ML20118D314
| ML20118D314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bodega Bay |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1963 |
| From: | Neumann F WASHINGTON, UNIV. OF, SEATTLE, WA |
| To: | Bryan R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210120102 | |
| Download: ML20118D314 (24) | |
Text
.
..~..---__n.
\\
d
~
FRANK NCUMANN
$8 l'i D C *di "
C esismotoaret, Oso6corOseastusut u=wsnesty or waewmata=
stATTL.C s, wasHINOtDN f
i Way 24, 1963.
I Dr. Robert H. Bryan, j
Division of Licensing and Regulation, Atomic Energy Cec =tission,
{
Washington 25, D.C.
Dear Dr. Bryans There are furnished herewith -
l (1) Answers to questions raised in Mr. Price's letter of May 3, 1963.
(2) A reprint _of my ASCE paper "Seissio Forces on Enginesr-ing Structures" with comments by ASCE reviewers and a oc of my unpublished closure discussion answering questiens raised by reviewers and discussers.
It is felt that iten (1) will help to consolidate the opinions expressed by me at various times, and places. The more I study the Bodega Head problem and the Californinn s! approach to it the more I f
' feel that they are reverting to their fatalistic attitude of the early Twenties -- if earthquakes destroy our structures we will re-l build them. The engineering-seismology program of the Coast and Geo-I detic Survey was desigad to bring about a more realistic attitude toward the earthquake, ;blem but the PG1E Hazards Report has just about convinced me that it has not.
Instood of preparing =for the worst, as revealed by Coast and Goodetto Survey data, they are employing _every possible technical device to underestimate probable earthquake forces.
I hope I-have made my technical points sufficiently clear so___that you
'l be able to make a correct and unbiased evaluation of the proposals t
in the Hazards Report.
The item (2) enclosure will reveal in a little more detail that ther3 are two schools of thought regarding earthquake engineering prob-lems. As you will see in the enclosure an effort was made (undoubtedly by'my California colleagues) to forestall publication of the paper but it failed.
It is clear that Californians want only-their own viewe on earthquake safety to be publicised and you may expect that ultimately my views and technical competence will be questioned. Californians bank heavily on the reputations of their institutions and they' expect the world to accept the conclusions of.their experts without further queat-I ioning. Over the years I have found many reasons for not doing this; ene point frequently at issue is that competenti engineers are not always competent seismologists.
If my bibliograph'ical material is not mailed to you this week end you may expect it shortly after. #
9210120102 920520 Sincerely yours, PDR ORG NRCHIST
?!N""! PQQ
_ Y%.Q \\W:
PDR h&d Li','d4J
,c, _
3771 Enols.
^ f.ML
_a
.e.
.9 e
. p ',.e e-6 m****~~
+c,...*.
...,s....,
- %a. 4 e......,
.d.c. %.
e. m,.1.1 kc *.
r.; I'.
,..e
.n e
1 M..--
..J.,,.
.ee
'. u. 4 we t..s 4,;***
r*,s v.* l.
- .,m. L~'.
e P
- s. '.'.s..,
- e. ', C e t,'.
e, s.
e C's..*...1.,....
- ,irL' C. ~.
..?,...., 6 -.. r 1.,,.a-Ye
- f
")
.,.. w v
.~
s
. en f y,.,.y....4.,...a.,...
...f..,-..>+...
[
g,
,,. w.. s.a.
7.,,. w, e, v.-
.)g.w
- r..
.,i - 9..
g
...s.
ra.
4..,... *
.%s s". 4 * '
.)
= g r% w.
...... -r; 4. *
- 4.. 4.... d i
e.-
e.
,.s.,...
- ,w u.. e,.
-6 s
-4.
e
.*3
}e 9.
- 1. O. r
- 3 7 * '* f t, +.,. !.1 1 Jg
- b.s. -.s.3.,,'.m.
-.' 4. y1,
...f*
1
'a.s gf*...
._-.. d..,(.;.
..g J.........
A.. s s..
... m.
1,Q e
,r
.4....
- s. - v..,,, a
.,v.
s.
- ~,r.S
..C.t.-...
s...
+4 a.
- ~
y
.i w.
s..
".3.,
.....s r.1 us..,.
s,.
L,
.,r. 7
,._..l..,...
1,.4.,1.L e ea y
- y.. =,.. y
.y, es + s J
ow w 4
se
~ =
.s., a
/
[a d
+...
- r.. o
- -.,. n. s 3.,..
,. C 4 4, 1,,a
...*/...,
p.,. f..,.,..,
.r,,.-
r.
.t..,..f,.
,S a
~. YJ, Y. a
.....a.......
w
...s
.p l * ' ' '
- *h f
C *: ' '
- s e
aa D
I.
s%. $ a..
-4
<.4 s.
.e
+
e-
,..p ta 1
-t...,.
p
.. C.,-
\\.
.. -... ~..,,..........,.s.3.=_,%..,...
4
.,1 L.,
a w
,.. *.. =., *
..s4.
4 6
..a
,,e
? <)* F 7 "
D
..1
~
. t.,.
(*
.. ', * * *.I O,t."")*
- 's~b. 7 *.
U..+. - -
.'..z.
r t,,
a
- 3
,...'O d
.I..,..... c.,.
=~* * ' ' ' *
' ~
,4..
1.
u.-
a i.,.....4 4
u..
.n.+,.~.
a..
..r-
..+.3.u.,...,7.
., ). p.,.,. a
.e gs.
-.}..j i. * {..
..t,
.w t*.
- 3. *% "M.
m. w...
v
.'a,i
.r.....
..<.e w,..-
4 e n:.. e.,' # c -, D.l,
wen
- .^,b.1
- p. s1,4 5
,,4 e
+g=6 e
..... *4.
r-..
t.....
A;.
f.t.S.,.
v.*y, J.
J.
s t
- - 1
.L..,
,e 1 ' '.,
t
-e
- d..4w. -./. y e....
., *... (..,
u.,
- c. 0.*; *
..n.... 1..
..... H J... j..
s4.,
.t..
u 7,..p.g...
..... c...,.
. - -.. * *.,1..*. v(
- m..*.. n...
- ,. C..
- c..
...'..-o.
......t.,,n..,*.e
- ,...l
.m......... - +
y.
u s
) A
...., g
- d..e s-5
<g e
e A;
,,s-,...;
.,., e
'.t.
.s..,..,...,. +..
.w
=*
- p.... 1
.t.s t".**.=*.*..,
6.
?..+.. '. r..*-i.*i's'.,*.*
N..
T..*.~ r 'ww.-
- * +
v%,
u
.. w
.a
[
/
e D
o p ".1. e.
( %.vC Lg.
l
. S, l
.,, p a
,,u,
- e..,. <...* s.."t,.s
,,*.,s.,
i m..
S..r Y
w. u. w.. e
....,.4.=w, tows../[,D4.1j e (s.v 4..
, -,2 -....
J.
a,.
...w~
. 9 -,
o..,.-.a.,
a e.
M,.-....0.*
- 7.
4C s.W.... * *..
O.s r.
/.
g.
s 3.*
4 e
w i= v s..
ee
.ty es, gw a
.. w e..,,
- 4,.
- 3...,4.,*. 14. so, t.
04 L..,,s. 4.
%.. in y 4> t _ ^
s
- - S..
m...,.+,
T.-
1 ~......t.... ;,,.
.e.,..,,..,m... a. a J t.
3 y.m
.o.. e. a. - 1 c.
.....a.
o.
m..
..n. w
...i.
. ~..
1 t
C.,,
- e ?
.! 9 t,n =..1.1'/ e
,'...j TV '
- 3.
'a., =, a f.
.u..,.1.. eA.e...-... -...
e
.. a..
4
).. A O'.
. ee J (,, *
- a. :.
.r..
.1..t..
.t....,..
..3,, c.
.t. =. s,. l.v.
e ad,.s.
,..,e t.
1
- ,..,s...., n, m....,,,
2.
-.,,.,.,..j4 4w
- v. o.
w s
8....'e 4,
6 k.
u
't.,*.A g.:.
4 e.....
J b g...i....'.o..'.3
,p.
.s*.
,, p..,=..g.s 3, 4 b, w,,
s....
8 n
e
,. w h,...g e e
...*g
.=g.o 6.,
g.
g.=g
....9*
- L..-
4.
y f,. v.u... N. e i g,
.A e
- a
.,. 1
...y.p...
...s. 5-s.. : w
.s 4
% p J *)
. a"
,..,...,, c,. (.....g og '.
. r
..a..,..,...
o,. 7
.o s. v ;,,
t
- s.,
'f 1
\\3 6
1@
c$
1 5
. 1,
o, g
p
- 4. dev,4
- u.,
....y i
.f o
8s 6
/
4
/,93 Jg
\\
4 h>
g, / -
6
~
l i
i Major Research Activities of Frari Neumann j
a U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey geophysicist and mathematician, I
(1911-1925), Chief, Seismology Branch (1925-1953): University of Washington Professor of Seismology ( 1953-1962), Prof. D:.eri-i j
tus (1962-
),
i 1911-1921. On geomagnetic and seismological field duty.
j 1924. Developed high-speed graphical and machine methods for processing I
I and publishing magnetic observatory datas cited in Director's Annual Report.
3 1926. Through experimental and analytical methods found that ma6notio material in oopper vanes was responsible for ma1 performance of 1
Wood-Anderson seismometers which were subsequently used by the i
i Cal-Tech Seismological Laboratory se standard instruments in t
developing the Richter Vagnitude Scale.
4 1929. First to distinguish between 1,ove and Rayleigh waves traversing the Pacific and determine their velocities over different paths.
This was first stsp in subsequent studies by others to utilise such waves in delineating the crustal structure beneath the Pacifio.
1930. Developed from seismographic data, a formula relating the di-rection (polarisation) of SU tround waves to direction of fault-ing at source of shock. This was one of early steps in current efforts to determine fault plane directions from seismographie data.
1931. Worked with H. O. Wood (Carnegie Inst. of Wash., and Cal-Tech) in develognent of Modified Merealli Intensity Scale of 1931. Co-author of published report on scale now used in the U. S. and many other parts of the world.
3 1932. Developed all-ribbon ~ suspension for mirror spindles to obtain optical levers on seismographe and vibration testing machines that are entirely void of lost motion four.d in jewel and pivot systems.
1933. Through personal interpretation of all seismograms recording a Caribbean shook in 1932, developed a travel time curve revealgng apparently for the first time the existence of a so-called 20 discontinuity in the earth's structure. Subject subsequently given world wide attentien by research workers in seismology.
i l
V[
1936. Proposed the simple torsion pendulum as a slow motion instrument l
to compute differential motion between complex earthquake motions g
and the motion of an oscillator (of arbitrary period and damping)
H subjected to these earthquake motions. It simulates the motion of i
a building relative to the vibrating ground. Subsequently used
'i
\\
by M.A. f*.ot in Engineering Department of Cal-Tech to compute first so-called earthquake spectra. Subsequently superseded by h
clectrical analog computer.
/Q4
. ~ -
3 1943. Vade first successful numerical double integration of a strong motion accelerogreth record to obtain corresponding velocity and displacement curves. Showed nature of parabolio adjustments required to determine precise positions of acceleration and velocity curve axes: clarified problem of determining permanent ground displacements from seismograph records.
1944. Published first " ground spectra" for etrong earthque.ke motions utilising 4-way log sheate to indicate the four properties of SHM simultaneously. 7
.s was a follow-up of the preceding integration process which yielded the full spectrum of fre-quencies present in earthquake disturbanoes, 1951. Published U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey S. P. 254 "FYinciples Underlying the Interpretation of Seismograms" widely used as a guide in seismological laboratories and' university instruction.
1951. Revealed basic character of intensity variationa in seirmically disturbed areas, especially the consistent character of intensity attenuation on basement rock and the variable nature of intensity in overlying formations.
1954. Published tooklet on " Earthquake Intensity and Related Ground Motion" at University of Washington showing how, under certain circumstances, the intensities in both basement rock and surface formations can be determined from a single period-moceleration graph calculated from a strong-motion seismograph record. It confirmed the approximately 15-fold variations between soft soil and rock outcrop amplitudes (previously suggested by others on basis of observed damage and other observed effoots) sad removed all speculation on nature and magnitude of ground motions involved.
Revealed other new and fundamental aspects of intensity phenomena including a new technique for locating epioenters from intensity data.
1956. Developed new circuits for electromagnetto seismographs allowing a wider range of sensitivity controls than previously indicated in text books covering the subject.
1957. In studies of Puget Sound earthquakes from instrumental data de-veloped e. new technique for locating earthquake foci that does not postulate an often erroneous knowledge of crustal structure, but furnishes new information on such structure by postulating only the existance ofknown wave velocities in the structure.
The depths and forms of major crustal discontinuities in the area are evolving as more earthquakes are being registered. Promising correlations with gravity anomalies are being obtained.
1958. Demonstrated from studies of earthquake and blast vibrations that the maximum vibrational velocity (function of kinetic energy) of a vibrational disturbance is the most feasible measure of its intensity.
Duration is also an important factor. Vibrational velocity is never registered as such on seismographs but needs to be computed -- hence the long delay in discovering this rela-tionship.
1960. Developed formula for determining lateral seismie forces on oscillating systems (simulating engineering structures). It determines scientifically the latersi force information which building code formulae everywhere endeavor to furnish on a solely empirical basis. It is the first formula based solely on seimnological data and concepts and basfcally represents the realisation of one of the principal objectives of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute of Californias also the success-i ful utilitation of seismological data collected by the Coast and Geodetto Survey over a so-year period at a cost of perhaps 1.5 million dollars.
1961. In conducting statiotical studies suggested by Seattle engineers, and utilising the intensity-velocity relationship previously discussed, developed an( earthquake probability curve for the Seattle area that provides a promising. method of predicting ma-jor shocks by simply keeping a record of the frequency-intensity pattern, or changes in that pattern, as deduoed from every shock large and small registered on the Seattle seiamegraphs. In this area it is the great mass of week shocks, felt and unfelt, that establishes the over all-form of the probability curve and the probability of a majer shock.
University of.Wasnington Geology Department January 17, 1962.
N
i '
6 1960. Developed formula for determining Interal seismic forces on oscillating systems (simulating engineering structures). It determines scientifically the lateral force information which building code fonsulae everywhere endeavor to furnish on a solely empirical basis. It is the first formula based solely on seismole6 cal data and concepts and basically represents the i
realisation of one of the principal objectives of the Earthquake Engineering Resenroh Institute of Californias also the success-ful utilisation of seismological data collected by the Coast and Geodetto Survey over a 30-year period at a cost of perhaps 1.5 million dollars.
1961. In conducting statiotioni studies suggested by Seattle engineers,-
and utilising the intensity-velocity relationship previously discussed, developed at.$ earthquake probability curve for the Seattle area that provides a promising method of predicting ma-jor shocks by simply keepin6 a record of the frequency-intensity pattern, or changes in that_ pattern, as deduced fror every shock In +his large and smt11 registered on the Seattle seismographs.
trea it is the great mass of weak shocks, felt Lnd unfelt, that establishes the over all form of the probability curve and the probability of a majcr shock.
University of Washington Geology Department January 17, 1962.
l 1
l
4 t s -w u ss Uss[inity or WASHINGTON a% _
I urtiv Ilistioce APHY e'
Department of Geology
, 'l!<
h Yfw <Page _1-e 1
i
> j.
1924
~
j "The Computation of Tabular Quantities." Terrestrial Meanetism and Atmospheric Electricity. A 115 119, 196-199 1924.
i 1925 Setanolonical Report of U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.
Six quarterly reports i
for 1924 and 1925 Serials 328, 337, 363, and 388. 1925 j
"Same Remarks on Certain Earthquakes of 1925--the Problem of Determining Epicenters."
Seismological Society of America Bulletin.
15:114-121. 19254 1925 i
Seismological Report of U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Four quarterly reports.
Serials 395, 406, 424, 431. 1926.
" Rotes on Instrumental Constants." Seismological Report of U.S. Coast and Geo-detic Survey. Serial h24:53 55
( A mathematical discussion on effect of impure cop;er in vanesTf Wood-Anderson seismographs.) 1926.
J "Need for Seismological Observatories in the Aleutian Islands." Transactions of the Amarieaun anophysical fla i nn. -1926, 192 % 130. 1926.
i 1927 Seismological Report of U.S. Coast & Geodetic Burvey. Four quarterly reports.
l Serials 463, 468, 495 and 503 1927 1928 United States Earthquakes.1928.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey. Serial 483 1928.
% Southern Appalachian Earthquake of November 2,1926." Seismo3 caical
[
Society of America kiletin. 18_:242-245. -1928.
"The Records of the Wsaner Seismograph." Seiasological Society of Amerion Bulletin. 1928.
1929 United States Earthquakes,1929.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey. Serial 511.
1929 "The Yelocity of Seismic Surface Waves Over Pacific Paths." Seismological Society of America Bulletin. 11:63-76. 1929 1930 t
United States Earthquakes,1930.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey. Serial 539 1930.
L "An Analysis of the S. Wave." Seimnological Society of America Bulletin. RO:
15-32. 1930.
"The Louisiana Earthquake of October 19, 1930." Earthquake Notes.
1930.
1930.
3 l
5]!$
~
l
^
L'4 404 T IJ $6 9
--Owsvsaun.os _wmusc,3cw
__ Mp FRAM _
F ACUL1Y DiaWOCRAMfY
_ Departy'
~ Geology Page_. 2_
1931 United States Earthquakes,1931.
U.S. Coast & Geodai
- y.
Serial 553 19 31.
"The Modified Arcalli Earthquake Intensity Scale of 1931." (With H. O. Woo &*)
Seismological Society of America kiletin. 21:2TT-283 1931.
1932 United States Earthauakes,1932.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey. Serini 563 1932.
Seismological kiletins of U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey foriserly included in United States Isrthquakes vere subsequently issued as seperste reports and an not listed in this bibliography. They contain all seismogram interpretations and earthquake locations ande by U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey.
"The Accuracy 'of Epicenter Determinatims." Transacticos of the American Geophy-sical Unicm. 1932. Pp. 94-98.
1932.
"An Experimental Accelercaneter." Larthquake Notes. 1932.
1933 United States Earthquakes,1933 U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey. Serial 5'I9 1933
' Analyses of Strong Motico Seisacaraph B* cords of the Nevada Earthquake of June 25,1933 U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey Strong htice Report No. 2.
" Destructive Earthquake Motions Measured for the First Time." Engineering News Record. 1933 Analyses of 8trcuw Motion Seismogrt@h Records of Southern California Ban,hauake of October P.1933.
U.8. Coast & Geodetic Survey 8tro 2g Motico Report No. 3 "The Transmissico of Seismaic Waves." Earthquake Notes. g329-335 1933 1934 United States Earthquakes 1934.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey. Serial 593 1934.
Analyses of Strong Mtion Seismograph Records of Western Nevada Earthquake of January 30, 1934.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Surywy 8trong Motico Report No. 4.
1934.
"Analysing 8trong Motico Records." Earthquake Notes. 1934.
1935 United States Earthquakes, 1935 U.S. Coast & coodatic survey. Serial 600.
1935 1936 Unit.ed States Earthouskes 19*46.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey. Serial 610. 1936.
- 4 fN
- t., p- +
-~
_ ~.
~ _. _.
L t.40lf-liess a
, Qty ['
i s-stagg, FRAmt
_. L'mntsin_.9L.W'
-w m
)
FAcutry BlauocaArs V
._NMB%.._0f, 0eolog_
1 Page 3
1 i
1936(cont.)
j 1
"The Analyais of (Seismogrsph) Reeords." Earthquake Investiastions in Califor.
l g.
U.S. Coast & Geoestio Survey Special Publication So. 201. Author edited entire report consisting of 11 papers ouvering 230 pages. 1936.
i j
"A Mechanical Method of Analysing Aceolarograms." Transmettens of the Aspriesus j
Geophysical Union.,J.;111-115 19 36.
y J
1937 i
United States Earthquakes,1937 U.S. Coast & Geodetic survey. Serial 619 i
1937
]
"Ccmunents on Isoseissal Maps." Earthquake Notes. 1937 "The Torsion Penduluss Analyser as a Double Integrator." Transactions of the t
American Geophysical Union. 222-123 1937 i
"The Simple Torsion Pendulum as an Accelerogram Analyser.
Publications de ihreau Central Seismolcgique International, Serie A - Travaux Beienth i
l fiques. Fascicule 15, 1-11. 1937 1938 t)DitedStatts_larthauakes.1938.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey. Serial 629 i
1938.
j i
19 5 Travaux Scientifiques, Seria A, Fasciculo 16, International 8eismological j
Association - Consuunications Presented at Washington Confermance, September
- g. Edited 150 page report as Acting Secretary General in absence of incumbent.
" Seismological Activities in the thited States, July 1,1936 to June 30, 1930."
Pp. 106-126 in proceeding report. (assembled and o&ites iry author. 19 3 l
"The Accuracy of Seismogram Analysis as Revealed by Shairine Table Tests." Pp. 56-46 1
in proooeding report. 19 3 i
1940 4
United States Earthquakes,1940.
U.S. Coast & Geodette Survey. Serial 647 1940.
Analysis of El Centro Accelerograph Record of the Imperial Valley Earthquake of May 15, 1940.
U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey Report 28-9 1940.
"4 rogress Report on Seismological Activities of the - U.S. Coast and Geo/> tic Sur-voy, 1940." Transactions of the American Geophysical (klion 1940. II:245-
~~
2k7 1940.
1941 United States Earthquakes,19kl.
U.S. Ocast & Geodetic Survey. Serial 655 1941.
'%P-
- a
-thkk 3-dpMpf::
, _ _. _ _ ~ _.
i L D I$1I 12s d
& thy w o. m m., w -
m ne -
.- r--
FACI LTY BIBUDGRAPHY
.i..
.y ^
1 at Geglamy f
k Page 19M
" Earthquake Motions in the Vicinity of a Fault Slip." (With R. R. Booke) M of the Geoloaical Society d Ameries. 1942.
" Progress Deport e 8eimnological Activities of the U.S. Coast and Goodotto Survey, 19 2."
Traa-tions of the Amerioen Oeonkreical thien.11,t231-932. 1942.
4 1943 Discussion (with N. E. Beck *):
" Analytical and Emperimental Methods in Engineer.
ing seimaology," by M. A. Biot. Transactims g the American Boeiety of Civil hineers. 1943 "An Appraisal of Ramerical Integration Methods as Applied to Strong Wtion Data."
Sei-lamical Boeiety of America Bulletin. E:21-60. 1943
" Progress Report cm Seismological Activities of the U.B. Coast and Geodetic Survey,1943." - Transactions of the American Geophysical Union.
I:88-91.
1943
-19%
" Period-Amplitude Analysis _ of Strong nytton Records." Transactions of the Ausrican Geophysical Union 194k. Hje90-294. 1944.
"A General Purpose Vibration Meter."
(With H. E. McCab*) Treari.etiens of the 1
American Geophysical Union. 2J 313-315 19 4.
" Seismology." 1944 Britannica Book of the Year. 19 4.
"Earthquakse and Volcanoes." American Year Book. 19 4.
" Earthquakes." Wiers National Year Book. 194.
" Earthquakes in the united States." Pp. 23-26 in Miniana Desian Loads in Buildinas and Other Structures, _ a 26 page. report of hiildia_= Code Causaittee A55 of Amerioen standards Association and sational Bureau of Standards.
l 1945 "Deinsology." -In Britannies Book of the-Year.
1945
" Earthquakes and Volcanoes." In Amer,oan Year Book. 1945
" Earthquakes." In Colliers National Tear Book. 1945 Earthauske Rotes. Chaiman 241torial Constittee.19k5 1946 "Seianology." In Britannica Book of the Year.- 1946.
" Earthquakes _ and Volcanoes." In Amer:,oan Year Book. 1946.
" Earthquakes."~ In Colliers Notional ' reer-Book. -1946.
Earthquake Notes. Chairman Editorial Ccummittee'. 1946.
I 1947
" Seismology." In Britannies Book of the Year.
1947
" Earthquakes and Volcanoes." In Americen Year Book. 1947.
l'
" Earthquakes." -In Colliers National __ Year Book. 1947.
L C-let? IJ 5, N,M d'
...[, 2
~ _L*Nti IT L Dr W n ntN r,to p m
. FACL LTY BIBuoGsAmy Departaset of Geology
~
}
Page-- S-h 1947 (cont.)
"The University Seismograph Problem." Earthquake Notes. Pp. 1-16.
September-December, 1947
" Blasting Yibration Measurements Indicate no Damage to Orwen Concrete in Ross Dem.'
(With H. E. Coombs) Civil Engimering. 1947 Discussion:
" Report on Triangulation for Earthquake Investigation in the Vicinity of El Centro, California. Borisontal Movement" hr B. K. Heade'. Trame-actions of t's American Geophysical _ Union. 1947 Earthquake Notes. Cbnirman, Editorial Committee. 1947 1949
" Seismology in the Coast and Geodetic Burvey." The Journal Coast and Geodetic Survey.
"An Appraisal of Numerical Integration Methods as Applied to 8 tron 6-Motion Data."
U.S. Coast & Geodetic survey Special Publication 250 entitled The Deter-mination of True Ground Motion from Seismograph Records. Author also edited this symposium of four papers originally published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Y.y:1-63, under seas title.
Author's paper, pp. 21-60. 1949 1950
" Calibration of a High Magnification Beismemeter." Travaux Scientifiques, Fascicule 17 Communications Presentee a la Conference d' Oslo, Asut, 1948.
Series A, 109-114. 1950.
1951 Principles Underlying the Interpretation of Seismograms. U.S. Coast & Geodetic Burvey Special Publication 254. Translated into Spanish by Baissological Institute, University of Chile,1952. 1951.
41 pp.
1952 "Some Generalized Concepts of Earthquake >btion."
Proceedings of the Byuposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Pp. 5-17. L. A. 1952.
" Seismological Activities of tb United States, July 1,1948 to June 30, 1951.
Comptes Rendus No.10. des Seances de la Neuvienne Conference Reunie a Brwoolles de 20 Aout au 1 September,1951. ( Assembled and edited above report. Pp. 267-275. 1952.
1953 Earthquake Investigations in the United States.
U.S. Coast & GeQtic s%rrey Special Publication 253 1953 A 40-page Booklet.
,[7.
bfy wa 4
a.,
O-
.,a.-.
nw : -
- s. n.
IE2 M, Frank
. Nh,_
j Usinasny or w4surwoTow s
l'rct trv tilatacaAMir DepGrtasgit of Geology 1
Page _6 d
w' 1954 Earthquake Intensity and Related Ground Motion. University of ilashington Press.
19536 100 pp.
l 1956
" Earthquake Investigation at the University of idashington. The Trend in Engineering. PP. 20-24 October, 1956.
i 1
" Sensitivity Contmla on Galitsin Type Soissegraphs." Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. ysk83-490. 1956.
1957 1
" Engineering Seismology." A 13,000-vord paper submitted for publica', ion in a Review Volume of the Geological Society of Aaserica. 1957 1958 "Da=dna Earthquake and Blast Vibrations." The Trend in Engineering. Pp. 5-10, 24-26. January, 1958.
" Oscillator Responses to Earthquake Motion." Th mi in Engineering. Pp. 5-9, i
24-25 October, 1958.
"The Lateral Proce Problem in Earthquake Resistant Design." Earthquake Notes, Vol. JKg, 31-35, September,1958.
" Oscillator Responses to Earthquaka Motions." The Trend in Engineering.
Vol.10, No. k, 5-10, 24-25 october, 1955.
( CukA )
l f
i i
1
- +%
s e
4
- 2%:
. S.2 c5 4,7 Commer.ts on those Sections of the Preliminary Eazards Summary P.eport relating to the earthquake problem as p:inted out in fe. Eber R. Price's letter dated May 3, 1963 Pa6e V-6 Geology and Seismology. To say that "Much of California is subject to seismic activity" is something of an understatement for the Pay area, and adjacent areas, of northern California. 3e 1906 earth-quake centering about 22 miles south of Bodega Head was the most destruc-tive shock this country ever experienced and, along viti other seismic activity, marks this area as the most seismically dar.6erous in the United State s.
See Seismic Probability Map, Appendi.x V, Fig. 5, which the vriter prepared, with the collaboration of others, whi'e on the staff of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. The records on the strong motion seismographs of this Bureau (since 1932) show more frequent recordings in southern California giving the impression that while northern California has fever damaging shocks they are mort intense when they do occur.
(Greater shocks in point of areal coverage occurred in southeastern Missouri in 1611 and in Charleston, South Carolina in l!66 but actf.vity is less frequent in these areas than in California, and deeper foci may have diminished the surface intensities in the epicentral areas.)
Page V-7 Par. 5 Precedin6 para 6raph discusses this :rioject.
Pa6e V-7, Par. 6.
In other discussions the writer states why he vould consider 10!-9 5 an absolute minimum for the maximum intersity of the 19C6 shock on basement rock.
Page V-7 I/ist paragraph. Elsewhere the writer expltsins why he vould relate a Magnitude f>.2 earthquake to a maximum intensity of Itt-9 5 i
.6 2
on basement rock in the central area of a shoch in this area, not VIII or IX tentioned by Tocher in paragraph 6 on the same ;ece.
Page V-8.
First paragraph. Elsewhere the writer shevs why he would relate the El Centro spectru:n to an intensity 14!-6 3 cock (equivalent to less than magnitude 7); not to a magnitude 8.2 shocl.
Pace V-8.
Seismic design factors: Elsewhere the writer shows why he thinks they should be incroaced over and above the va'ues suggested here for various class structures.
s
l Tocher's report App. IV-2, 3rd paragraph. Concerning magnitude, an increase of one grade some years ago implied a 63-fold increase in the energy released by an earthquake; this may have changed as a result of many recent modi-fications. A two-grade increase would imply a 3600-fold increase in energy, all of which points up the generally. crude character of such l
scades, including intensity scales.
gp. C h. The report of the California Earthquake Commissicn states that m epicenter of the main 1N6 shock was not off Golden-Sate (k2 mi. from Bodega I!ead) but between the head of Tomales Bay and 01cma, about 22 miles from Bodega Bay. The Golden Gate shock preceded the main shoch by about 30 seconds.
App. IV-5, 3d paragraph. The o.2 ft. movement per year, comi?? i with a fau'.t displacement of 15 ft. in 1906, could imply a shock of the 1906 magnitude once every 75 years.
App. IV-5, 4th paragraph. The " extensively fractured, sheared and jointed" character of the Bodega IIead rocho raises some doubt as to whether this-can be considered a true granitic basement rock, seismologically speaking.
In estimating probably maximum intensities the writer always assumes a minimum basement rock intensity. only a strong motion seismc3raph record obtained during a videly felt shock could deter =ine vnether it actually responds with " mini: Tam" intensity.
1 i
4 j
)
h..
App. IV - 10, 1st paragraph. According to distance-intensity graphs j
prepared by the writer the intensity in basement rock decreased rapidly-
- i as one recedes from the epicentral area.
(It may be maintained out to f-great distances on light overburdens). 'On basement rock the writer t,
j estimates the intensity in tae 1906 shock was at least MM-9 5 in the i
- 15 milet.
3-epicentral. area and could have diminished to 10!-7 5 at:
It was down to 6 5 or 7 on exposed rock in San Francisco, 20 miles away).
I, 2
i App. IV-10, 6 paragraph. Bodega' Head'vas about 22 miles from the i
j epicenter of the 1906 shock. The writer (folloving the argumentiin-the preceding paragraph believes that if the epicenter had been in Bodego Bay the intensity on Bodega Head could have been about 2 grades of intensity higher than it actually vas. '(It is difficult to know e
f what it-actually was in 1906.)
It was roughly the same distance from l
the epicenter as San Francisco where on basement rock the intensity was i
l.
down to !St-7 j..
i j
App. IV-12, paragraph 6.
Elsewhere the writer has argued for'a minimum l.
intensity of }!M-9 5 if-a future epicenter is close to Iedega Head. If i
the head happens.to be more susceptible-to earthquake vibrations than i
j tasement rock this intensity ~ could be maintained for epicenters that-vere perhaps 10 or 15 miles away.
f App. IV-I-3, 2d parat;raph. The error in the epicenter of the 1906
.,hoch was previously pointed out.
I t
l t-i
i i
5 j
App. T/-I-3, 3rd and 1.th paragraphs.
To obtain the complete picture of what _ happened in the epicentral area one should als: read paces 192 and 193 of the Lawson report. They reveal that in some areas all j
dairymen and cattle vere thrown down by the violence of the ground i
motion. This far exceeds the violence registered anywhere in the s
Imperial Valley earthquake of 19h0, even more than that reported from El. Centro where the applicant claims the recorded ground motion j
l
. is cocparable with that at the epicenter of the 1906 sh:ck.
1 k
i i
i A
e k
d i
f
i
{,
i
^b 6
4 Housner's report a
App. V-3,1st paragraph. The question of whether a 1906 type of i
earthquake occurs near Bodego Bay once every 300 ~ years or once every l
70 years seems somewhat academic in view of our presen, inability to predict earthquakes with reasonable accuracy with respect to both time i
and place. Anything might happen at any time and the engineer's primary l
job is to be prepared even if his safety devices are r.ever put to the i
ultimate test.
Ap':. V-5 Housner here presents a thesis that has to be proved. The writer does not believe it is consistent with the information found. on intensity distribution charts of' strong shocks. The vrite; Jes not believe that the intensity of shaking at a point near the center of a magnitude 6.2 shock vill not be much more than for a.agnitude 7 shock.
Gutenber6 and Richter certainly never contemplated any;hing like this when they endeavored to set up a relationship between magnitude and I
maximum intensity for shocks in California, nor do the basenent rock distance-vs-intensity charts ccastructed by the writer for California l
l earthquakes support such a thesis. The vriter supporg the thesis originally advanced by S. Benioff of the Cal Tech Seismological..Labora-l tory that when an earthquake occu*s the energy emanates primarily. from L
[
a linited area in the fault plane where the plane has become distorted and further movement-is " locked" until sufficient stress is built up to '*oreak" the lock. Intensity in basement rock radiates basically in a circular pattern about such " locks and that is what is observed on
5
-7 intensity distribution naps.
If a magnitude o shock releases as much as 50 or 60 times more energy than a ca6nitude 7 shock ices Dr. Housner mean to say that both vill be felt with about the same intensity in the central area? S.e writer does not believe that many seismolegist sub-scribe to this thesis; there appears to be no confir:.ation of it in C.F. Richers " Elementary Seismology" a 1958 (Freeman c.nd Co.) publica-tion which presumably. presents the thinking of most California seismo-logists.
Apr. V-5, pararraph (b). Housner here suggests that intensity dood not vary much within 5 miles of a fault. The writer's studies of basement rock intensities cuggest a 3-m11e limit.
App. V-5, paracraph (e). The Helena, Montana earthquake of October 31, 1935 was registered on a " boulder batholith" and registers a much lover degree of intensity than experienced on the valley fill en which much of Helena rests. The relative intensity of shaking on various kinds of soils and rocks was clearly shown in the writer's booklet entitled " Earthquake Intensity and Related Orcund Motion" published in 195h. Under similar conditions the shaking on deep, watercoaked alluvium can be as much as 10,15, or 20 times greater than on basement rock (The writer must still check up en Housner's reference b).
In the immediate epicentral area of a s rong shock, however, there is but little variation in intensity vi-hin a 10 or 15 mile radius.
___g
9 l
App. V-7, 1st paragraph. In figuring out the intensity of shaking at Lodega Head for a magnitude 6.2 shoch Housner does not take into account the fact the-El Centro does not represent the' greatest 4
intensities reported in that shock which were at Imperial and Erovley, N
101-IX according to Coast & Geodetic Survey publications. At El Centro o
{
they reported 101-VII to 101-VIII; the vriter estimates mi-6 3 for El Centro. The El Centrc record therefore does not represent the maximum L
I intensity associated with a magnitude 7 earthquake. As stated in the i
discussion of App. V-5 the vriter does not accept the E:usner thesis I
that the intensity in the center of a magnitude 8.2 eaShquake vill be only hOY) Creater than in the center of a magnitude 7 shock. Furthermere,
(
he has no basis for assuming that "it vould be a reasonable estimate to suppose that the underlying rock had an intensity apprcximately one-half as great as measured en the surface of the alluvium". The i
writer's studies (in Earthquake Intensity and Related 3round Motion)
}
show thnt El Centro recorded a minimum intensity on the sedimentary basement rock in this area and it was deduced by methcds explained in the booklet that this was one intensity grade higher, er double the amplitude, to be expected in the underlying basement r:ck. This is l
his cnly basis for assu~.ing that the El Centro record represents double L
the motion in the granitic basement beneath El Centro. His acceptance of the El Centro record as being zepresentative of a ma nitude: 7 1
shoch, and the theory behind determining the relative maximum inten-i sities for magnitude 7 and E.2 are both entirely unacceptable to i
the writer and are not representative of current seism: logical thinking as found in standard seismological literature.
i
-9
/.pp. V-7, paracraph 7 Recommended Insign procedures.
Elsewhere in remos to Dr. Bryan the vriter has discussed discrep-ancies in the use of " average spectra" (Figs. 9 and 10) as compared with the use of the El Centro spectra direct. The average spectra, even when multiplied by 2 7 yield design values that are far belcv those shown by the El Certto spectra. The reasons for this should be clarified.
One matter not previously discu' ?d is that of the damping factors to be used in computing earthquake esses cn structures and structural components. Since, in the writer's opinion, the applicant hr.s under-estimated the ma::imum amount of gr und motien that might possibly occur at Bodega Eead, and the plans to use s;;ectra which underestimate the dy: amic forces that might be impressed on structures on the head, even vid"r latitude for underestimating seisni; forces is made available in the choice of damping coefficients to be i sed in calculating possible v
earthquake forces. Comething : ore than pp vided in the Applicants 4
Hunards report will be needed if this phad'i of the seismic risk problem is to be properly evaluated.
If the esth
,ed maximum ground motions are to be cut in half, if dynamic forces c! rained from the adopted spectra a-e to be reduced to two-thirds the actual' 4 pectral values for El Centro, and if damping coefficients are going to be hosen that could reduce a
expected seismic forces to 2/ 3 then legitimate value thi.n the caluclated earthquake stresses vill be only 20 or 2% of what they should be for a magnitude 2.2 earthquake.
t.
e r
i Amendment lio. l 4
i Questien 2L:
i The applicant is e.ntirely too optimistic about his proposed plant I
I riding safely throu2 the "axi::n:m potential earthquake, especially if -
potential earthquake forces are to be consistently underestimated as shown in the preceding discussion. The writer believes that every device
~
that might even remotely aid' in mit1' gating the effects of a' damaginc-j-
j earthquake should be installed at the site as they are at IIanford, i
1' Washington. Ilot caly that but a strong motion seiscograph should be a
l installed in crier to better establish the seis~.ic characteristics of t
the site even after the plant is in operation.
It is not nacessarily 5
L recommended that scismic signal devices be automatically tied in with j
scrar.ing mechanisms.
1 l
l Question !Io. 26: lb comment except that the water storage system be made doubly secure against earthquake damace.
Questions fio. h3s Only experience can just ?/ a positive statement en l --
the question of what.is a safe distance from such an active fault. as h
San Andreas. If a plant rust be placed here, the most seismic.cf all.
E areas in the United States, it uculd'seem vise, as stated elsewhere,
^
)
to design and install seismic safecuards up. to the point where. it vould no 1cnger be econcmically feasible to' construct the plant.
-Question h5:
"ne vriter, of cou se, doubts-that the plant is coinc to be designed to resist a magnitude 8.2 earthquake if the applicant's
[
plans for doing this are followed. While the writer does not believe t-
+ bat secondary faulting involving displacements of =cre than a.few
. inches -is likely to occur even this might be extremely hacardous..
i a
9 eg ew Ia.
.-y6i
-.y u
v (te3 em9r w
3eea<
r-
.(
11-Tne entire plant should be desiCned with the idea that sooner or later 4
it vill have t; ride the equivalent of several fast moving ocean vaves.
a Amentent U;. 2 auestion 21: At this writing the writer is not sufficiently familiar vith the primary circuit components under discussion, and their missions, to determine the adequacy of 0.2g as a seismic factor.
4 4
question 22: 'Jas it not brought out at the Urbana conference that the Seal 3each Pcver Station had to be rebuilt after the Long Secch creth-quake of 1933" Tne seismogra s shown 5 Dr. Housner's Appendix V report show that violent moticas may last from 15 to 25 seconds. Dcmage is i
also a function of duration and if anything could be done within the first 5 or 10 seconds of a shock that cculd citigate disastrous effects i
it should be dcne. Tr.e inexpenrive starters used in Coast and Geodetic f
Su.rvey strong =ction seismcgraphs provide a simple means of triggerin6 any desired device at any draging intensity, although some experimental work would be required for the higher intensities. Such starters installed at Hanford have performed for years according to expectations.
Tce writer is not familiar enough with the purpose and nature of the t
J values discussed in this question to render a valid opinion on whether cr not they should be scrammed.
d '
-w-e
..n
.n-.--
-, -. +--,,-.-
T 5cq f'/
April 11, 1963.
F REVIENER'S CG!MENTS ON THE PAPER "Seissio Forces on Engineerin6 Structures" By Frank Neumann.
- 1. This paper furnishes a rather comprehensive review and analysis of earthquake effects on buildings and structures from the viewpoint of a seiemologist well qualified and well known for his contributions on this subject. The basic souroc data for the paper, the approach to the problest and the conclusions reached sonstitute conceph use-ful quantitatively as well as qualitatively to the engineering _ pro-fossion. These concepts thus furnich a foundation or basis for fu-ture explorations as a means for extending our applied knowledge and esperience into the more unusual situations conditions, locations-and types of engineering structures. The paper furnishes a better understanding of seismic disturbancee and effects.
A very thorough and well documented presentation of s novel approach 2.
to seismio analysis.
The paper should not be in the Proceedings--ponsibly in the Bull. of 3.
the Seis. Soc. of A4ner. It is quito nelf-laudatory and completely mis-understands the engineers problems and questions. It infers the necessity of ocupletely fantastic design coefficients. The whole paper is based on an aestaned realtionship of desi5n aooelerations to MM intensity scales which is unsubstantiated in the paper and erroneous in my opinion. Much of it is interesting and I read it with pleasure, however, the whole attitude is that the writer is right and all other investigators e.re wrong -- even to the extent that he refuses to use universally accept-ed terms (spectrum).
The above information on reviewer 's con:ments was furnished F.N. by Mr. Harold T. Larsen, Manager, Technical Publications, American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th St., New York 17, N.T.
It is not the policy of the ASCE to divulge the names of its re-viewers.
The paper was discussed by A..
Eremin, of Berkeley, Calif. and W. W, Moore, Sen Francisco, Calif. (of Dames and Moore). A reprint of the original paper is enclosed together with F.N's, closure dis-cussion which comments on the criticisms raiced by reviewer No. 3.
With m6nor modification the closure satement will be published in an early edition of the ASCE tranesotioni Reprints will be available from P.N. c-> A % A
.u k. jw % DA
r h ~hf
\\'
IX
(
)
j<'
rRANK NEUMANN I,Q r m.
U N SWE R SITY OF WAS HIN D,0 N S E A TT LE 5. W AS H IN DTO N June 24, 1963.
Dr. Robert H. Bryan, Chief, Research and Power Reactor Safety Eranch, Division of Licensing and Regulation, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington 25 D. C.
Dear Dr. Bryan:
Over the week end I have reviewed the material for-warded with your letter of June 20 and in other ways have endeavored to reconcile my views with PG&E's engineering plans for the proposed Bodega Head power platut. There are still some unansweralquestions which I shall touch on briefly in commenting on the rqiies to the recent inquiries. Reference is made to the questions in Mr. Lowen-stein's letter of May 24, 1963 and the PGiE replies in funnendment
'io. 3 (Docket No. 50-205).
The answer to question 1 is straightforward ennugh; I am just a little skeptical about the optimism expressed in view of the fact that Housner in his paper " Behavior of Structures Durin6 Earthquakes" (Journ. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Oct.1959) and Blume, Newmark and Corn-ing in their book " Design of Multietory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions" both give the impression that one should never expect even a well designed structure to escape damago entirely in an earthquake of abnormal intensity. Housner says (p.128):"It is more reasonable to take the point of view that -- in the more rare event of a very strong ground motion, damage would be tolerated so lon6 as it was not a hazard to life and limb. This is the usual point of view of engineers". Blume, Newmark and Corning state (p.vi):" The objective is to proportion a structure in such a way that -- the structure should not collapse even when subjected to the motions of an earthquake of abnormal intensity". This evidently is what the Uniform Building Code contemplates and this is the code that will be used in designing critical structures at Bodega Head.
In question 2 Mr. Lowenstein asked "What ground motions are to be used for dynamic design?". Housner answered by stating "The design of critical structures will be based on the design velocity spectrum shown on the attached sheet". This is not an answer to the question.
It is noted that for the respective dampings of 15%, 7.5f. and 2.5%
the spectral or deformational motions would be only about 1.5, 2.0 and 3.3 times Greater than the El Centro ground motions.
If the El Centro 6round motions were doubled as suggested in my recent report to you the deformational motions would be only.75,1.0 and 1.5 timos the ground motions. What concerns me is that Coast and Geodetic seismographe placed on the top floors of buildings show approximately 3 to 10 times as much motion on top floors as in basements. The higher 31ues no dcubt indicate resonance or partial rescr. knee. Realizing Ef th-4610
g 2.-
t V
f-thatthese top floor motions are not deformations 1 motions (Building i
motions relttive to the round motion) and that at the building's'-
centers the motions.'may nly about half.-the top floor motions the i
resulting ratios are never-the-less so much greater than indicated in the proposed velocity spectrum 'and the El Centro ground motion as-tof be-a- cause for some second thoughts. -Considerable data.on top ficor-building motions during earthquaken are a vailable but engineers seem to prefer using theoretical building motions (velocity spectra) in 4'
their estimates of structural deformations.
(I believe a test or j
two was made with controlled explosions with this in mind).
If you do not have the Blume, Newcark, Corning' book you should by all n.eans cet it; the preface.is especially. interesting. It is.
4 difficult to reconcile the unquestionable sureness that permeates the PG&E proposals and acaendments with the sometimes almost apolo-getio attitude. found in professional papers on the same subjec' shore l
researchers admit the exploratory nature of the entireseismic design problem and the dearth of adequate knowledge in so many important
{
phases.of it.
to In answer No. 3 Ilousner_ states:"a further analysis will be made' 3
to insure that ground motion' five times as intense as the design spec-trum. will be required to produce incipient failure of ' structure". If.
the design velocity spectra.are multiplied by 5 and drawn on a 4-way log chart it will be seen that the ground motions will range from
~
2.5 to 4.5 g.
Is this whkt is meanti. If not, just what is the ground j'
motion that is related to the design spectra -- same as question No. 2.
- With reference to the design lateral acceleration at'the roof level j
of the reactor structure being nine times larger than is specified by j
the. Uniform Building Code does this refer to a design acceleration in i
Zone'l (minor damage) or Zone 3 (major. damage)? In Zone 3 the code i
calls for increasing lateral force-factors four times over those used i
in Zone 1.
This would seemingly represent a doubling of the lateral force factor over that called for anywhere-in Zone 3 earthquake areas
-- to take care of maximum forces in the epicentral area.
Just what l
intensity does Zone 3 signifyt-The proposed damping-factors 'are less-- than had been ' anticipated.
They would call for quite large ratios between expectable building
}
(spectral) motions and ground motions not the minimum so often'found j
in the computations of oscillator spectra, t
The answer to question No. 4 should be left to geologists e7clus-i ively.
n Sincerely yours, o
YLRe d( b
<. s 4.c%
a 2
Frank Neumann, Seismologist.
f_.-.z
.. ?/,f.:
i-s i
$v i
3 9,M,/ q j
e fj q
).
~,
= _ -.
.