\ \ l'\
\!! \\
9
~
/
\ \ /l i I
\\/g \
lll\ i T I
\
lll l I
\
f I 11 l I \ / \\ I \ '1 ; II o 'I ul l lI l . p _ _ _ _ _ _\\ I _ _ _L _ ___42_
~ \
! l \ l___L \
\
; y a l
l\
\
I nI\
\ u I
\ \1 \l \
l Ln ; o
\,n y
g/ M\g / o 10 20 30 40 50 l l l TEST 3 SMOTS 2,3,6,7,8 GS/AB , R NO GROUP RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 239. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l Figure VI.C.34 Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 3. l UMS/Blume
1 O
.- < g, m 3 rz I g g ;\ g I
g I tjg i l 1 ;1 to I l I J I \ l l
, -- ; n \
I m I y ; \ I \l , I \ I \I Ia I I
\ I I lg
; \l \
O I I l
/ ; \ \ \l'
- W I l i \l \ I ;g
\l r
/
I I
\ \I
\g \I \ f\
- l \ \ l I va \
1; \l
\ g\
A \ l \ It \ %I \ g v i g / i o I /g\ \ I
. I_ _ _ _ _ _\ - _ _ r _ _ _I.
~ I 9-_/\/.r_
\
4g - \ l
/ / g , \ /
g / \ / "N \.y/
. \/ \
o / \
/ \
/
o \,/\ e O 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3 SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8 GS/RB , T NO GROUP. j RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIOURLLY RUN NO 238. POWER SPECTRRL NOISE SUBTRACTED i Figure VI.C.35 Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building, spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 3. URS/Blume
o 7g 7 ,I I \ \ t I \ p*l \ tn I \ ; ; \
- \ l; I I 03 f
\ I
/gll a j
[\/ \ , s I l I I
\;f y ;;
03 T/ g I I I l
\1 il Il tn (h \l I
i ~ l \
\
\\
\j
;\l '\'lll ,
I ,5 f. I
\/ \ //g g II
./_ _ _ _ _ _ p f I _ _ \ ____\f _ __l L _
~ / \l \ \\ '
v I I
\ \j/ \\.I LD \
1
/ l/*
/N O
o l l l\/\ /*\'f
' '/
1 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 3, GS/AB, R. T COMB., NO GROUPING RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 221. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.36 Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building, spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse components, Test 3. MRS/Blume l
i o
~
(\ l\ lt W I\ l I \ N I \ l \ o I \ 7 \ , W , . g I /Tt ^ 1 ,, I /\ l s I
\
LD ; '\ \ /\ I I ,\
;I\
\
"7'g s\ j l \
\
l /r\ \
\\/ v g
, I I
// \\ \ 11 \ \
o \ \n \l ; \ j \.I i \ \. C~4 y
---f T\', ~[ 1* 7\ i ~\~ \ ~ \ ~ T x\
fu l \ l l
\
I l \ ' ' I l '
\/ ,\ \/
tn r y I
\ I
( ,l O
/
3 / s/v i \/ O l l o 10 20 30 40 50 l TEST 4 SHOTS 3,7,9 GS/RB V RATIGS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY l RUN NO 234. ! POWER SPECTRAL NGISE SUBTRACTED l l l Figure VI.C.37 Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building, spectral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 4. SlRS/Blume
1
)
o Y 11 I ; I r If I I
\;
; f I'- ! /Yi\ l I I i m l I ;;\ \/ I ; \
l l l, 4 0"\ \/ I 1
\
I \/ I \ o 4 I I ' 4i o
; hg
\
\
l m l i l Ilf (\ u o l
\
\
I l 1
\
\
\
z j, L \
)
}
\
tn al \ \ I ; \
/ I \$ .'s ; i
~
\ \
i
/
I
\
\f J
/ g i
\
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _\ y \ o I \ ; \) r\
, +___! , s
.l j g \ ,
\s i 1
/ \ 3\ / \L s '/ \\\ \j,/ ~
I m i f '
. 1- \j 0 1 \ i l
I
\i v
I I i l I o 10 20 30 40 50 i TEST 4 SHOTS 3.7,9 GS/AB R RATIGS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 23S. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l Figure VI.C.38 Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building, spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 4. QA98/Blume 1
o MT .' ll Ln Il l\ ft
. 4- I\
\\
N il ! Il !,! ; I Il II m il I 1'\\'q If I It i o i il II; ,'\"I l \ l\
\\ If \ \ ;i t 11 tn ;a j i n1 '
;\ tz a I I
~
)- \%I\ gI
+ [l \
\
!ny. \jI\ \
I\
\; I
\
Q
\ I a
j\ p -,1--l
\ i \
4- f\\1l y q l \"fr - s ,l- - 7-I\ I
' \
I \' \ \ i
\l w I I \
\ / \,/
\
y ,f\
\-
-t "\/ 'A/
., i- /X o ;
v i __ l \/'f I o
.// I 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 4 SHOTS 3,7,9 GS/RB T RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 236.
POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.39 Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building, spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, > Test 4. URS/Blume
o g\
" \
!'\ i\ l l ig lg ; ,
to I l g l I k I el g ft 1
. g I I OJ l l \
\
\\
c
\
I \Vl'\ I \l 3
\
\
\
I \I \l \ r c;; a u I \ \/ \l v g ri ! I I ;\\ \
\
\l l gl \
\j \I ,\ \
1 LC
\ j/ l g i
~ L I \\;l,,\ /\
\ ,,
l i\ - v \ l\ \ /\ o I\ \ l\ _, / \ . __ _. L __ _ _ g_____\ g _. _ _ u __ _._. _ f 3 __.
~ / \ \ /
l \'./ \ \ 7
\m / s x./ t g,y ; 's s. / u
\/ ,;\ p'
. -e ' /
o ; \ , \
- 1
\
)l \/
f' i i l i
, i o 10 20 30 40 50 l
I TEST 4 SHDTS 3.7,9 GS/Ab R. T COME. RATIGS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 137. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACIr0 Figure VI.C.40 Diesel Generator Sump / Auxiliary Building, l spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and i transverse components, Test 4. URS/Blume
o A G\
\
m d I
\
\ I l\\t i I i
l o l \
\g \
\
l
" \
/\ l \
\ \
\
\ \ I t
m
- \. y e,/
s1
\\ f s f
\
~ g
\\- f f
\ ,-
o n
----I l -
l\\\'TT-f -- 7T 7 ./ l\
',+ jf
\a/ \ u;
\l u \ \ \1 m \ \
g e / \ ( x ,/ k / Nfs l o t . o 10 20 30 40 50 l TEST 3 SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8 HP/AB , V NO GROUP. 1 RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 241. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l Figure VI.C.41 Service Water Pumphouse/ Auxiliary Building, specral modulus ratio, vertical component, Test 3. URS/Blume
o I , Il ll W ll N ll
\\
\ \\ O \
\g
(
" g\
\ s
\\ 3 tn \\
~
i\ n s
\ <
/\
I \ o -___; t j _7 _7________ r
/
/
^v
\/ \\.// \\
to /\w \ /T
/ /N \
kr'\f s\/\/
\
\
/ g g ",_ -
o xv -- d 10 20 30 40 50 l TEST 3 SHOTS 2,3,G,7,8 HP/AB , R NO GROUP. l RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 242. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED J Figure VI.C.42 Service Water Pumphouse/ Auxiliary Building, spectral modulus ratio, radial component, Test 3. LURS/Blume
4 o 3 f\ \
\
\
tn \ l \ m \
\
\ g
\ g
' o \m I m \ \ l \ ; \ \ \ Ln \ ; I I ;l
\ t
\
\\ \
\ l \
\ ^ \ I
\
o
\ v/\ 3 \ /\
%- -./- \- --
I g\
- \-.j-j \
z
~
\ 7-------
\ j \/ g
/\ 3 \
LD \
\/ \
O
\ \)/ \
N # \ N/ s' s e l l o \f v NN/'
}. - .-. y o 10 20 30 40 50 l
TEST 3 SHOTS 2,3,6,7,8 WP/AB , T NO GROUP. RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY l RUN NO 243. l POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l Figure VI.C.43 Service Water Pumphouse/ Auxiliary Building, spectral modulus ratio, transverse component, Test 3. URS/Blume
l o cd i \
\
\
\
\
LD \ \ d 1
\
\
\
\
o ; \ d \
\
! l l\ tn
\
Ig
\ \
\\ I l ;t
\\ \
\\ I
/n\
o \\ I \ / _3 \_7_ _ _.c._,c.p _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n
\j \# \ j t \
\/ \ \/ \
tn
\v / '\\ \
\"eg a g e_ \ ,-
J \/
\
o L s l %sj l o 10 20 30 40 50 i TEST 3, HP/RB, R. T COMB., NO GROUPING I RRTIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDURLLY l RUN NO 222. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.44 Service Water Pumphouse/ Auxiliary Building, spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse components, Test 3. URS/Blume I . . - _ . .. _
l o m m a l i o -
~ l I
W I
. I
~/ r\ x
~
I
/
f o f \f
~ I a I r W /
I\ / /
\ / /
l
\ ,,.- ,
o / / ,\ , 7 \
% /g /-/'y js -
/
o /s\-pstf/
~-
l 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 l l TEST 4 SHOTS 1,2,3,4,6 RB/P2 R+T. ! RATIOS FROM MODULI INDI i/IDUALLY RUN NO 244. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED , l Figure VI.C.45 Auxiliary Building / Pad spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse components, Test 4 BJRS/Blume
l i o m t j nn t I o - m i Ln /\
. Ir\ /\
~
/ \\ lI
/ \
)
I
\ l I e o
- - - - - - - - -S \ J- \. - - - _ - .
4
/ I .Ll - .L \ -- / \ /\
#/
\/ \ / \/ \
I \/ \- Ln y,
/
^
L/ a rs J h/ \/ r%_ l/\/\ j\ ss/ l
/
N s s/ \ l l d 10 20 30 40 50 TEST 4 SHOTS 1,2,3,4,6 GS/P2 R+T. RATIOS FROM HODULI INDIVIDURLLY f RUN NO 248. P0HER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED Figure VI.C.46 Diesel Generator Sump / Pad spectral modulus ratio, conbined radial and tranverse components, Test 4. URS/Blume
o co in I t I I; o I ;; N I ; s I ; I\ I I\ Ln \ I ; I1
~ I ; I \
I I y 1 I U / ($ u) \ I y _\ _\/ I s/ r%Jr\\
/
\ \
\ /\\ /s I/
to I / J
\ L \/
I o /\ I
\
\ r I f f\ / \j g
a ./\ , /,
~ //
I d 10 20 30 40 50 t i i TEST 4 SHOTS 3,4,6 RB/P3 R+T. RATIOS FROM MODULI INDIVIDUALLY RUN NO 254. POWER SPECTRAL NOISE SUBTRACTED l Figure VI.C.47 Auxiliary Building / Free fielr', Dam Abutment spectral modulus ratio, combined radial and transverse components, Test 4. URS/Blume i
t 3.0 - 2.5 AUXILIARY BUILDING DAM ABUTMENT
, 2.0 -
[ TEST No.1, Oct 1981] o E O I 1.5 o I i.0 . . ._._. . . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ b EAST-WEST f 0.5 - NORTH-SOUTH 4 J l i I I I , 0 10 20 30 40 50 . FREQUENCY - Hz l l I , Figure VI.C.48 Horizontal component spectral ratios between Auxiliary Building and Dam Abutment obtained from Test 1, October, 1981. i QRS/Blume m- - -- -
[ t l 3 I I I
. NORTH-SOUTH -
k i [ p! ugm! % 1 - l l j - DAM ABUTMENT - b . EAST-WEST . 0' th \ lljh h h [/ MW N . .
, . NORTH-SOUTH -
1 p =
/
AUXILIARY BUILDING ,
. EAST-WEST .
/
'w.9+wq I I I I O 1 2 3 4 5 TIME - sec Figure VI.C .49 Horizontal components of motions generated at Dam Abutment and in Auxiliary Building by Test li October, 1981. Locations were equidistant from explosion.
gggg
RUNE 31. HI (s . 1. 1
- 2. 0 - E3
[]
- 1. 5 -
..[] '
[][] g3 [3..
- 1. 0 ..
[] [3 . () [] [] U g G .. [] .. []
- 0. 5 -
O ..
~
U g()[] .. I ,, , I I I I I
*b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.50 Test 3, vertical AB/FF band Pass spectral ratios, window 0-1.28 sec.
LRS/Blume
.-. .. - -.- --c.--- - - .
i ! RUNE 31 . HI (e 2. ,
- 2. 0 -
[]
- 1. 5 - "
[] ()U [] ..
- 1. 0 --- - -
0 0[] " [] O O () O ..
.. . . []
- 0. 5 - O g) 1 . ..
1 .. . O O . . , [] l "II ! 0. 0. ' ' ' ' ' u 10 20 30 40 50 l Figure VI.C.51 Test 3, vertical AB/FF band pass spectral ratios, window 0-0.39 sec. l QRS/Blume I _
i RUNS 31. NI We" 3.
- 2. 0 - [3
[]
- 1. 5 -
.. [] ..
Il () [] ()..
- 1. 0 - -
[3 l3 1 .
.. []
g) .. [3 [][][] []"
"g)
[]
- 0. 5 -
i
" .. []..
.. J.
" []
[][][3 " O. a
' 8 8 I I u 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.52 Test 3, vertical AB/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0.39-1.28 sec.
LRS/Blume
.B l .>
l l RUNE 32. MINe 1. l
- 2. 0 -
. p
- 1. 5 -
[] []
.. O ()U .
l 1. 0 ------- g gp - - - -- - - - - g [] ! O i [] () [] .- t .. E3 " "
- 0. 5 -
1 O [] .- [] [] g .. g g O .. l [ O. [L u 10 20 30 40 50 l l t Figure VI.C.53 Test 3, radial AB/FF bFad pass spectral ratios window 0-1.28 sec. URS/Blume
l ( ., l I l RUNS 32. NI de 2.
- 2. 0 -
.. ~
l t
- 1. 5 -
[] []" [3 ~ () E3 [] i U i 1. 0 _----- - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ []( ) !)
!)
l g) () I g) O
~()
l 0
- 0. 5 - ., ..
U" l [] .. ,, [ ]g).. ,, U ..
' I I I i l 0. g 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.54 ' Test 3, radial AB/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0-0.39 sec.
1 URS/Blume
l t RUNE 32. NI de 3. ,, ,, l l l
- 2. 0 -
1 1
- 1. 5 -
[][] [3[]
.. []
- 1. 0 -------
gp - - - -- - - - - l g) 6 i " E3 ().. [) l [] [] l l . [] t
- 0. 5 -
[] ! ~
!) ..
[]
,, []
()' ()()g)' ,,
- 0. al ' ' ' ' I u 10 20 30 40 50 l
l l Figure VI.C.55 Test 3, radial AB/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0.39-1.28 sec. I URS/Blume l
l t I i RUNE 33. NINe 1. ..
- 2. 0 -
- 1. 5 -
E3 []" [] [][] () []
- 1. 0 - - - - -
,-- - - - --- - - - - - - - -[1- - - -
e .. [] g) ..[] [][] () []g) .. [] ..
. . ..g) "
- 0. 5
[].. .. E3 g) .. [][].. ..
- 0. (1
' ' ' ' I u 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.56 Test 3, transverse AB/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0-1.28 sec.
LURS/Blume
l RUN. 33. HI ts 2.
- 2. 0 -
. . []
[][] []
- 1. 5 -
[]
.. [] []
- 1. 0 -------- -
[] . Il
" () []
[] [] [] [] . []
- 0. 5 -
[] . .. [] [] . [] . I i i i i O. g 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.57 Test 3, transverse AB/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0-0.39 sec. UR91Blume
1 l FIUNs 33. MINS 3. .. ..
- 2. 0 -
- 1. 5 -
[] []
- g3[][ ]
.. []
[]
- 1. 0 - - - - -
[] g) ~[] , ele 3 E3 g[] ,, g " O. 5 -
"E3' "
,, g), ,,
[] [] [][].. .
- 0. ' ' ' ' '
10 20 30 40 50 '
\
Figure VI.C.58 Test 3, transverse AB/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0.39-1.28 sec. LlRS/Blume
RUNS 34. HINs 1.
- 2. 0 - .
[]
- 1. 5 -
[] [3 I) [] [] [3
- 1. 0 --- - - - - -
[] [] [] [] () [] [3"()[] gj []g) "
"g)
- 0. 5 g) - -
[] [] .. I I I I I
*b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.59 Test 3, vertical GS/FF band pass spectral ratios, window 0-1.28 sec.
[] RUN* 30 . NINe 2. l3
- 2. 0 - ..
E3 .. [] []
- 1. 5 -
"g) ..
() . [] [] gj g) .. El
- 1. 0 --- --- - - - -- _ _ _ _CL _. - _ _ _ _
Il g j []
,l g ..
.. [] .
II
- 0. 5 - -
g) []" ,,
- 0. a ' 8 I I I u 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.60 Test 3, vertical GS/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0-0.45 sec.
URSVBlume
1 1 RUNS 34. MINS 3.
- 2. 0 -
[] "
- 1. 5 -
[] [3 [] () .. [] [] ..
- 1. 0 --- -
O [] [] [] E3 g) .. []"g)[] () ()E3
..[]
- 0. 5 - "
g) . []
.. []
I I I I I
- 0. b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.61 Test 3, vertical GS/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0.45-1.28 sec.
QSS/Blume
1 1 [] t RUNS 35. HI de 1.
- 2. 0 -
[] .
- 1. 5 -
g
- 1. 0 --- ----
-[j- --
-t)- - - - -- - --
[] E3 [] [] [] [] g) .. "[] []
- 0. 5 -
g) [].. [] g) [] g)
"gjg) g)- ..
I I I I I
- 0. O 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.62 Test 3, radial GS/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0-1.28 sec.
LDRS/Blume
[3 RUNS "S!i. N is 2. [] I
- 2. 0 -
[] . []
- 1. 5 -
[] .. .. [3 . [3
- 1. 0 -- -C3- - - - - - - -- - - - -
[3 () [][]" []
- 0. 5 - l).. .. (3 g3
.. [][] ..
.. .. [] []
I i i t 1
- 0. b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.63 Test 3, radial GS/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0-0.45 sec.
URS/Blume
[] RUNE 35. HI ts 3.
- 2. 0 -
g
- 1. 5 -
[] U "
- 1. 0 --- ----
qr- -- [] g [] [] [] [] .. "[] []
- 0. 5 -
[].. []
" " . . [] []
[] U "
"[][] ..
[]" . .
.D
- 0. (1
' ' ' I I u 10 20 30 40 50 f
Figure VI.C.64 Test 3, radial GS/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0.45-1.28 sec. i URS/Blume
RUNE 31;. NI is 1,.
- 2. 0 - []
[]
- 1. 5 -
[]E3 - I t3 . [] [] [] [] I [3 [j
. [] g)
[] .
- 0. 5 -
g) .. [] g)[] () " [] [][] []
.B l I I I I *b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.65 Test 3, transverse GS/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0-1.28 sec.
URS/Blume
[3 .. [3 RUNS 31;. MINS 2. E3 I [3
- 2. 0 - .
[][3 [3
- 1. 5 -
g) E3
!] [3 ..
- 1. 0 ---
gp - -- - - - -.
.. l
[3
.. []
[][3 [3
- 0. 5 - E3[3E3
[] ,
.. [3
- 0. 0 U 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.66 Test 3, transverse GS/FF ban d pass spectral ratios window 0-0.45 sec.
URS/Blume
RUNE Sli. HI is 3,.
- 2. 0 -
[3 []
- 1. 5 -
[][] ,, g3 [] []
- 1. 0 .-
[] [] " [] [] .,. [] E3 ' []()
- 0. 5 -
[3 ' [] []
- E3 gj []
[] ,, I I I I i
*b 10 20 30 40 50 Figure VI.C.67 Test 3, transverse GS/FF band pass spectral ratios window 0.45-1.28 sec.
URS/Blume
PRBOURNCY-NE ice.e ia.e i.e I I e.i 11 1 i t i f f i t il i I I I t I Iti I t t t t e 300.0 - A '
- _.J . . . _ ,.J. % .
. .m . ..'. _ ,8_%.4. , , a f~I.
-J:. . "_T" 7 ".. l . i,'
pn{ / - J. f.' m i.s%i ,w }.., fl*%. 8.M w<i 4-Y~f.?.y-. . -. . _-_- .,
/ n t 1 1 . 4 m .i i 2 s _ < .. . _. 9 4 . < v. . ,
~T M /IN et ' .o y /
- s. M e. ,' W fX .s 1 j .: ,
_j . 51 E'X W W Yy,:LM .2/[5 e
-v. ,'.x [ o[9,
,:~.% *..,ys:, q ,.y.:D y{%, / ::. V./ %
,g Q.r- r -, - ~R. . .:r r 'G.. -'.- :.] .,
JgY
- _,"*l *,k . *. D A '
f s v
*0
..,I* .Q :)' .* .s,._ * ' / *J. *'. ~** ,a\ *%. '
'O~.
,r .s
.,-y... -.
//AA ,'v@.3./_ h_h/* *
..n s -
.> si W. 'i N.s s l v,, y, /s; : x /, .4 s v./<x.,s,m..s.i.>,@..w4,.ir
, s ef .
. , ,<,, / < , . . . x ,f. .
1.
. . . ~ , -.
g 30.0 - ' , -_u v.,i - _180 ~ r__. F. _.. . ,,.e .... ..2. ..-t. . -- 2 ,- - cI -
- ,- ,. _ = _ . ./. _ . s .
w ' ^ - . 9 0, . . ' ^ m; - - /a -f A
- v. . -- -- -- -* . . . N
.)'... ..-
4 i ._ / 2 1
..,,',f. e, % . L s.
O e i__..,._ . , ..< . .
.s, 'sx -_.4__.=.,..:....~ .
,. .s - - - , . -
'M i X ZGV X i X > . ' < ,. . .s.J '.x > 4 .' .
a ;m- .-;..p/ ' x - -
, g+<,
m 1_90;.A.w.x m ,n :. . . . . : . . . :.x'_._: e 2_u ' '
',' /_.~/;. . f !kr
\ N, '),i > I) )>: f,~. _._x2_c m.___.E* ps f.
- b._.u ' ',<
.,.i. ', f /s,w_#_
- ..E '
- W
? . N '>[s s ' l ,N'/
. N'
. : / *,. .- ' ,
?. ,sj.t
;< % ,' ,E .s.
.,,y.- .' / sy',1 \ . . . s.*.. . .\ -
>\ y) */
.6. . / *
- f. - ** !
%f .Y . ;.,.ggl
,\
. '.\ ,
*
- e ./?
.J O , ,, -,.-__s. -
. * * , ,/,. / .* g- /*.,
.'*n . . ,
g o i.o _, > _r% s
.m x ,
...,.h,....:.
. . , , _ . ._.A _ : . . :. . . .<. s . . . ,.
s
+____.___ . . . , , . . . _ _ _ _, . u _ .. . .f.r. , s.:
..y
- . y .,_ u s .:.,_ , , nt
. h, ,,_ . _ __. _. . 2. - - . .. : . ,_.. -
ca .> 1 s._, u.,;_
=
= ).s. ;; ': > z s vi x. u ..s. - g
;N ;pt%* 21.a %. & X-_'.A_. *h_ _:, 3*?:'!.i.:.' %
. ,:.s.
_..- _/.. . . . ..a._ g - s N :/ '. " A . ^ . :. 90 . . ' . <' w' ;. '._
':._u_
m ,j-a =. , >. ,2 ,:. ~ . < ' _'.S ,. a' 1 ..:.
, n..>3.,s. . .
,~ s. ~.
.N. ,s.s.
- y. ,,v,. . ,. . . . . /. .... . . . .
. x .. ,w
" . .y: n_..a .,.s;. , . s_
. __. ._n._ ._
g -
.;7 qp'g.y.M :K l...:;r , y.3.'., ' cs&im A.q .1 ' ,<*:.xxx i . ' .;4,g.d y :H yl . . .
--. _ _, n - , - , , . . v * . . '
. _ . s: .a. ..
9. m ..: .., . . .__ ., s__ . m, , _ s. = . . ,e y .,. ..
- .,:-- .v e _ - 1 .,. , _
_ pv - , . _ . _ , .__ _ - _-, t * . w ._1, _4. _. :. . y ,
& : , ,.c '
A. . . ,.: __. /.1, i. s . - - . .u f. :. ,.N.:.:. sK, L
- N .'- -
/.4~ .. : . ' , . -
. .s 1...i._'s^t.<f .r ~ , = N_ .,. A .d _ . %p/,. .i, ' f:,,a" .,A,.
4- c<sa.,gw :g--W
.s .s e N . . .
' .r Ay - b .p-
- s- r - - - ,- , , p#,*-
-}%s-- ->.s ' *,; 'l s' r%g*h. ' /ket-yV.&, ,s.1s.r . .A- :& '-/-i-. V. i. ' t
_ a._y.:_y_,A L.y.:,A_. c_h ; _2.;.:.. . 7/.2 g . ,-.,:s,>.j.. .r_ t ,:. : :. ,_
. s .. . . . .
N.,.4.Qy Kyl i y . .v. K , * ,e;, -h;<W' *s.-:- r .i%'< .*f,
-r./ ,%4')?h-Pi F . :- - .t. E , , ' ) .' ..,~s,
<g, a, . . ./ ...,...%.s- .. ? ,N%..'.-P i N. 't :
- g. ,e
/./< /' ..i>.
( N- *s. ,s . . . . . -s y
. >. s ke .s .,. /,
f< >.>s,,;sq x. c :
.s1.( s
.,,s,,.
n
.N yy
. s . . sN, ,, j. ,, . , .
.',.. v < > . -N , .;. .
.. x .
f,-
.i f ,-
o.o e.ei s.: i.e ie.e
- psalon-sac Figure VI.D.1 onse Spectra for Derived 10/16/79Free-Field Earthquake Resp (5 /. Damping)
URSVBlume
PRIOUENCY-ME ice.o ce ill I t I I I i.e tali a t I e. I til l i I i i i I t i 900.0
.~'- x' s ' _
' [' l
, , & ' ;! ,) ,' f A r,--~', ~.-- v~'g- \ - . -
' , ^.,^[-mr-h -;7 -%~yl: 4; p'y&N./ }',].{f:
/ ,^ '.^ f ,
ve x mmx e x weux <>x wnm Rx x@wmx wwwnx x2W %. V W \mV 'h d 6 ,. X 7 ,. . g .
/ A.we ,w,%,,#M,p'Y'i$~~g. .f m v.:e. g . v . .4.)r'. ',.,$. . .
M.W,c,,M. s
. .-y_m.,a.,
u .. = . - - -
. #un%um. 4 -
W. '. . c%w.y' 11 M,~%... >.,@. ,- s..W., .. s
.x ;,<, 180 .. .
.- .s,.
.4%'yW. ... ~, . T5 - -- " -- - --
h , ., y o . ,?/ T *~
~ '
~~,xl. : .
s, ,e x . /.. y 1 .._ ._.:,,w ,h.,'2._ _'__....T; f-'--t c,.: 2 y x / x U .1 -
.i Y<.S/ ,n v,s ... m
- . s,
_.~' o.
,,_ u
- i. y u.. -
MI68MWK .. % - 9n* X M 'M3 s M 4. '. : V.
?x a .
C' N $k A ' X & :.' ~h v Q L Q U *s ls 'dkkkN k N>l&'X' _ % M ';.f' N N s'N Ehk / d lkp' W;y wc :.V . M :. J; + .. 0 s' ;A g
'* e Y.4~N;/ y g,,f'.f.Y.<./y,,2_
n; y y
, 's_ , p
.....v. .-
_ x ,- _ 2 ,-_ Q ,-
. m.
' /..;. .*.,.y .4 ..%- ' A:.
9,.
-. 9 0. _2..__T-.:::,w,
- - --<- .. s ;. ;
;/.,- 'e .
w_-
- e. . ,
w.
,--n(_ r-
,y g ,-
N
. . .,N, ..e.,. e g
4..s_ .. , v N w *4-
,..'. . y ' x i ~,
g - N
- 4. .Q . ,(g_g .
M/,0, .W . W >? 'iTA : R@ EPI, : . ,'*g g g
. . ,, x / ,.j.<
s N-
- X , .4 a
, s
.e s.(
,,.x ,t M. , T..i7.q%
s g
.e
',s< g A. cc:y.,r,.;.s
/y s $ _
/, . / /
,y,.. .f's:
%*g ._3_
p-- m _. e .,]?' '
* % ,* - l -
/ .
= '
S g .: n,g ,..yy%q. l'.4v.*., - ;^ I v: ' MA..N'N g g '6X
.cs < m'gN
' /.v' q w? .- !W I ,- f* 3yy mx 0.1 e
.,x%.-g , e.* n f ,,* ,, j 3'
-,,.j , / ,e
, . g- ,N.. '
~
jf
*-*~
E r- , - 'z - N , '1 ' y' N-.- . v ;% t , ' M Dv a, - ./-' ..+. .,4. '. ,g~h - - - e
, y ,x m. ,e. - ,- ,AM> .1.n. ->w-y m. ,' v," 3-- -~b.,, y x :.f, ..
- s. .
5 m_,e
,.4
=- -
i f, ,- Lf,, f .p.. f ,.; g s.1 At fa% g f.a < ., .: , ,.
- . . .. gp/
! X ,. s : >; , .'
.g ' '{. .e, . '. 4v , Q, - .' ,'/ , - 'a fY{,f.^A -
.~ N
* ~'
3.. x *
, .x
/ / /;, e9 ,; si .' ' . :~.
i:.
.h.,>>, TT't,.'-"
-~
., ~ . , ..,r > ;,2._.
~ 9. .s s,.s-. sn ._f 7 -s. -
. $s. .s,.'h'.Y,b'/akh t .k
, &. , ,% ' .. ,' h" .f 7;kh'.s,E-w,~s,, s -),1'). , . ', x
. =f - .r . x .,3
' gA ,t
/ /, , N i . ,V,W,K. F i i! ' -'
N.
.{ .,>.. . . t 1 .
# y,>*- 'l
- f. * . ,y. ,* . . ~.' f l
./
, , ,. .I; \' s's l fd h, / .b, g),'. ' , ',Ds I jd f)*,
. f ., s.,[,N\ fi $.
o.oi e.es J.: i.e ie.o PERIOD-SEC Figure VI.D.2 USGS Pad Response Spectra for 10/16/79 Earthquake (57. Damping) . LDRS/Blume
lI ll1l l 0
. . . 4 e , , h t) l 0 d I
3 oe tp m
, , da lD e
i7
, F5
-(
, e ea rr Ft
, c
)
Z ee hp H tS ( Y fe I 0 C os I 2 N E n
, , U oo ip Q , E ts R
F ae RR
, dd ea gP a
rS eG vS AU 3 I I 0 1 D. I
. V e
r u g i F . 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 2 1 1 opI 'hugn i
FRE8UENCY-MZ see.o see 1.0 e.1 II i f f f f f f I f f -f f f I f f ffff f f f f f f 7,{ ,'
^Y'xNQM ', ', ' ,,Tl Xitx1, w n:,'v ',& - /, ','A.A ,] , l ^Q N w, ex;,h:1 r _
.< A Nmeu - e i ,s m
' / V V Wx'IM'/ V N Y Nx/PN' / Y Y Y/i'Ifio X / \ XMiWA' X / \ XWK)iVJX /'N XNKM -
W M'ZWXh)S'M X'/W>i >MN'X X'/XM)'h> k % MSWX%MEM*V>W
~
% WA % V P f % '>
\$$$$N'$$$>'d$W>t%) ,,/'
M' W N W OI .t 2>.'M , . Dj;'r $2 f
'} ! - , ;
I gg ,o .. /I - M. ' m' 180*x_s: n' wj!-: 1
, 'x , ~ 9m.m_ 0v'r' y n ,r ,L >ww' y
a
// Ai v N TMsK. N /Y ',
s , f. f. s<,-
~
- /
f w ,g v T ', p<g x.s
/ 1' / \ lV M' PWK / \ . X/.~
- xdJ,"X / ! X/h'X Yh'l W MIMMMDX M X')N{.\%' iM'MDOM t' E'$%NWXWA'Y%df/XAW'%8%VNUVA'V\ s O MY/)MNM'7MWii[YI/)'ds #'
E ,' J'$ ,- '% N 5 W ' ,1. . XY,';/O R-9:. J i. /E'. KOF, . 90* A X '. A ~s 3+a,fvv a, / A A : N 'u Y ( A ' / ,x N r X v M. ' / Ai/.a' -<
# / / V N 'f/#1 'f / n'{ s N s V,NNWNV /T' N Y .'.'x g r .
E Y / \ t X'."/gM'V ? \ , i N. X W ( 'i '. O A / 'N l '// .*/ A '4,N f
. N.'X M'/M:DNQX ! X'#./K'XN'f',% ~ XX 'K 1 Y *% } %M)/A%WK'M/M'>.[/Mkb&'W%X4' M
E 2$$$i N @ (MN4M/jMNM@D4M P O.1 E , I d' [N NY NEh$$ '1 /l x N's' N N '),ie N / . YC s'V$Nh a, / AiA Wi/ AM / A i A N ! N4 <M / Ai AIN NA ='
- /y x y/, yx'9,% < / N- % yN7 W h' / N N vg N' \ XAV gg%'*>X /f\
- X/ ),,S( TN>lX /l\ !X',Y (x % d!
N_ X / 8 .4 X 'i M R X l XN/4_'A^ LOX ! X /X'TXM ,%
i \ '
/ ' , x \ */'!
. N
- s. ' ink$KNINM!6d'7XM'>,h 3' DIM /'
'y fr '
, g'/g yX
\ 'h 1 a .
/ 4 /, Y V h c '} s,'$h(i -' > N 's kn i,h e.e1 e.1 1.8 10.0 e 90* COMPONENT a 180* COMPONENT Figure VI.D.4 Free-field Response Spectra for 10/16/79 Earthquake from Ertec Pad to Free-field Transfer Function (57. Damping)
URS/Blume
H/x^-,T , j 'Nuwu- y f,;,',', ' ' , ,],i^1um/x.A X ' x fn, '/, ',' ,1 X Q x';,h, y N u w .r m e / v \ verxxEv/ 7 x'rs'r/PN / y x v vsfim M /n\ XG effi,f X / \ lX//// DA X /8\ X/*/K CA SX WMXM9X MW/X>G'K\'X X6'X/X%h) e x3 %&WXIMWS%f//NxlWM%MWX[W % NM M)@'M Fe29<X': MMOG <- E , ,,, ' iA '?-
,^/ lx X'M M M 'd ^ ' AI X M N- $'/,' 'X Js X ' dL'-l M y /,^Q,^- \ M Q $ / ,^Q ^ , @g (M /
, ,',' ^s"'.Mff $
g S' / \ X4:v'#x's e X /N . M'V6's h a
/" '
X w 'x Y wfs W X6'X'X)hb'X X//W T M \ NX X'W/>'W \*s C' %NWXNY,'W6s' %W'WW/N'.'VAh E '
, '2 W )$W W $8li${' W X$W$%l'A'}1% s' *'
y f[/ ,,4 % . ' [ f' % [ "ggQ' i -
= ,# ('/': /sO.A 'dA
'B? if$ MW
' XMSW d'(MK#h[J{i
? X ' h h ,ji,.' X / s ,1 ' _ 2% _',
5 -
' r=
n.
/A
/V A iN u m ' n > -
N ' V *m'I X n i \\ N N u T 'u / ^ t e - .' t V N '( ( s' h ' / T' N W YqC.
/'. */ C4#h - !N s'/ B / A Y '.'N E X / \ IXW'K A fM e , s'X Md:#D^ Nd X' 7./TXNMN '
X'X4( 3 'Q *g g O '\s4 M ', & N > b b ':' '- 4 '>'fg h ){ e M O l M / X E \73iN'6M'MYDOMMD)[& N' - 0.1 ~ ^ 5 , ~/( .i~ l
~ ,$:rN' '. ', f '~<,'A N/ xbNW,'lA.'
1 s'._ N ' Qx'N/&9 l $k,'?/ / lAiAixNN~<a-a, / *s iA N A Y/ L' / A .
~
q', N - /y % y,VWpN / y yv N
/y x
/ \
y/i ".< M/VffWX / 'N 'Xd W WN"lX /'\ fX'"7' gN N (t, $ 8
$Y M'/7.44thMX X'/W4)^ MAX X'/X ' $' '%
%'Wi2WdMl6W'//>hMEN5's ',$MQ),3 .
/
,,,,'; ,R} W{ XXW'W$Nj'Q'NW'.,k y f'
- F '?h a . '
),l ' fft .'
'Y.00R
. ' }. ' ,f' 0.01 I'N'?h,' S. '> k $
, . $/ $'4'%\ lh 1.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 e 90' COMPONENT PERIOD-SEC a 180' COMPONENT Figure VI.E.1 Derived Auxiliary Building Foundation Response Spectra (57. Damping) for 10/16/79 Earthquake using Two-Stage Approach.
URS/Blume
W h y'GRM, ', ' , ' ' ,T ;-; x1x ;,[% ',4_,l ,3 - l x' x ;,Rx,7
/ ^i^ N mm.- t,^.s u w ,v / ^.A N w. os.-
/ Nc' \ Y?VX'K VX' / V N 'W V K f 'i' N ' / N \ Y'1 'ff D X / \ X %eWA X / \ X'X/xYWX /4N XP/XCA W WMXYh>M XWM)Gh'X X677DS@ e
%%!'2WXIMMM0}%MWik%l/AW>O'% %
MM)OiME) ' ' G,' E 'M70I p s' j \t f sl yJ ~ > f '} ' 10.0 !' ' ' b g _- ^/ lx X Y x 4' - 2 'U 'd ' .); A. n IJ NZO7, '/ li X'd 'tP.J3 y y/^iAv N uw 4 / / w. / .5 / /. 1A yw-
\ v 'N T , , - y N y, ' - x ,, , ' - /v s xsrNW: 6 e
N / \ YA Y V T ',*} X / \ lXO b'Y_'N /' X/N'X '4Y
~
W X'/X'X)hTNV X6'7/X1^KNX \ M0%{>' Yr &
\s t' %% 42DfMM'WWOMMMM%V'X'?VN'b MNNOh'5>M>DD 'MN'XM #'
E I / ,4 \ '\ f' Y ,Is 'eONN$M ^I 2x X' h vNU'2,'l'/ / s & \ 9NW / N' V V4 'tXW E X / \ X i ' / Y T V b.\ .W' ' X ' X / ( D .C' A e'i \ Y // / 4 '4.N / , ' \'X X'A/A'iG4g % d':*Y./bNd% ' X''>VW'$ ,% 5 O M f / A M M V W M ' M M (' O N E 'I' % d Q ! '$jdi8'OM 's M l h T x D M M M N f N y 4 P ,j' 8f ff ' f [ /.w' A,,g /~ ' ' , 'Q ' !5 ,,, A N A - h [' s bb. *
'/ < x [ .lxYf,'x', ',I, < _ )x 'd N' NIkr M <^/ [ _ Y x' d,NV
- a. / >s A N i sA Y/ .N : / A J A . x 14 M /1 .' / ^, A is N_^ .
/ A '
/Y \ V/r' Air *A' / N' \ VNYWN / N '1 V 'w h.N**'
Y \ WVYXWX /!\ 'Xi'/NfWM /I\ !X/hK[ *f N_ X/y/X'shNNX
/ j X'4V4)^XhX ! X'/WX K k' %
'M'A NMMR\M4//>VMMtRNWM'8 \ DOS.':
- s. ' elynd/ XMiO#$M2'X h@MM'dM
[ j,/ ') I g > (
/ r l :' #
.f
/ g.s(:,
<\ '
/ ,
v/ ,g - F 4 /, e
? \\ />) '
e.et e.1 1.0 10.0 e 90* COMPONENT PERIOD-SEC 4 180* COMPONENT Figure VI.E.2 Derived Foundation Response Spectra (57. Diesel Damping)Generator for 10/16 Sump /79 Earthquake using Two-Stage Approach. URS/Blume l l
M ls X'{ sy S s l' < fD _ [ xI ,' h[N///f' dx X ~x'x ifNE
/ AtA N sAY/ A. ' < /,i A sA 'i< Axi / A4 A N NA'/X A
/ Y Y VVx'X PY / / N VNfEPM /Y Y V VIXi?
Y / l\ M V fi'A X / \ MWMWWX fin X(*/'X V M SX l X'/X#X'5MNNX M'#/K>GWX' X'D7Xl'M e k'%N#X WdMMW/4W>ONM% LAW >W% % WW DKN 3,. & &'Y U,l' S W E,D
- , o ,, , .
M o, N' y / ' 3\ g e i s' N sN N i 0 l N 'I'
' ' ' A '* N M# \
I l l _ l'lQ,YY-) ',( <( ,N _ ,~l' ' $Yh"r ', 's' .L ,Y~l-$W', f, 10.0.f xia N m/ , , . 4
/ . ; /.
y msh/ / /.t %s ,; g a u.c . v 4 v,
, f y y v ., ,t , / 1' / '\ X4NYn9X /I\ .V v'N8 _'h /*' W YX Y k' M M'NdX)MW ! X/NAD.V.NX\ N X'WJI \
k!/.h s d ' 'h \ / / ,A ~$ E 's 'd:N'[M N k' M E'S M @d N' M N #' nw. p d,. a w w w s ' a a 4 / Y.//y N _ h f/O) _ . h>
- g. N
$ l &($0',' $ bb$ 0D.$ $Nls'l lx h'\_ U?he _'.
- I
. _ w['b%.\nl s
sY. y
,'f
[/.*)
'l-:l w. <
w'Acw(n A , / . a. m
/ A
'/Y An
' N ..> x.w / n! ? m VN
' i/ >, '(4 , h \ ri
~
s / 3' N V/. 'x 6 . l '//.* s' / s' E X / \ iX'e/i (N 4 \\ ' X '.Vii , ' 'N f
. NX MOs#CO.NQK X 'J'./ 4) T'X'Y% X M Y N'. #g
- - MWiMA4 >WmM>V;oNr:6 W .'4 % m K '
! DM@d'ZKM M M '/ >i.K @ !@A ' D '[ N -
h 5 e. 0 ., hhwhkMbkhdb
. l .1. l .E :/?,N ". :
</N' es iA 1
N 1 A 'g / A.' Vi, 'A ( , N ' / W
s. l x ~/l ,,' lNWr'Y - l _i _ N'l s
/ AIA xBAO
'N K .e c . / A i A I N N A =~
Y.V/ f i' h / N N Y hf INS ' N / \ . W'YiihMX /l\ ' X4 "/if 5'M /I\ ! X' " ' < T -
$ M'd'dX $MN'X l X'#/4)'Nh'M ! X'/XXX 'SN' 8,%
%%f2N/M2kte WhMCANvS'N's ffB/XK'i '
'Nkb%$W' .'8.'sidd W#'d?. 'i'DM
/'
l 1 /
.. 1.0 10.0 9.01 0.1 e 90* COMP 0NENT PERIOD-SEC a 180* COMPONENT Figure VI.E.3 Derived Service Water Pumphouse Foundation Response Spectra (5*/. Damping) for 10/16/79 Earthquake using Two-Stage Approach.
URS/Blume
l l
......._...0* t t
4
, I
, f
, f
, f
, f
, f e
, f l
y i f 0 3 h t t o d
, f an
, f Po) id Ste f
Gap
, f Sdm Una uD
, f
) eo
, f Z
N hF% ( t 5
, f g(
Y fn 0 C oia I. N dr 2 E olt
, I U iic Q
E tue I R aB p F R S
, f y
dre
, f eas gi n
, f alo ri p
, f exs vue AAR
, i
, f
, f 4
l 0 1 E. f I
, I
. V e
, t r
, t u
g i I F
, t
, t
, I
, . t 0 2 5 7 0 3 2 1 0
.CI ' Igg
- l l)! 1i
. . - . ~ . . - . . . 0
. . . . 4
, - - - - f
, I
, f
, f
, f
, f
, f
, I
, i e
0 h 3 t
, t o
, t tn o
, i di at
, t Pa) dd
, I Sne Gup
, f Som UFa
, f
)
ep D Z g f H hm% ( tu5 i f Y S( C f 0 N ora 2 E or
, f U ott Q iac , E tre I
R aep F
, I RnS e , I dGe e s , I gl n aeo rsp 9
ees
, 9 vie ADR , 9 , t 5
0 1
, t E.
I
, i V , t e r , i u g , t i F , i , t , I , t 0 5 G 0 5 6 4 3 1 oyI iWS,*
l 1l(
lll! \1
. . - - . - - . . - . . 0
. . . . 4
, - - - - i f
f f f I t t t 0 e 3 h t t n I oo ti f t da f ad Pn) I ud Soe t GFp S m t
) Uea Z sD
, I H eu
( ho7 f Y th5 C p( 0 N fm 2 E U oua f Pr Q o t E
, I R irc F tee
, f atp ras f
d W e f ees gcn
, I aio rvp f ers vee I ASR
, I 0 6 1
I E.
, t I
V t e
, t r u
g I i
, I F
, I
, I
, I 0 2 5 7 0 5 1 7 3 1 1 opI *5gta l
[
// / ,T j'&
A ^ smea sh',y , , ,T X 4,' M',i, ','A.Al ',ixnJxN ' &,
- i e, o surm -
'e v \ Y >v>:x PN' / / \ 'vN'Kx+N' / v v vn'fi r?
X / \ W/2XiWX / \ XWKfWX /'N X("/X'O A SM X'/Wi&K%'X X'4'/W>O,Ws'X W/WxiW %.
&%//2WdMM%l// MXiM%%$98(NYAbk> %
WlWbO $$$'l$ $ S W NiE '
.~~
h to'e
. ^l l' x X'lx'URWN 'A E. X'v' N>YY,', 'l _,Y, I x uw X'ly'L'-MO',
e xia 4 - f. ; e. .. - . iA
'/ v ', yW ^+ / v < v -
/ v s .s _ y;,;w, ,s 4r e
/ N/ \ XiV'f.'s_' W X / \ l X/ IV8 ?N / '
XA//XN X@X>V\T X//WX3.^XNX X'WJXW 2M N C' h%//2WXMM'%d&MAOMW/Z6WY$ *s l* MNDO 7 M N - @', M Y 8 64!'/ / d s #'
= ,. , I M' $ b 'i $ 0,1x ',X' ?N l~X' / .Y.
'AsbkNMMS$IiM
.htNNe _l/ '
_'7; .. , i , \ s k t ',
/ ^ A ,% % A X .7 2 J X > !? \ NA ' * ~ .' h. .' / ?. f?e'_ .A W n a r' / V N 'V>r'I M s'L N s V5'I6% / N' N V/. YXW E N' / \ X' */I:4.' 6 4 .\ \ A N X'!*/ ~W'x? _ A /iN ! W//gi'_.' f NX X'/W:O3 V' y M'e~'4'p(D)@W6X/X
'\.A' W A'*W'% '
AX d'O N ,% g (^WM/X/')< >!v)N 9 >C' 2 MN'MN' Y
'M [N M 'IM
^
' [%
M M M IM7 '
/
N* c E
.., o w m3 t < x4 .usha
,M'X' . ' NNf I,d ',[ ' 1_ / x X ' [ ' D K ,'P ,- X ,' '
; x' N { W _h
/
a
- e. / *1 i/ N m'ix AA / A A .x BXaI/ / A- +suY' '
*/Y '
Yrs 's,c y w / y \ Y5'v~GN / s N Y , N \ .'f
/ 9'gf W X / \ ' X(*/< wW X e # \ ? X' *g .<g, dr,%
'\ . _X'4'/MfhX X X 4 '/ d ) ^ R & ! X/MI'W N'h49%QM\%M/4'MMEN'.$N - @fX'lM
~. '$*W% $NW$N'N W.,WbOR '
/
/ y 1
il\ l f' f . i i
'l'-
' t, .
/[/r 2 , NN / 1 0.01 e.1 1.0 10 0 e 90' COMPONENT ,
a 180* COMPONENT Figure VI.E.7 Derived Auxiliary Building Foundation Response Spectra (57. Damping) for 10/16/79 Earthquake using Two-Stage Approach with Ertec Pad / Free-Field Transfer Function. Q,fngq/Blymg _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ l
f 7( ,Tr f rhQQ,^).' '_' , ,[ l x' ,' GM ',A, ',' ,,T ,M N' _ ,,%, y
/ A' A N NAY/ A. ' < ^iA" vvw As / A4 A N BA v .r ~A'
n' Ti '1&i'iXPh( / Y %. '
// V 3. V/YXXEW / V/s 'ff i Y /- \ WMY1,'O X / N_ iWX/K)iWX /8\ X/?/KV#
W X//WMW X'N/A)CYNX W/WMAb .e M62 WXRSK%f//M/AWW%ffA/d>'% % W W/D@M 6 D S d 'f M W)DOA .~~ E h ,. y Sb N [, ^ ( N x X NNbNd$ ^<( Ns N'd NNE')', 'n' e
/AiA N sXig * / /, ; A
'#'N D V $.
N ds X'x5'D$1',
/ /, 1A w
D Jgdgg
<f y w Yem . ., < f y -( f y , 4 v.,.c
/, N/ \ X4MV)_' V'? X / \ . X/V W .'& /*' XM/X YY XWJDN W W/#W)'h>W WN/>D^XNX \ t' Mf/,@$4%fRW///%MM%%V/Z/,f M'V!.( s l $:W$W M '/ M W$$$'YEO$ s'
- s. 'i i X!' Ml, Sf/#@w ' M.
'/X /s X m 'x
'8YN',I A 'I' A X' N1f[N ,1,'l'e' /s /1 ' QIN ',
h e, / A A i N '-A W A 5 / \\^/ i V N N/sf =V A. : / A 1 A e v ' A 's rr a / / V V 'VriXX Ns' Av % \ ' s y N 'M ( 2h / Y X W 'if, . . E Y / \ X V / Y I W .\ TC) \\ X':"/i'it/'X /l\ X///AYi.N f , NX X'/ MMC hd% i Y }'/DM9X ' X'WD Y $ ^?Sb M WX M >Iv D 4 M NXhD W $'X M MN " I DM'NN'MdA JDMN'N'M - E 0.1
'X_,'
, x X' .'x'U-[h' ', [ '1' f' x X 'N ' N I N .:
',# / X f . ,Yx' O/Nkky a, ,- ~ A s wm: / A- ^ . x u , A , a n w.x .
/ V ' <
V/ix f . & / V N Y/V4XPW / N N Y , N N / \ '/VIKWX
/ / '\ 'XA*W A W X /\ ! X' "_N ' '
X '/ M X)>f O '$,', 8,%
$ W#X41M X X'/MROMsM NM'XNMMMW'bhMMt@b / ' $d'4'lOs' ,
h/$W%RN'f$%'[AK&'~ k'N'005
/'
091 SAI
'IM[N1Mk1 0.1 2
1.0 sM 10.0 e 90* COMPONENT PERlOD=SEC a 180* COMPONENT Figure VI.E.8 Derived Diesel Generator Sump Foundation Response Spectra (57. Damping) for 10/16/79 Earthquake using Two-Stage Approach with Ertec Pad Free-Field Transfer Function . OTA9/Blume
** ;, ,,y; g ,n y',; n m ';",'
iu - ,,i^
,b.;c,x,3:;,74),',',1 u w A,i - ae# y x u ms.-
, a
/ V \ Y//X A x w~XPM / /\( \ YVX X////TNA X'd*h/X / Y/6\ \ V /V X(YK fX '(1.X,s'2 M / \ Y/A'YT'J1 X %.
SNX X'ZWi'hK'hX X'/>'AXhPNX X4%'XDP % x Sh$2 WX%YN%E8%'MWM%dVW>fXi MMDCfMM.{@MZ, ,, si gu D$ g,),
*.s*
' ' -' , !y, p p v y, 's ,
X. . u ', . m ~s -, -
. ^ .X A XNK't,N 4'A- 'X A X' wu ' i'O'E'.v -'X,.,?i iA X'JJ'L';E',
x yM,; .,y-
$, Aia x vvu e. i ^
ye y f v w s 4 7 / y y ye,'a
//,YIT59X
. s - /
/ 'A x y, '[NYg,N .'N I I*', /' ' I///XYd '
k / \ XWJ>O 'hP % [ N X'AVX Fb>NX > M'Y A ')^ M X s i 2%#2 Wx 2KMs%/#%MM%%W2WxI%s W W/%E Wi'W$N'NNS N '. i y ~S' 97 Rs'/' gS g & * b h , ,' M ' {i n ' y'. Q i f,p . .' f , IO> '3 $ 4k$d h^ s E 8 '# k'/ k'hI s, x vus. x.,- n,s. . K m m, z'X A # N'OTM' s
^'nNAY/Af t - & m s tYvs m ,vs / w i A .N svm M <mT<M / y / AI ^ x 2 /A> e vv.n<
u Y 4 b-
- / s x(vm /ix X . /4m, ,
3 x/ x izwxma ;x ,g MX XMO'NQ XW./X >T.<>xA ' X%'C N
&\sgf' fA />$>bp'4 M +N/h';. ^9[kh(QW%%/X % P l
2= D7d N'[M N M<n. [62'.'M'! M M wE D;,j vMi e yr/
,e y,4 4p , < p/ ' ,
i ,I A I ' vs . o , ,
'/ ' d/ 1 sh f '#sy':.4:,7.k,c ^ ,h X : w w ' w X n 'c ,N'., w ;r N _,x8K aI .-- '
S ,,,
~, X - u- Ai n ex u .v
- a. s ,#
N s mu^ VW .(PS' / N' 4.sw N YY= ~(N / N N YS v%
. 8
'/Y
/\ . '/fVKXWX /J\ 'XM^Tf%DX
/\ ! X'A' U N X'/MXh'5_'
$ X'/XM'@sXNX l X/MD^N6M
^$%sVl9NPA ,%'dML6/b'v%RMN% ' /M'N/Nk
/
~ /$*%'
l,K
- 'NW'S$N'}X 1 l [' 2
'Y g
N$'dNl$0$ I
%/k hNN f'
// 1
/
v k ' ? % 10.0 Ch1 1.0 0.1 0.01 e 90* COMP 0llElli PERIOD = SEC a 180' COMPONENT Figure VI.E.9 Derived Service Water Pumphouse Foundation Response Spectra (57. Damping) for 10/16/79 Earthquake using Two-Stage Approach with Ertec Pad / Free-Field Transfer Function. I MS/Blume
soo.o a - .~,r-v ', x . - . , . . r w, . - , s s i_/ m
'1. ,
/ /s /4% .n. % % V; ' ."s' / . / ' p' 3 Ni s. Y, A' f ' f f. , \~_Y
/ A8 A \ \A ^iV 2\. ' '/s e /- ' fxA'iv/Af / _ A*/. AIAa
/ Y \ V/WKXl Y / / N 'YN'X AN*M' / 's ~ \ Ya, YX iQ N 4' W/,'Xi',51 >' /#\ iX/A/Xf W X
~
/'. x/' g N' N I X'MKON9X ! XWZ>d >CNN'X ' XOX M r./ '%
M AX' MMMM'$$W/Ar'MONdN%/A % V 9 W h , %
\
gy? > c;, 8N9']'dWs'JUOM p?:'s<
~d.l?/)'M ,
.,s
- x. , ,.,-?.;,/,d,,N'Q',n.~.'y,p%....:>W,.p!,,'/,19)37/A.6,,%,.A 7
s l 4..;
% es < v v .x o rc g a f . f , .,y., e e r .is s w rc n
y 4'
^:
> _y, A
.' ,~4 77.
x
~ LA 'e's >
v '. ' . _f J. y
/.
' v
, ,T Q.Q < ',.y'N / /._r LLaigWC
'- ^ '
s ->
- v. ~ ' '
<w,, ,s
/1\ 8 / N# I /i\ # *
[ E 'v" .* h / M .'.' X 'd T..'s D'M i XMMM' "IAX
X W/'O.^ NRX i YM ' >^t %
t' ^$d4Pi'griX-]s#N/- '/WiNN'sh//X'/.i C<' X.i g k,'hkYWk'.Y'N.Y;@h,
/,l. , , ,-' , ,7 y r, .
N, .'.s/>V,N ,,,..v
--h k5 y'n/ ,h< M+
1,,-
.$' ,%~
s . s :/.'sno ? .'sM.:%, ,, s:- ,g> ,.'<<.'^,?v>. s'y!g'..s
~ =
P.X'f5
,' - >;<- .s -,og., .x f - x x ,
c .; -4W%s ' _ X : ;gL, . ",^,; _.', /..A . ~ K,A%,' t - / . .. . ..s w i s u x - 7 . x www / ^
= r/ v x 'vv.rm w s- , vs ' < < ,s / v w w.x z uAs- = v e' - i x . n o.nw . -
x e m <' x w'
, XW/ .f.V.Q x y'./.c> T. Y% x >. W p. .s %,
f '/f-Q*4R;Ls OVYl>b,)SN#R>' ' [ '
! Q'$is.'Id>dW'M:,'
J.;/ . ?'/X'.RI'k'3h8!M'/).l b.)
'v/ '/ $' lM,N'f>Msude.lsch ?k h $Y M 'O'L f'h',n.h.{ J'l&
9 ,.,
- e. e ,1
' , ' . L ',': ':: :,'N' '. ' x /h '<~' % R'/ X l - W :-lA %4-e t ,,
y swar - / i fe . x 1 z m. v., x < . x /w wym ;w / s v . .a - veg.e x f,s g- , ,x .xo;,ww ,,s . x, qw 7 ,, f! Yg/ V,.#. . X' m.w . va h'< ;X'&./>' x'RsNN ! X .4/xR.- %
. s yM^'/',Q[,pN::'g/,9>[';fN',.!X::'N M'g/b[)T
^#
,/'
./kM'D()db8.h!N'('NiRiR'N.[s'V'.d{I$
( y f.,9,, XI p ;,.K, x'/,K. 'x y .
.2s%, /,vp)b
' '/.X[M'UUM'$s..jd [y MN),...fs'E i , %y
,: IF,' (,h. s . 'X 0.01 l 9.01 0.1 1.0 10.0 PERIOD-SIC e 90* COMPONENT a 180* COMPONENT Figure VI.F.1 Auxiliary Building Foundation Response Spectra for 10/16/79 Earthquake using Direct Approach (5% Damping) t URS/Blume
pasausucy- uz so 18 i t i i i t l' shiI t I I i i ... e.. - i i eatt t 1 I t e a
/ f.' f h ?,d.QSy ', ', f$s ,' f, y s y$,'/, ~f ' I ,'-I N' if %
< Aa A 's K A YzA- e A i /- ' NA 'ay A/ / Ae
/ 's ? A N by
'/Y Y VM 4 E'V / / '% '1/N'x /M*M /Y \ Ye4'i(>?
N /1\ M4//AY'.O M /\ XWXATNX /'\ X /'/X C #, X'Mb%%M N.'X XW/WJCYMX*'MW>O'h> e k h/ Yk YYk.Y MW/W$$NT$$SW$V$$ y,
<< p gg .,
i g i .
,1 ^
/
'. .f w s s ( j ,
, j y ,p, ,
v 3 Y
. ,e ) + 'c' v v,' , 'wp%s rg/s E.
,,_g '.
n, y x M,w.',i,d,,.-Qv , . >r_~@,
.. i; , i, j,. . %%.. 'i p . l ')
, ' ._ w . ti . ,
- e. a en- . <rne a s ov - , e e i srs xv p .n. _ , _ , r s v w .y s - t. . _/. - v, . c's . _ r. _ .. ,n -r w. y ,
.f J
y .f, ^l, ^lY f& f
,' l' , '*7 ,~ :' ' ,&ff.ff g
I / \ . XCV M',8'? h /i\ . ' '7E't.8 ? h / ' X/."-(X O
- RK XMDF'X i X':%ONttX : X 3%D^1 C' M EdMObY~'WOM'M$$%V/N'A '^N4 %;'s l l' .. ' " 4Q(i&M'QW{'N'$%M'/M% .c' .
. i .
,,, P , k .* , k i I
*h- h' .'
$ ,' . ' a, Q
, *'s k *
- s f, *,.
- f' 's
. .f
f,-N ~, ' ?. '. _>) ' r' N -d% _' i f,._ ,' ,-Q 'r7[bg*5
? '. y,{' . l .'s y .r r f
m
,. : y A ~ .
y * .c n..: i /, s/e~ ' A x.c.
/ y N Yv .r/ ch X ', s v v4 (, h- / y N w.'r(,. ,
E X / N r X' .'/giV b\ \, /'.9'O.Q A / ?'N l'/ B / g i t.'s p
, s. '
X>/ O^V.' 'LQ X '.:Y/WNW% ' X'iX {'/Q
} [h'N/H'XA>NG *.%'n'4/AXQ>3#.%4'%s'CQ f
, ,- s - . .
h* n3 / i % - m" e,
, f; .I X .) s' [.k _'. ! ' X lf s ', '[ s. ' .'N M k /[,"-N ,' M hh -
N
/ >,/ A 'c/ N ' 'I i A '
s F A g,g/ N .- /m IsNA.'^< ~
,a Veit (.-A / 3 % V N'4 ( ," / 's N V * 't' .'*3 y ~
'// "i" T O .Y*
/\ / 8 'N X i' / sf 4's 1 / . \ 'f Q ',"
! X'/X4:CMN'AX l X'/X/C^3 NK ! X//:.' X b, , 9,%
. j'WVXN/N>[bN':~Y
-Q
^
. WI 'd'A d'$~sh * @V4'&;f .
' ,kM'D'UD-('MN'(7X'M'. #>M'004
/'
, s / '
e.et e.1 ..e 90.0 PE R IO D = SEC e 90* COMPONENT a 180* CORPONENT l Figure VI.F.2 Diesel Generator Sump Foundation Response Spectra for 10/16/79 Earthquake using Direct Approach (5% Damping) QRS/Blume
r' -
- - - ~ - ' -
'- - - ' ' - -- = ~ - --
raEOUENCY-MZ
.. ... c.,
it t t i i I t l' tIIi i i t t I IeIt I I I t I t
/ ,c ,n n va.y, ,s x +xx.y, , ' , w.. r -
,2 .
/w x w v>:x ,w -
sum- e . , e. . s wm,
< x wx xnv - v v v>am
.. . , _ x utrbr M /IN - X 4/ / C it's O M / \ i X/A/gg NX /*N X / ' / s( V 9 ,
wIxwxw +x xaz><xxvx > x amu 'S,
<hW2%KXM'W#MMXWEMcM44XS S 1 MM'2X,1N>'[$N78/llM N MC4 *.s-j'K'q l f ,gg ,/y.' q a ypt ._l ; p ; ,
v
.%, , , - 'u , v , M#.s. rvi -;o,,.
I A x,. > no., A -, i c M- >A+ ,y mh i i u. z r r A,
'N '
_s xe.N a,i %' ,r'. A /-
.j'.T4%'
_ s'
- s ,y
', p ' . "\
. , e e i
/,/.*s'1 t s r 1 v,m ' .-/
s s
"\'
s ,
',x -
f ~'. x w hse./.;
,r. & / x n . m .. e x e.- ,vo x W; y',u ?
.r RX X9Wx3W'X i X:'Y,^O.^KtX i tf M ff.'6'
' . X Xs]6AV/7A/h'X4x4SM44'..i'XX.s g
8 s f '.f' /$(is'MjM'/W/s\MiM'/.Mjs.'. *
..s- .
1 i (+ '> . Y ' y , % n N V i' & V Q,'
.; q' 1i, yh.I'e
= e,.X,:&s+/y>tN.s4.M , . . 1.d:
. . s.' yn
.3 ' . s,+i s .%ys ,, %, ,;.':' /,A.s .
, . - .s
'. 2 v m 4',,,q,,; &.,X fw,&.e u. '; ;y< .' ~, .~h, .>.>
'" ^
, / .,,C
) . f.
. . s .m.: , ,, 1 -
-
- m~ .x A.....
- - v s w.rm x ', , v s u ..x - v -s E 'A . / \ tX \. . -i'?/iW J /!N t '// */g_4' . , f
. xx x v'//ifi/!No N c3vr:>'.e M'T'Aw ' x ' >ws' ' s
) O . V F K ' M > N r 5 # M 7 ,';/ X X th 3 #. M ' O s X >z .
2 J.'Mi@.IZ'.NM 9.sk% M7tMi@N'l'XIh ?
?phOQ4
~ ff[f 1 ,.,
M9C'TkW,V,'i.KfMW )/'M X4#s'd '+'j s ; .il'f'6'$$$K g,. M M'O 'h[J {$/
.,,:s .:,x .;x:, N '.' >. ,K .' v + 1w.o< / -x a ;
=
s t z w , _ -i ,.'<.sv v ,. w .. s 4 x v.a. ,/6 . s nwem s .y xw. I v , s ww w .y x o'.w NRsN: ,,sx
.x,<a#x,.s.x
- y. w B m ! xMxTu,M e's -
i j ~y%WMN4Dbb&'.MMiNm.!% GPM'25
. ' .-(M'!D'DDx'MiM'(.D M". A>>'n'R ,/'
i 0.01 M $ N l M I's @ k I % $ 3!3f d. O 0.01 c.1 t.e 10.0 PERIOD-SEC e 90' COMPONENT 4 180* COMPONENT Figure VI.F.2 Diesel Generator Sump Foundation Response Spectra for 10/16/79 Earthquake using Direct Approach (57. Damping) LIRS/Blume}}