ML20235T430

Studies of 860131 Northeastern Ohio Earthquake.*

ML20235T430
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/31/1986
From:	INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
To:
References
CON-#189-8097 2.206, NUDOCS 8903080282
Download: ML20235T430 (68)

Text

r, Q.-j'jD -f:S -lO

&g (

-} ' '3En _ ,

e 9o47  %  !

a topf% h3 ;

) E.

c, ki STUDIES OF TIIE JANUARY 31,1986 -

NORTHEASTERN OHIO EARTHQUAKE 1

{

A REPORT TO THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

/O f Q,) PREPARED BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY l

l OPEN FILE REPORT 86-331 O

O s

's I/

pg i

Reston, Virginia 1986 l

89030B02B2 BbO131 PDR ADOCK 05000440

G PDR '

D S o3 gf '

e yd V ,

l

-1 w.

o. ,

1 l

l STUDIES OF THE JANUARY 31,'1986-NORTHEASTERN OHIO EARTHQUAKE l

A REPORT TO THE U.S. NUCLEAR REcULATORY COMMISSION J A

i

(

PREPARED BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY I

J R.L. WESSON AND C. NICHOLSON EDITORS  !

i OPEN. FILE REPORT 86-331 O

V This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey l publication standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names and trademarks in this l

l publication is for descriptive purposes only and doe.s not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological l i

Survey.

l l

{ Reston, Virginia j i 1 1986 }

1 1

l 1

1 a.

)

• TABLE OF CONTENTS l

I. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

. R.L. Wesson 1.

II. INTRODUCTION R.L. Wesson, C. Nicholson 2- \

l" ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4 III. HISTORICAL SEISMICITY C. W. Stover, G. Reagor, S.T. Algerrnissen 5

'1 IV. MAINSHOCK l J.W. Dewey, C. Nicholson, M. Hopper 6 )

I n, V.AFTERSHOCKS 8 i Cl Aftershock Locations C. Nicholson, C. Langer, C. Valdes 10 Focal Mechanism Solutions C. Nicholson, C. Langer, C. Valdes 11 VI. POSSIBLE ROLE OF FLUID INJECTION Motivation and Background  ;

- R.L. Wesson 12 1 Estimation of the State of Stress ]

E. Roelofs; C. Nicholson, R.L. Wesson, J.D. Bredehoeft 15 {

Fluid Pressure Changes in Epicentral Area and Conclusions  !

E. Roelofs, J.D. Bredehoeft 20 Solution Mining R.L. Wesson 24 p l

() VII. HIGH FREQUENCY GROUND MOTION Overview and Introduction l R.D. Borcherdt 24 l Recording Instrumentation 27 R.D. Borcherdt )

Station and Aftershock Locations J C. Valdes, G. Glassmoyer, R.D. Borcherdt 28 \

Characteristics of High Frequency Ground Motions

.R.D. Borcherdt, G.M. Glassmoyer 29 VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34 REFERENCES 39 1

i i

l

.- _______________-__D

u.

= I. EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the results of investigations of the northeastern Ohio earthquake of January 31, 1980 undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey at the request of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These investigations include a study of the mainshock, its aftershocks, and previous seismicity; an assessment of the degree to which the deep fluid injection wells in the area may have influenced the recent earthquake activity; and an investigation of the high frequency nature of the seismograms recorded from both the mainshock and its aftershocks.

Analycis of the mainshock and aftershocks indicates no obvious structure or fault with which the January 31 earthquake can be associated. Locations of aftershocks obtained to date are permissive of the interpretation of a fault striking somewhat east of north, but as most of the aftershocks are tightly clustered in space, they provide only very weak evidence for the orientation of such a structure.

Estimates of stress inferred from commercial hydrofracturing measurements suggest that the state of stress in northeastern Ohio is close to the theoretical threshold for small  !

earthquakes as predicted by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Given this state of stress, triggering of small earthquakes by fluid injection would not be surprising. However, the distance of the January 31 earthquake and its aftershocks from the wells (with the exception of the very small earthquake on March 12), the lack of any small earthquakes detected near the bottom of the wells, the history of small to moderate earthquakes in the region prior s to the initation of injection, and the attenuation of the pressure field with distance from

)

j the injection wells, all argue for a " natural" origin for the earthquake. Therefore, although ]

triggering remains a possibility, the probability that the injection played a significant role in triggering the earthquake, based on the information currently available, must be regarded as low. The analysis of the possible relation between the injection wells and the January 31 earthquake has indicated nothing to suggest the occurrence of an earthquake larger than that expected for the broad region, or the activation of a major structure closer to the wells or near the power plant.

High-resolution (up to 96 dB), broadband (< 200 Hz) recordings of the aftershock sequence show that seismic signals as high as 130 Hz were resolvable above noise levels 1

g

• Doherty Geological Observatory, the Tennessee Earthquake Information Center, St. Louis Univeristy, the University of Wisconsin, the U.S. Geological Survey, Weston Geophysical Corporation and Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Analog portable seismographs were operating within 10 hrs of the mainshock, and broadband wide-dynamic range digital ,

GEOS instruments were recording within 27. Thirteen aftershocks were detected as of April 15$h , with six occurring within the first 8 days. The latest was on March 24 *h. Two of the aftershocks were felt. Coda magnitudes for the aftershocks ranged from -0.5 to 2.5. Focal depths for all the earthquakes range from 2 to 7 km.

Of concern was whether the mainshock indicated a level of seismic hazard in excess of that previously believed to exist in the region. The January 31" earthquake was the CN largest to occur in the northeast Ohio region since records of earthquake activity began, however, approximately 30 earthquakes of smaller magnitude were previously recorded in this area. The largest of these prior earthquakes was of comparable magnitude (m6 =

4.5-4.7) and occurred in 1943.

Another aspect of this sequence was the possibility that the recent earthquakes were induced by deep injection well activities. Three wells that penetrate the basement are cu ently operating within 15 km of the earthquakes and there was concern expressed that the wells may have played a significant role in triggering the earthquake activity.

Although the attenuation of seismic waves is less severe in the eastern as opposed to the western United States, unusually high frequencies were recorded at considerable distances for both the mainshock and its aftershocks. A question arose as to whether these

(^\

h high frequencies were a result of regional path effects, unusual source characteristics, or specific site resonances.

This report discusses the results of three lines of investigation carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey and includes compilations of da.ta from a number of different sources. The first is a basic study of the mainshock and its aftershocks, and includes locations, focal mechansims and information on previous historical seismicity. The second involves an investigation of the deep fluid injection wells, and an assessment on the degree to which the wells may have influenced the recent earthquake activity. The third study concerns the character of the earthquake seismograms, principally from the aftershocks, 3

, 1. -

'* Petro Evaluation Services Company Jay Henthorn l Resouce Services, Inc. .

Warren Latimer ,

St. Louis University Steve Nyers, Robert Herrmann )

Tennessee Earthquake Information Center Jer-Ming Chiu University of Wisconsin Doug Christensen

[ Weston Geophysical Corporation Richard Holt, Gabriel LeBlanc, Preston Turner Woodward-Clyde Consultants Tom Station, Richard Quittmeyer, Kathy Mroteck III. HISTORICAL SEISMICITY Compilations of historical earthquakes in northeastern Ohio based on felt reports extend back to at least the mid-1850's. Instrumental recordings of local and regional earthquakes began in northeastern Ohio when John Carroll University, located in the outskirts of eastern Cleveland, started operation of its observatory in 1904. A seismicity map for Ohio (Figure 1, Stover et al.,1979) indicates about 30 earlier earthquakes in the

- (_/ northeastern region of the state. Since 1850, the repeat time for felt earthquakes is about 9 years, although earthquakes large enough to cause damage (intensity VI) r.re rare. The largest event known prior to 1986 was a magnitude 4.5-4.7 earthquake that occurred in 1943. This 1943 earthquake was recently relocated using the same velocity model as was used to locate the 1986 mainshock (J. Dewey, written communication,1986). Its revised  ;

location (41.628"N 14 km, 81.309 W 10 km) is just slightly west of the 1986 event.

Thus, the earthquake of 1986 should not be considered unusual, i Appendix A contains an expanded, updated version of the seismicity catalog for the state of Ohio. Only those earthquakes with epicenters within the boundary of the state 5

l

a

• focal mechanism that is either right-slip (N20'E) or left-slip (N290* W) on n~early vertical nodal planes (A'. Dziewonski, R. Herrmann, personal communication,1986). A body-wave moment tensor inversion was attempted, but amplitudes were too small for sufficient resolution (J. Nabelek, personal communication). .

J Both the U.S. Geological Survey and Weston Geophysical Corporation conducted intensity studies immediately following the mainshock (Figures 2 and 3). Most notable of the earthquake effects were: the fairly widespread region of panic in Painesville and Mentor (including the temporary evacuation of several public buildings); the collapse of a ceiling, a broken water main, significant damage sustained by the city sewer lagoon, and a large number of chimneys thrown down in Chardon; a large area of disturbed wells and l

(

a damaged trailer near Hambden; cracks that developed in the Thompson High School (causing a temporary evacuation); damage to the foundations of the Amish School and City Hall in Huntaburg; and a broken gas line as far away as South Russell (Geauga ]

County Disaster Services Agency,1986). Fifteen people were reported to have suffered minor injuries. Isolated intensities approached VII (Figure 3) although in general the maximum intensity was VI (Figure 2). The intensity at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Was V.

Preliminary intensities reported by the USGS (Figure 2) were determined during a canvas of the epicentral area on February 4-11, 1986. The highest intensities found (Modified Mercalli intensity VI) occurred up to 15 km away from the instrumental  ;

epicenter. Two areas defined by the intensity VI isoseismal are identified. One, which includes the earthquake epicenter,is somewhat elongated in a northeast-southwest direction with an additional lobe to the northwest. Such elevated levels of intensity toward the lake are not unexpected, as site resonances within lake sediments often amplify strong 4

ground motion (c.f.,Section VII). The other area of intensity VI is off to the southeast.

Damage withm intensity VI isoseismals consisted primarily of wall cracks, cracked or fallen plaster, fallen ceiling tiles, damaged chimneys, disturbed wells, items fallen off shelves, j broken pipe seals and cracked windows. Fallen plaster generally occurred in older buildings.

Disturbed ceiling tiles, usually along the juncture of the ceiling with an outside wall, occurred where the intensity based on other indicators was V to VI.

7 t

dense network of stations (Figure 5), however, even the smallest event was reported by at least 6 stations.

In addition to the aftershocks, several events believed to be quarry blasts were also recorded (Figure 6). These events all occurred on weekdays during working hours, -

generated nearly the same signals at the recorders, had lower frequency content content, and exhibited an air wave. Two of these events were located as a matter of course (Figure 9) and were found to occur near a sand and gravel pit south of Thompson and east of Rt. 528.

Three preliminary velocity models were used to locate the earthquakes and are given in Table 2. The first is a simple two-layer model to accommodate the Paleozoic section over the granitic basement. It is essentially the same model used by Weston Geophysical to initially locate earthquakes in their aftershock survey. The second is somewhat more O complex and is based on a surface-wave inversion across the Cincinnati Arch by Herrmann

[1969]. The third is a composite from several different sources and consists of 5 sedimentary layers over crystalline basement at a depth of 2.1 km. The interfaces are based on an extensive compilation of information from wells drilled at least as far at the top of the Precambrian basement (Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company,1982). An average of down-hole and cross-hole velocity logs were used to determine the P and S wave velocities in the upper 0.5 km. Velocities in the basement, lower crust and mantle are based on regional earthquake travel-time studies [Nuttli et al.,1969). Velocities in the Paleozoic section are inferred from refraction studies in adjacent aree.a [ Press,1966). All p three models should be considered prelimint.ry. With the exception of the near-surface P and S velocities in the third model, the velocities used in the models are not based on actual in situ measurements in the epicentral region, and several are only estimates from a limited set of available data. Furthermore, none of the models takes into consideration the slight dip of the top of the Precambrian interface, which near the shore of Lake Eric is about 1830 meters (6,000 feet) deep but near the epicentral region, it is about 2130 meters (7,000 feet).

The earthquakes were located using HYPOELLIPSE [Lahr,1985] and as many of l the available arrival-times as were internally consistant. Arrivals based on the digitally recorded GEOS intruments were given preferential weight because of the higher precision 9

. aftershocks were located within the firct 16 days; and in the case of the Goodnow, New York, earthquake (Mt = 5.2) of 1983, almost 100 aftershocks were recorded in the month following the mainshock. In addition, most of the early aftershocks of the 1986 event occurred within a very small source volume. Figures 9 through 11 show the locations of ,

the first 6 aftershocks using only the USGS stations. These earthquakes describe a very small source region that could be considered an ellipse with semi major and minor axes of 1.2 and 1.0 kms. The vertical extent of the activity is confined to a narrow seismogenic zone between 4 and 7 kms deep. If only this initial seismicity is used, there is not sufficient resolution or spatial extent in activity to define any preferred fault structure, and indeed, activity originating from a single point source can not be precluded. Vertical cross sections p

shown in Figure 11 demonstrate that independent of the observation point, no particular L planar feature is evident.

Using all the available data, however, some evidence of a fault structure emerges.

Figure 12 shows all the available aftershock locations as well as station coverage within the immediate vicinity. Although the initial aftershock activity remains in a very small cluster, there was an event on March 24th that is located about a kilometer outside the

~

immediate source region of the mainshock (Figure 13). Its location to the SSW, coupled with a poorly resolved trend in the earthquake epicenters, suggests a short fault segment oriented 15 to 20 east of north, consistent with one of the nodal planes observed in the preliminary focal mechanism of the mainshock. Vertical cross sections taken perpendicular and parallel to a strike of N20'E (Figure 13, B and C), suggest that rupture may have O

occurred at depth on a nearly vertical fault with a NNE orientation.

(v) in addition to the tight cluster of aftershocks, one small earthquake was detected near station GS02 (Figure 12) on March 12th. Its relative proximity to the Calhio injection wells, suggests that at least this single event may be a candidate for having been induced.

This event is discussed further in Section VI.

Focal Mechanism Solutions Single-event focal mechanism solutions (lower hemisphere equal-area projections) were constructed using polarity data from nearly all the temporary stations deployed. Readings 11

J J

earthquake, a study was undertaken to determine, to the extent possible, whether the waste injection wells may have played some role in triggering the earthquake. In addition, the possible role of solution mining for salt, previously active in the area, was also considered.

Well-documented examples of earthquake activity induced by fluid injection include I

earthquakes triggered by waste injection near Denver (Healy et al.,1968; Hsieh and Bredehoeft,1981), by secondary recovery of oil near Rangely, Colorado.[Raleigh et al.,

1976] and in West Texas [ Davis,1985], and by solution mining for salt in western New York State (Fletcher and Sykes,1977). Other cases of induced seismicity, owing to either fluid injection or reservoir impoundment were recently reviewed and discussed by Simpson (1986]. In each of these cases it is possible to show two characteristics of the induced earthquakes. First, there is a very close geographic association between the bottom of the injection wells and the locations of the earthquakes in the resulting sequence. Second, it l 1

is possible to perform calculations based on the measured or inferred state of stress in the earth's crust and the measured injection pressure to determine whether the theoretical threshold for the occurrence of an earthquake is met. These calculations are referred to as the determination of the state of " effective stress" and its relation to the "Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria," (see, for example, Jaeger and Cook,1976).

Two deep injection wells near Perry, Ohio, are the most likely candidates for possible earthquake triggering in view of their depth, injection pressure and length of operation.

The Srst of these wells, Calhio #1, was completed in 1971 (Natural Resources Management Corp.,1971). Full-scale injection of waste into the well began in 1975. A second well, Calhio s #2, was completed in 1981, and has been used as a backup to the first well since that time 1 (Resource Services Inc.,1980). The two wells are located somewhat less than 1 km apart, therefore at distances more than a few kilometers away, the wells can be considered as a single point source of fluid. More than 1.19 billion liters (315 million gallons) of fluid have been injected into the two wells, principally into Calhio #1 (Figure 19)(Ohio EPA, written communication,1986). Both wells are about 1800-m deep, extending a short distance into the Precambrian crystalline basement. The basement in this region is overlain by a section of essentially flat-lying sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic age. The formations of principal interest in this study are the basal sandstone (Mt. Simon formation) and the overlying 13 l

l l

s migrated out along a northwesterly trend for a distance of about 6-7 km [Healy et al.,

1968). After the sequence had been in progress for 5 years (18 months after well operations ceased), the earthquakes continued to occur near the base of the wells but primarily in

" a linear zone 4-6 km away and at a depth of 4-6 km. The occurrence of the one small .

earthquake near the well, as shown in Figure 20, gives some support to the possibility that other earthquakes, including the 1986 mainshock, may also have been triggered by injection activities.

Estirnation of the State of Stress The principle sources of information about crustal stress in the epicentral area are: measurements of the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) made during commercial hydrofracture operations (these indicate the magnitude of the least compressive stress), 3 breakdown pressures during well stimulation (these provide estimates on a combination of both the maximum compressive stress and the tensile strength of the rock being fractured),

fracture re-opening pressures (which provide estimates of the maximum compressive stress i

~

alsne), and focal mechanism orientations which provide some indication of the ratios between all three principal stresses. In the case of Lake County, Ohio, data from three wells (the two Calhio wells and the Diamond Alkalai brine disposal well near Painesville) can be used to set bounds on many of the critical values necessary to make a proper evaluation of the degree to which stress conditions may have been affected as a result of well operations.

O In addition, K. Evans (written communication,1986) has compiled a number of ISIP measurements into a map showing the ratio of overburden stress to the minimum compressive stress for the Appalachian Basin. Several of the measurements included in his data set were made expressly for the purpose of determining the state of stress in the rock and not simply for well stimulation. These data show that below the regional evaporite layer, this ratio is uniform throughout much of the northern Appalachian basin. These stress ratios vary from about 0.6 to 0.7, with values tending to decrease slightly toward the south. Stress ratios smaller than unity suggest that the vertical direction is either the intermediate or greatest principal stress, and therefore that hydrofrac operations in this region open vertical fractures perpendicular to the horizontal least compressive stress.

15 I

. the bottom of the well. Nearly identical values of overburden stress were measured in a deep Michigan hole drilled through similar materials (Haimson,1978).

Values for the least principal stress at the base of the Paleozoic section (bottom of the wells) can be estimated from the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) recorded while each .

of the wells was hydrofractured. The actual measurement of this pressure is made at the top of the hole, so it has to be corrected by adding to it the pressure of the weight of the fluid column in the drill string. Some uncertainty is introduced by this correction because 8

although most of the wells were stimulated with fresh water (specific gravity 1.0 g/cm ),

the presence of other material in the injected fluid (acid, sand, waste, brine, etc.) will make the density of the fluid somewhat higher. To simplify matters, a standard value of 180 O bars is assumed for the correction to the bottom of the wells (1800 meters), unless speci6c information was available to indicate a different value was more appropriate. In several cases, values for the ISIP are measured both early and late into the hydrofrac procedure.

Table 4 lists both values. Since the value measured after extended pumping is often not a true indication of the least principal stress, initial values of ISIP are assumed to be more valid. Initial values, corrected to the bottom of the well, range from 262 to 302 bars. If regional values of the stress ratio are used (assuming 460 bars for the vertical stress), the minimum stress ranges from 275 to 321 bars. Thus, these two independent estimates yield similar values. Extrapolations from downhole measurements made at regional distances (Michigan and western New York) range as high as 370 bars (Halmson,1978; Hickman et al.,1985). The preferred value is taken to be 300 bars. This is on the conservative side, as small values of ISIP (and therefore the minimum horizontal compressive stress) imply a larger stress differential relative to the maximum horizontal compressive stress, and thus a greater likelihood for shear failure along preexisting favorably-oriented fractures.

Formation pore pressure is measured directly during drill stem tests. Table 5 lists values of pore pressure measured in both the Mt. Simon and Maynardville formations from the two Calhio wells. The two sets of measurements were made about 9 years apart. Those made in the Calhio #2 wellindicate a change in the formation pore pressure since extensive pumping began in the Calhio #1 well four years earlier (1975). The apparent increase in pore pressure with time found in the Maynardsville is consistent with calculated effects of 17

( _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

. around the hichr circle, whose center is the average between the maximum and minimum principal stresses (right circle, Figure 22a). Larger stress differences between the maximum and minimum, result in larger hiohr circles and larger available shear stresses for favorably oriented fractures. In the presence of a fluid, the effective stress levels are reduced by the ,

amount of the formation pore pressure, which moves the hiohr circle to the left (middle circle, Figure 22a). This condition is close to but does not exceed the failure criterion for a fracture with no cohesion. At a nominal injection pressure of 110 bars, however, this would bring the zone immediately surrounding the well bottom to an effective stress state near critical for favorably oriented preexisting fractures having a cohesive strength of as much as 40 bars and friction coefficient near 0.6 (left circle, Figure 22a). Preliminary focal r~x 6  %

mechanisms and hydrofrac stress measurements suggest that vertical planes striking NNE V and ESE would be most favorably oriented for failure. And since the overburden is only a lower bound for the estimate of the maximum compressive stress, the actual conditions for failure would be more critical than the situation shown.

Because fluid injection could have brought at least the region near the bottom of the well into a critical stress state, the absence of any known earthquakes in the immediate vi2nity of the well suggests that there are no favorably oriented weak fractures near the well. Thus, either existing fractures have cohesion strengths greater than 40 bars, or if weaker fractures do exist, they are not favorably oriented for failure in the existing stress field. The predominant dip of fractures observed in a core taken from the injection zone in Calhio well #2 is 20 degrees. Such fractures would not be favorably oriented for failure p

(uJ according to the forgoing analysis, as shear stress is maximum only for near vertical faults.

State of stress in the hypocentral region Estimation of the preexisting state of stress at the hypocenter requires extrapolation of measurements to a depth of 5 to 8 km, a procedure that is somewhat controversial. hicGarr (1980) shows that although it is permissible to extrapolate individual stress components to depth in laterally homogeneous environments, the linear extrapolation of principal stresses is not theoretically justified.

In the epicentral region, the compilation by K. Evans indicates a stress ratio of about l 19

)

• - storativity is 2.2E-5. An assumption of minimum storativity results in a maximum value for the cone of impression surrounding a source. A more realistic value of 5.4E-5 for the storativity is obtained by assuming a reservoir compressibility of 3.5E-6 per bar. Although ,

1 the storativity does not have a great effect on the infinite reservoir calculations, it does . '

have a significant effect on the strip reservoir calculations.

For purposes of calculating pressure 12 km from the well, it suffices to use an average fluid injection rate. The total volume injected into both wells is 1.17 billion liters (310 million gallons) during the period from March 1975 through November,1985. For purposes of the following analysis, this amount was assumed to be injected over the total lifetime of the well (i.e, 1972-1986, or about fourteen years), corresponding to an average injection rate of 6.7 million liters / month. This assumption slightly underestimates the pressure

/ affect of the wells. Because the distance between the wells (about 0.5 km) is smallcompared to the distance from the wells to the hypocenter, the two wells have been modeled as a single fluid source.

Infinite reservoir model (radial flow)

- In order to maintain injection pressure of 110 bars or less for the assumed 14-year period of operation of the injection wells, a slight increase in transmissivity to 4.5E-6 ,

m 2/s was assumed. Figure 23 shows pressure versus distance for different time periods after initiation of injection at 7 million liters / month into an innnite reservoir with a transmissivity as specified and a storage coefficient of 5.4E-5. Figure 24 is a plot of pressure versus ti:ne at the well bore for the same model. The innnite reservoir model d yields an estimate of slightly less than 2 bars for the increase in fluid pressure 12 km from the well, which is where the January 31" earthquake occurred.

infinite strip reservoir model j

The pressure falloff with distance is greatest for the infinite reservoir because fluid is free to flow in all directions. However, if fluid flow is confined to a narrow reservoir trending from the wells to the hypocentral region, then the pressure at a given distance from the well will be higher. This type of model was used by Hsieh and Bredehoeft (1981]

to calculate the pressure distribution around the Rocky Mountain Arsenal well implicated 21

4

• pressure decline would be diagnostic of the configuration of the reservoir, possibly within a year after cessation.

Conclusions . !

With our present information,it is not possible to confirm or reject the hypothesis that injection of waste into the Calhio wells triggered the earthquake activity near Painesville.

If the state of stress in the hypocentral region is comparable to that at the bottom of the injection wells, then it appears that elevating the pressure by 110 bars would have resulted in a state of effective stress that would be judged critical on the basis of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The actual state of stress at the bottom of the well, however, is likely to be closer to failure than this estimate because the stress regime appears to be one in which the V overburden underestimates the maximum compressive stress. Thus, because these stress estimates are uncertain, and also because they are not based on measurements made at the hypocenter, it is not possible to specify a level of pressure below which seismicity could l

not have been induced.

The actual pressure elevation in the hypocentral region due to the injection operation is certainly less than 110 bars, and probably less than about 40 bars. Whatever this pressure is, it will continue to rise whether or not injection continues, unless an extraction operation is undertaken.

However,in light of the fact that the mainshock and most of the aftershocks occurred at considerable distance from the active wells, the pressure fall-off with distance from the wells, the occurrence of small to moderate earthquakes in this region prior to initiation of injection, the lack of large numbers of small earthquakes (commonly observed in cases ]

of induced seismicity) and the lack of earthquakes immediately below the wells all argue for a " natural" origin for the earthquake on January 31". Thus, although triggering remains a possibility, the probability based on existing data that the injection wells played a significant role in causing the earthquake sequer il considered low.

23 l

a site near the Perry Nuclear Power Plant than are levels of shaking at 20 Hz for sites I

closer to the hypocenters. Spectra computed for the mainshock recorded at the power plant suggests similar exaggerated levels of vertical shaking near 20 Hz. Levels of shaking observed on the annulus of the containment structure during the mainshock are larger than -

those of the base of the reactor building foundation. This observation suggests that both the containment vessel and the near-surface soil layer may have contributed to observed levels of exaggerated vertical shaking near 20 Hz. Spectral amplifications computed from )

broad-band high-resolution recordings of the aftershock sequence near Painesville, Ohio, the aftershock sequence near Coalinga, California, and uphole-downhole recordings near Parkfield, California, suggest that local site conditions may significantly amplify high-frequency (10-80 Hz) ground motions. Such amplification effects are likely to be most C}\

\' significant in areas of low attenuation such as the eastern United States, and are important from an engineering point of view because of their potential influence on predicted peak acceleration values.

Introduction Considerable scientific and engineering interest in the event resulted in a team of five seismologists being dispatched from Menlo Park, California on the evening of January 31 to install ten digital event recorders (GEOS) in the epicentral area (see Borcherdt et al.,1985 and Borcherdt,1986 for a detailed description of the recording equipment and configuration N used to record this data set}. The seismograms and computed Fourier amplitude spectra 1

collected from this deployment are presented in detail by Glassmoyer et al.(1986). )

Recent improvements in recording system technology have permitted the extension of both bandwidth and dynamic range for recorded seismic signals. In the case of the data set recorded near Painesville, Ohio the digital recording systems (GEOS) were operated )

at 400 samples-per-second (sps) per-channel at high gain (42,48,54 dB). These instrument settings imply a Nyquist frequency of 200 Hz and a capability to record small-amplitude seismic signals near background noise levels at high resolution. The Fourier amplitude spectra computed for the recording of the larger aftershocks (Glassmoyer et al.,1986) show that earthquake-generated ground motions in excess of 100 Hz were recorded for some of 1

25 l

A

frequencies perhaps as high as 100 Hz for sites near the source. Borcherdt et al.[1983) observed that exaggerated ground shaking in the frequency range 10-25 Hz was apparent for sites located on thick sections of alluvium in the vicinity of Coalinga, California.

They observed that local site resonances were consistently observed for events with similar -

f azimuths and locations, but that significant changes in azimuth and/or locations for the  !

events seemed to give rise to significant changes in the high-frequency amplitude response characteristics inferred from spectral ratios. Cranswick et al. (1985) also have observed exaggerated ground shaking at some sites in New Brunswick, Canada and near Goodnow, New York. These observations obtained with modern instrumentation (GEOS) confirm that local geologic conditions can play a signi6 cant role in modifying observed high-(

frequency (> 10 Hz) ground motions. In addition, these effects may also play a significant

\

role in biasing estimates of small earthquake source parameters.

Recent studies of the response of near-surface deposits as observed on wide-dynamic-range instrumentation near Parkfield, California (Borcherdt et al.,1985] show that near- l surface deposits can consistently yield significant levels of amplified high-frequency (> 10 Hz) ground motions.

In this section, we document the nature of the high-frequency ground motion observed at the GEOS re.:ording sites near Painesville, Ohio. In particular, the three sites selected along a linear array between the epicenters and the shore of Lake Erie are examined in detail. The high-frequency amplitude response of the lake shore sedimentary deposits are estimated and compared with those observed on the main shock records.

V Recording Instrumentation The GEOS recording system (Figure 30), deployed to record the aftershock sequence, was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey for use in a wide variety of active and passive seismic experiments. The digital data acquisition system operates under control of a central microcomputer which permits sitnple adaptation of the system in the field to a variety of experiments including near-source high-frequency studies of strong motion aftershock sequences, crustal structure, teleseismic earth structure, earth tidal strains, and free oscillations (see Borcherdt et al.,1985, for detailed description}.

27

- picking of P and S arrival times to within 0.02 seconds by two independent observers.

The automatic clock corrections provided every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and recorded on the GEOS tapes indicate the clock errors for the GEOS recordings are within 5 ms.  !

Four of the aftershocks (2 February 03:22,3 February 19:47,5 February 06:34, and .

6 February 18:36) triggered four or more GEOS recorders with an appropriate station  !

distribution to permit location of the events based only on P arrival times. The epicenters l for these four events, located with the layered crustal model #1 (Table 2) and P arrival times only, are within 0.44 km of 41 38.85'N and F1 9.51'W, and at depths between 4.0 km to 6.5 km (essentially the locations shown in Figure 10).

i Characteristics of High Frequency Ground Motions o Previous studies of seismic attenuation have established that seismic wave fields in the eastern United States, in general, attenuate less rapidly than those in the western United States (Nuttli,1973). As a result, high-frequency energy is generally more prevalent in seismograms recorded in the eastern United States. In addition, improvements in reeerding capabilities (bandwidth and dynamic range) also contribute to improvements in resolution of high-frequency energy. Consequently, it is of some interest to investigate the high-frequency character of ground motions recorded during the aftershock sequence and compare the results with those recorded during the mainshock at the Perry Nuclear Plant.

The time histories and corresponding Fourier spectra for the recordings of the aftershocks

(~' are presented by Glassmoyer et al.(1986). The strong-motion records and corresponding

\'

spectra as processed by Kinemetrics/Systees (1986) are presented in a strong-motion data report by Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.

Strong-motion data Two sets of three-component strong-motion time histories were recorded at the Perry 4 Nuclear Plant during the m3 4.9 main shock. One set was obtained at the base of the reactor building foundation (elevation 175 m or 575 ft) and the other on the containment i

vessel annulus at an elevation of 208 m (or 682 ft). The recordings were made with Kinemetrics model SMA-3 accelerograph v/ stems with a nominal dynamic range of 40 dB, j

29

north-south lineation of stations (GS01, GS02, and GS03). Station GS01 is about 400 m I northeast of the Perry Nuclear Plant, station GS02 is located about 8 km further south, and station GS03 an additional 5 km further south and about 2 km NNW of the epicentral area. .

Equiscaled plots of the time histories recorded at stations GS01 and GS02 are shown l

I for the 19:47 event and the 18:36 event in Figures 37 and 38, respectively. The time histories have not been corrected for geometrical spreading, Comparison of the two plots shows that some of the amplitudes recorded at the station farthest from the epicenter l (GS01) are larger than those recorded at station (GS02), which is about 8 km closer to the epicenter. The peak amplitudes for the 18:36 event slightly exceeded full-scale response l l

O at 54 dB gain at station GS02. As a result, comparison of peak amplitudes for the 18:36 event must be less conclusive than similar comparisons for the 19:47 event. Exceedence (

of full-scale response for the 18:36 event is expected to have only a minor influence on estimates of Fourier amplitude spectra.

Comparison of the vertical time histories at stations GS01 and GS02 for the 19:47 event (Figure 37) shows that the vertical peak amplitudes are as much as 4 times larger at station GS01 than at station GS02. The well-defined pulse of large vertical amplitude during the time interval for the arrival of the P wave at station GS01 is to be contrasted to the more l gradual build-up in amplitude during the S wave arrivalinterval. The exaggerated vertical l motions, with a modulated appearance during the S wave interval, might be interpreted as evidence for some type of resonance, either in the near-surface geologic layers or in some nearby man-made structure. It does not appear that the same phenomenon can account for the relatively large pulse near the onset of the initial P energy. Comparison of the vertical time histories for the 18:36 event (Figure 38) again shows larger motions at station GS01 during the S wave arrival interval with some suggestion of resonance.

The peak amplitudes recorded during the arrival of the P wave are not larger than those observed at station GS02.

Comparing the horizontal amplitudes at station GS01 with those at station GSO2 for the 19:47 event shows that only the initial S arrival on the radial (north-south) component is significantly larger at station GS01. Comparison of peak amplitudes for the 18:36 event 31

m which the spectral signal-to-noise ratios were greater than two. Spectral noise levels were .

I determined from 1.25 seconds of noise prior to the onset of seismic energy. The spectra were computed from 10 seconds of time history sampled at 400 sps commencing about 1 second prior to the onset of the P wave. The spectra were smoothed with a 15-point .

triangular Hanning window which corresponds to a window width of 1.5 Hz. The scale j factor to permit the ratios to be corrected for geometrical spreading is indicated in each of the Sgures.

The computed ratios (Figur s 40) show that seismic energy was resolvable above instrument noise levels at the gain levels specified for the GEOS up to frequencies as high as 130 Hz. This upper limit represents a substantial extension in observable bandwidth over that previously observed from conventional strong-motion recorders with an upper I[ ]/

\' limit of about 30-35 Hz. Interpretation of the sigr$cance of seismic signals in the 50-130 Hz band must await more detailed investigations.

Comparison of the spectral ratios shown for the 0-50 Hz band (Figure 41) for the 19:47 event with those for the 18:36 event show that the spectral ratios are similar in many respects with a few notable differences. The extent to which the ratios are similar argues that these spectral ratios provide an estimate of the amplitude response of station GS01 relative to that at station GS02 (Figures 41a, b, and c) and station GS03 (Figures 41d, e, and f). One notable difference in comparing the ratios for the two events is the reduction in the ratios computed for the vertical component of motion recorded from the 18:36 event. In situ relative instrument calibration characteristics computed prior to the p

19:47 event and about 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> later, just prior to the 18:46 event, show that the computed calibration curves agree to within a percent over the entire band for which there is a good signal-to-noise ratio in the input signal. Variations near 100 Hz are due to seismic noise at the site during the second calibration interval. As a result, the apparent reduction in ratios for the 18:36 event does not seem to be associated with changes in instrument response.

Dordnant features of the spectral ratios are the predominant peaks which occur for the vertical motion near 20 Hz. The occurrence of these peaks on each of the ratios computed from the vertical motions provides strong evidence for an exaggerated level of vertical shaking near 20 Hz at station GS01. Evidence for exaggerated level of shaking 33

permissive of the interpretation of a fault striking somewhat east of north, but as most of the aftershocks are tightly clustered in space, they provide only very weak evidence for ,

the orientation of a fault.

Stress Regime Analysis of available stress measurements as discussed above seems to indicate that the state of stress in northeastern Ohio is close to the theoretical threshold for small '

1 earthquakes as predicted by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This should not be l O

V surprising given the history of small to moderate earthquakes in the region.

l Possible Role of Injection Wells {

l Although given the state of stress discussed above, triggering of small earthquakes by fiuld injection would not be surprising, the distance of the January 31 earthquake and its aftershocks from the welle (with the exception of the very small earthquake on March 1h, the lack of any small earthquakes detected near the bottom of the wells, the history of small to moderate earthquakes in the region prior to the initation of injection, and the attenuation of the pressure field with distance from the injection wells, all argue for a

" natural" origin for the earthquake. Therefore, although triggering remains a possibility,

_s the probability that the injection played a significant role in triggering the earthquake, based on the information currently available, must be regarded as low. The analysis of the {

possible relation between the injection wells and the January 31 earthquake has indicated {

nothing to suggest the occurrence of an earthquake larger than that expected for the broad j

region, cr the activation of a major structure closer to the wells or near the power plant. i i

Value of Continued Earthquake Monitoring I Continued earthquake monitoring in the vicinity of the epicenter of the January 31 earthquake will be of considerable value for two reasons. First, as indicated above, the lack of many small earthquakes detected near the bottom of the injection wells is a very l

l 35 l

J

- At present insufficient data exists to conclusively determine if separate 20 Hz resonances exist in both the containment structure and the near-surface soillayers. If both resonances l do exist then significantly exaggerated shaking near 20 Hz can be expected from future earthquakes. -

Future studies to better describe the resonances suggested by the strong-motion data and the aftershock data would help in assessing the potential levels of exaggerated ground shaking and their significance for emineering purposes. Ambient vibration studies of pertinent structures, soil-structure interaction studies and comparative ground motion studies could contribute to an improved understanding of the significance of the observed motions. Additionalinvestigations oflocal geologic and seismic site characteristics together

/Q with appropriate numerical models may also be warranted.

Evidence derived in this study and other recent studies using broadband instrumen-tation for levels of exaggerated ground shaking at high frequencies suggests that general studies pertinent to assessing the influence of possible high-frequency site resonances on peak accelerations in the band 10-40 Hz are warranted.

heed to Understand Basement Structure Given the geologic setting and conditions in northeastern Ohio, the best chance to learn about the nature of the structure (s) responsible for the earthquakes will be through general geophysical investigations. Such studies might include seismic reflection, microgravity and/or detailed areomagnetic surveys. Seismic reflection profiles that

)

(V penetrate to basement are likely to produce the highest resolution, and thus the greatest capability of identifying faults or other structures responsible for the seismicity, structures that may find little if any expression in the overlying rocks of Paleozoic age. Detailed ,

1 gravity and magnetic surveys have already been commissioned, and hopefully they will  !

also be revealing of significant local structure and/or basement topography.

Research-quality Measurements in Boreholes As noted above, while the data from commercial hyrofractures has been valuable in estimating the regional state of stress, estimates could be made with considerably higher 37 l

l

REFERENCES Borcherdt, R. D. (1968), Spectral analysis of seismic measurements from nuclear explosions in Nevada recorded in the San Francisco Bay area, California, Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec.

Paper 121, p. 486-487.

Borcherdt, R. D. (1970), Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., v. 60, p. 29-41.

Borcherdt, R. D., and Gibbs, J. F. (1976), Effects of local geological conditions in the San j Francisco Bay region on ground motions and the intensities of the 1906 earthquake, Bull. Seismo!. Soc. Am., v. 66, p. 467-500.

Borcherdt, 'R. D., Fletcher, J. B., Jensen, E. G., Maxwell, G. L., VanSchaack, J. R.,

Warrick, R. E., Cranswick, E., Johnston, M. J. S.,-and McClearn, R. (1985), A General Earthquake Observation System (GEOS), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., v. 75, p.1783-1823.

Borcherdt, R. D., editor (1986), Preliminary report on aftershock sequence for the

-earthquake of January 31,1986, near Painesville, Ohio, U. S. Geol. Suru. Open-File ,

Rep.86-181,11 pp. with figures and maps.

Chaplin, M. P., Taylor, S. R., and Tokoz, M. N. (1980), Coda-length magnitude scale for New England, Earthquake Notes , v. 51, p.15-22.

g Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (1982), The Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units I and II: Final Safety Analysis Report, Cleveland, Ohio.

Clifford, M. J. (1973), Silurian rock salt of Ohio, Ohio Geol. Suru. Rep. of Investigations,

v. 9,42 pp., Columbus, Ohio.

Clifford, M. J. (1975), Subsurface liquid-waste injection in Ohio, Ohio Geol. Suru. In.

form. Circular, v. 43, 27 pp., Columbus, Ohio.

Cranswick, E., Wetmiller, R., and Boatwright J. (1985), High-frequency observations and source parameters of microcarthquakes recorded at hard-rock sites, Bull. Seis.

mol. Soc. A m., v. 75, p.1535-1568.

39

l Jaeger, J. C., and Cook, N. C. W. (1976), Fundamentals of Rock Mechanies, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,585 pp.

Kinemetries/ Systems (198G), Mt = 5.0 earthquake, January 31" , 1986: Strong-motion ,

data from the Perry Nuclear Power Plant seismic instrumentation, Pasadena, Calif.,

53 pp.

Lahr, J. C. (1985), HYPOELLIPSE/VAX: A computer program for determining local earthquake hypocentral paramters, magnitude and first-motion patterm, U. S. Geol. i Suru. Open-File Rep.84-519,35 pp.

- McGarr, A. (1980), Some constraints on levels of shear stress in the crust from observations and theory, J. Geophys. Res. , v. 85, p. 6231-6238.

Natural Resources Maagement Corp. (1971), Report on the drilling, testing and completion of the subsurface disposal well #1, Calhio Chemicals, Inc., Perry, Ohio, 81 pp. with maps, figures and graphs.

. I N5Till, O. W., Stauder, W., and Kisslinger, C. (1969), Travel time tables for earthquakes in the central United States, Earthquake Notes , v. 40, p.19-28.

Ohio UIC Permit Application for Class I Injection well (1985), Calhio Chemicals, Inc.,

Perry, Ohio, Injection Well #1,22 pp. l Ohio UIC Permit Application for Class I Injection well (1985), Calh.io Chemicals, Inc.,

Ferry, Ohio, Injection Well #2,22 pp.

Petro Evaluation Services, Inc. (1985), Well completion record, saltwater injection well, l Painesville, Lake County, Ohio,5 pp.

Press, F. (1966), Seismic velocities, Handbook of Physical Constants, edited by S. D. Clark, Geol. Soc. Am. Memoir , v. 97, p.195-218.

Raleigh, C. B., Healy, J. H., and Bredehoeft, J. D. (1976), An experiment in earthquake control at Rangely, Colorado, Science , v.191, p.1230-1237.  !

41

\ - - -- -- _ -- - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

i ,

TABLE 1. LOCATIONS OF STATIONS DEPLOYED TO MONITOR AFTERSHOCKS.

STATION LATITUDE. LONGITUDE AFFILIATION DATES OF ABBREV. Deg Min Deg Min ABBREV. OCCUPATION CON. 41N42.06 081W12.55 LAMONT GAR 41N47.30 081W10.64 LAMONT .

HLH 41N41.20 081W07.01 LAMONT HPV 41N44.41 081WO3.08 LAMONT HSE 41N33.77 081H06.76 LAMONT POP 41N37.23 081W07.05 LAMONT TTR 41N35.25.081W11.69 LAMONT HSOH 41N35.66 081H07.84 MICHIGAN FEB. 01 - FEB, 02 MTOH 41N36.68 081WO3.07 MICHIGAN FEB. 01 - FEB. 02

~ CHOH 41N35.56 081W11.84 SLU JAN. 31 - FEB. 03

-[ HAOH 41N36.46 081W08.51 SLU JAN. 31 - FEB. 03

\ PAOH 41N45.41 081W11.95 SLU JAN. 31 -

FEB. 03 CALM 41N34.1 081W10.3 TEIC ELFM 41N36.8 081W10.9 TEIC FARM 41N38.3 081W10.4 TEIC HOWM 41N35.0 081WO7.9 TEIC HONM 41N36.7 081WO2.9 TEIC BUR 41N39.24 081H04.94 U.S.G.S FEB. 02 - FEB, 11 CAL 41N41.21 081WO8.89 DENVER FEB. 02 - FEB. 11 COT 41N34.73 081W05.93 "

FEB. 02 - FEB. 11 CUY 41N33.56 081W10.15 "

FEB. 03 - FEB, 11 ERJ 41N39.44 081WOS.00 FEB. 06 - FEB. 11 FOT 41N38.90 080W59.69 "

FEB. 04 -

FEB. 11 HAM 41N36.18 081WO8.48 FEB. 02 - FEB. 11 g HAR 41N36.67 080W59.62 "

FEB. 02 -

FEB. 04 g HWK 41N41.83 080W59.03 FEB. 02 - FEB, 11 LOX 41N44.58 081WO2.60 FEB. 02 - FEB. 11 MON 41N35.52 081W02.39 FEB. 02 - FEB. 11 WSH 41N37.61 081W13.30 FEB. 02 - FEB. 11 GS01 41N48.27 081W08.52 U.S.G.S. FEB. 01 - APR. 03 GSO2 41N43.75 081WO9.47 MENLO PARK FEB. 01 - APR. 03 GS03 41N39.45 081W10.07 FEB. 01 - APR. 03 GSO4 41N36.85 081W17.55 FEB. 01 - FEB. 11 GS05 41N35.64 081WO8.19 "

FEB. 01 -

FEB. 04 GS06 41N37.75 081WO3.77 FEB. 01 - APR. 03 GS07 41N32.40 081WO4.26 FEB. 01 - FEB. 11 GS08 41N32.38 081W12.93 FEB. 02 - FEB. 10 GSO9 41N24.81 081W11.91 FEB. 02 - FEB. 10 GS11 41N09.20 081WO4.42 FEB. 02 - FEB. 10 GS55 41N37.10 081WO7.18 FEB. 04 - FEB. 10 t

43

d Table 2. Models used to locate events listed in Table 3 Depth Thickness P Velocity S Velocity Vp/Vs Description *

(km) (km) (km/s) (km/s) ,

1 0.0 2.00 4.25 2.53 1.68 Paleozoic section 2.00 99.00 6.50 3.87 1.68 Granitic basement 0.0 1.00 3.70 2.06 1.80 Upper Sedimentary I

L'g 1.00 1.00 5.60 3.20 1.75 Lower Sedimentary 2.00 35.00 6.33 3.66 1.73 Granitic crust 37.00 99.00 8.10 4.68 1.73 Mantle I

0.0 0.05 1.80 0.60 3.00 Glacial till 0.05 0.45 3.00 1.58 1.90 Devonian shale 0.50 0.50 4.20 2.33 1.80 Silurian dolomite 1.00 0.75 4.50 2.53 1.78 Ordovician limestone f

t and dolomite 1.75 0.35 4.75 2.70 1.76 Cambrian sandstone and dolomite j

)

2.10 17.90 6.15 3.54 1.74 Precambrian granite 1

20.00 25.00 6.70 3.87 1.73 Lower crust )1 4

40.00 99.00 8.15 4.63 1.75 Mantle

• Weston Geophysical, Herrmann [1969), Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. [1982]

45

Table 4. Stress estimates (bars) ,

l Measurement Principal Stresses Formation Pore Injection Site S S S Pressure Pressure V h H i Maynardsville Mt. Simon Regional 459 275-321 (Evans)

Michigan 464 344 503 (Halmson)

D (V W. New York 441 370 .570 (Hickman et al)

Calhio# 1 302 457 197 210 291 ,

inital Calhied 1 336 559 final Calhio"2 268 357 199 198 291 initial Calhio"2 343 582 O final C/

Brine well 262 267 initial Brine well 295 final Accepted value 460 300 460-560 200 290 j

)

47

e Table 6. Physical properties of reservoir rocks into which waste is being injected Maynardville Rome Mt. Simon Permeability, 4.2E-3  ? 5.5E-3 p darcies Hydraulic conductivity, 4.2 E-8  ? 5.5E-8 m/s Thickness, 52.7 22.3 37.8 meters

~~ Transmissivity, ~ 2.2E-6  ? 2.1E-6 2

m 73 Porosity 0.08  ? 0.085 Minimum storativity 1.25E-5  ? 9.54 E-6 Other values assumed are fluid density = 1.2 g/cm3 , fluid compressibility = 3.03E-11 cm2/ dyne i) 49 )

. x Table 8. Near-surface velocity measurements

• Elevation V, V. Description (feet) (ft/s) (ft/s) .

1

[

\'

620- Lacustrine Sediments:

612 1200 600 (unsaturated) 605 5000 700 (saturated)

~

595 5000 1200 (saturated) 583 5900 1900 Glacial till: (upper) 560 7800 2600 (lower) 510 10400 4900 Shale L

410 9000 4000 Shale

• Safety Analysis Report, Perry Nuclear Plant 1

51 l

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a

- compressions; open triangles are dilatations. Legend indicates origin time, location and focal depth.

Figure 15. Focal mechanisms for aftershocks February 10 20:06 and February 5 06:34.

Notice relatively large component of normal faulting for these two events.

i Figure 16. Focal mechanisms for aftershocks February 2 03:22 and Febraury 715:20.

Notice that these two events show nearly diametrically opposite solutions.

Figure 17. Focal mechanisms for aftershocks February 23 03:29 and February 1 18:54.

Nodal planes are not well constrained.

Figure 18. Composite of first motions for all smaller aftershocks with nodal planes n

( determined for largest aftershock, February 618:36.

Figure 19. Volume of fluid injected into Calhio wells through time.

Figure 20 Locatien of deep injection wells in Lake County and epicenters of earthquakes.

Large uncertainties in location are associated with both the 1943 and 1983 earthquake epicenters. .

Figure 21. Seismogram of small event near station GS02 within 3 km of the Calhio injection wells.

Figure 22. Mohr circle diagrams showing state of stress a) at bottcm of injection well; b) at hypocenter.

Figure 23. Pressure produced by waste injection into infinite reservoir. Each curve is labeled with the elapsed number of years since the beginning of injection.

Injection at steady rate of 6.7 million liters / month.

Figure 24. Pressure versus time at the wellhead for the three reservoir-models. See text for explanation.

Figure 25. Pressure produced by waste injection into strip reservoir 7.5 km wide with same transmissivity as infinite reservoir.

Figure 26. Pressure produced by waste injection into strip reservoir 1 km wide.

53

. Figure 36. Relative velocity response and Fourier spectra for mainshock as recorded on annulus of containment vessel a) vertical, b) north-south and c) east-west component (Kinemetrics/ Systems,1986).

Figure 37. Equiscaled plots of ground velocity aas recorded at station GS01 (traces 1,2,'

3) and at station GS02 (traces 4,5,6) for aftershock on February 3 at 19:47 (Magnitude 2.2). Comparison of amplitudes shows that vertical amplitudes of velocity are up to four times larger at station GS01, which is about 8 km more distant from the hypocenter.

Figure 38. Equiscaled plots of ground velocity as recorded at station GS01 (traces 1,2,

3) and at station GS02 (traces 4,5,6) for aftershock on February 6 at 18:36.

Figure 39. Plot of peak acceleration amplitudes as a function distance observed for aftershock of February 319:47 a) with and b) without correction for geometric spreading.

Figure 40. Spectral ratios computed to characterize amplitude response at station GS01

__ relative to station GS02 (a, b, c) and relative to station GS03 (d, e, f). Spectral ratios shown cover the band from 0.1 to 130 Hz, the frequency band for which the signal-to-noise ratio exceeds 2. Note that the spectral ratios computed from broadband digital data allow recognition of site response characteristics at frequencies much higher than previously observed with conventional recording equipment!

Figure 41. Spectral ratios of vertical component computed to characterize amplitude response at station GS01 relative to station GS02 (a, b, c) and relative to station GS03 (d, e, f) as shown in Figure 40 for frequency band 0.1 to 50 Hz.  !

Amplitude response as computed for station GS01 with respect to station GS02 and station GS03 and for both events (19:47 and 18:36) suggests exaggerated levels of ground motion between 5 and 10 Hz and near 20 Hz. Smaller, but still significant levels of exaggerated shaking are also apparent for horizontal components.

l 55

Figure 2

\ .

57 81.5* 81.26* si' 80.76*

I I I I EARTHOUAKE OF JANUARY 31,1986 NORTHEASTERN OHlO 5

'?"' gp6 #

l 6 0 6 10 KM 6 6 l 8C ALE 1:000,000 l

6 6'/

41.76* - 6 - 41.76*

N

• s-- ASHTABULA E e *s w .() e V 3, LAKE e j

5 4 s 6 VI

- s,' ,

6--4 1 r

j l-V 5 6 e5 5 5 4 4 4436 5 l 6

/ j g 4 6 5 5 hl 6 41.6* __ , ,,,,,

l e GEAUGAY 56 s (( s 4 CUYAHOGA l l* \ l gy, 4 e 4.//44_ _lV. /

4 ' 8 4 s !8 4 74 4l *

, TRUMBULL 41.26* 41.26' 5

/ _ l4 3 6 -

l SUMMIT

(/ PORTAGE ,

s5 6 6 g I

5

' 4 o

+ ,. a OHIO' of I map 4,*  ; _ 41'

~ ~

l [ l I 81.6' 81.26* 81* 80.76*

Preliminary interior MM isoseismals for the earthquake of January 31, 1986, northeastern Ohio. Site intensities are shown by Arabic numerals. Isoseismal intensities are denoted by Roman numerals. Star shows the location of the main shock epicenter. The isoseismal lines are shown as dashed because all the data are not yet in. When the data set is complete the lines will be finalized.

t

( ,

O _ ~w u z af 2-3-86 19:47 HAR

_. -7 5---*- .. . .

v. . '

~7 .&:_ ; _ __.+.4 1 -

A --

. y' k f

- - +

4 -

g , a [/..

. o & ..

,t .

j 4 4 r

i 1

a i

--+ - _ _ _ ._ . m ,

2-5-86 6:34 HAM 2-6-86 18:36 CUY

' ~f . ;. . . <.l

. G.-GN 7 ..L.

77 1A 7 bl=t3mt /4 0 =- ==t .i N T? !._.li. E.=: i rf E ,E.5. .. . . . . . .

A- - - : . C _. $-f: .I . . iSS--'[-M r u : . .'.. .Y ~ ((-fiNI'['i. . . (I-((f 5..i T" r .N 5b i M- if INNCU.5 U- d. h.. UQN. h :. .

..m: ,E:lY

. =_ . . . .. . .g- : .

- - - ~

.y; :

.e

-7 j .: n ---- . r;-.

.r,--

.y

. . 1..,

-; .;:tj :: --

l- 2 : O.'II:

%==.

.;:.r_ qp: .: n ;;.

7 ..#5.

.# g;

@.-41 D fN f

., .3 Q.- --. %....

. . y __ .

.:. '_ ] i==. ^::=gru: +

r

. .nxx . + , .

... . . . - xr.==

w, ; __ _

mm=. . x_ ' . . ;;z= +,  ; :92.

1

- .ye

+ -_::. ,:.. .

-.j.=m..... ..t. . . . . . . .. -. i _::.- y

,.. . = . . . . _

. n m4, . . .

..mm.:3p-

=..-

,..- r

. det : =: .

g@3 1 ,

3:  ;.=.rw w

,w:: . ,=:

,=

g; . . . . : <. . . _. . . .

3.. . . - .,

4gq j .;, . .::: 3)

.i

. . , ... . . y.y ,

1.

3 .

7. - .

- rc-- r ..

. 7,qw .

7. - .; gg; -"-~:

, g myijn-y p.a :g ;.g =

..: p:7 L X = - _

~ ' ;':  : , ((j[.} __ _ _ __ .

~

~ T4Q7 l--# .d+--if 5 Chj ;:- d.; l g=

.. L ._.i .t #m W  % y .s_5p=_ W 1.g.A et"__-..I ~ T'IU'D '---<---:-w u'...,.,.. ' . -l2.- w -

a- .

2-7-86 15:20 CAL 2-10-86 20:06 CAL Figure 4 59

~

s e

41.82$ '

Yll)

YL0x pg 0 g (2)

't

\

YMWM YCR.

(31 Y

W IM vf0f V ggj YvSH v ggj v g) .

- Va Ym YPO4 YCOT 73 VCttr I8) 9 (7)

YC4 81.3*a '8 V SEIBMOCRAPH STATION 2 ,6 10 km

[8 Figure 8 63

e i

1 4 L.800 VLOX PADit!MLU O 7 (2) r

/-s' V HvM i

7 CAL (3; gg; SL)t YF07 jf

~

Tysg 7(6)

IE Ym Un VW VMON

/3

Cmy vg7 YCUY

-~

/ 7 (6) 7 (7)

)

,V 81.300 60.90 km 7 SE!SWOCRAPH STATION 0

, ,2 ,5 1,0 i

Figure 10 I

65 I i

l J

1 e

O .-

b .O O e

g e:

. s.

m

=

J N- 7 o - m m = m T

- C c

$ X O O O +r a O _

> , E, 1 ' '

I c_ , i i

W C I .

< < o m

o f0 o <

"\. U 3 9[

4 CU wC '

t- -

% - amn N

N <

c>$

l c

a C .

dy

. W N

e < o M h

\ $ 0 -o o 4 e

( ~

Z "

< a m

u. 2

' N U ,

% 's h 's y / ~?- / 8 z

. f. y c *>' .'*' by/ _,/

.. 'y y) ',

y s x-j dp(gh f "j;gp /

t m

/ -

. . s ma -

. / ~ -

e O

67

6 R

a E1 6 H9 PW

• e SB l

I a M893 0

a S ,

N! e

, e* EN H41G 5 .

, R1 79 e e E4 9 o W13 a a O0 2 e

O g s a L0 6 8 '

l l

l

_ 'e.

f '

9" E8 a - R 'S ~

a / Ej t a e H9 6

, PW .I S 8,

• e I}- 5 t

^

• M 8-e 3,

'7 N e ee EN, H4 1

'l e ]2 t e 5 R 5G...

e ^

eo a E3 Wt o 8m

- e a 4 Od, 2 a a a a Lkm, '

A 4

_ t e

a*

- l f  ! ,

l Rt

^ E5 2 H9

= PW

^a S8 I 6 1

0 M93

^ , e iEN N /a[ a s

Ht 0 l

t 2

\ /.

0 R2 0 E2 5 e

,)-

,b e .

s. W17 O0 2 L0G -f 8 A g

P I

9 E9 1 Rt E3 5 J , H9

,L a PW SBl 1

5 7

• M8 3

. e EN N e e l

Hti3 5

6 .,

.ic Rtl2

• E2 3 W 2 g O0 2 2 F

, L0 6

- 8

=

- u

\

i a ,

e a A Ose^

e e e a i

^

A

^ s O ^ ,

f b  ;

l A

e j I

A g  !

A O~

e e

A A g En *8 e

O e

_J^E9 -Ev::So-E9E J v 3 3 S ;; -

5 EVEN E Figure 18 l

l 73 i

!qill m

. S _

+ * + + + E + + + + + + + _

0 0 0 0 0 D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 _

. . . . .U - . . . . .

S 0 2 4 6 8 T 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 H I -

T N P G I

E F D N X O 0 O * " 0 A h

- - - - ~ _ - - . ~ - ' - - _

g .

i

- M _

m -

~

=

~ .

s -

1 -

D l t

s ~

8

(\s . a .

- l B .

' V> - .

/

d i

d .

P P di .

/ ,

L -

0 L . 2 E

h1 o X) W A

c r

a p e

r u

1 i

f n

a /. Mo ,/ / -

i 0 1

i F

g

. ( / -

3 p 8 c f V g

l!

9 n 1

u/ / .

',, LLjv /

n g;l o \ ,

i t \ .

\

a

(\v

~

lo c E W

h U~ \g)';i )

i a

n ' .

. ( < .

3 r 4 e t

/ / 9 c 1 n s,

/,

M)I .  !. u .

f

- ann i t

o -

3D

/ a I

)- >$- c ~ -- . 1 i 0 2

o

- i

.> i .

l

- ~

~ D0 .

1 i ~ .

~

/ .

/ _ . .

. M OJ/ l

_.# ~

.s.5 _ ~ -

d- d_ .

0 0 1

3 L

=

'g-t = 40 + 0.6 o n s = 0.6 o, 200 - -

7 H No fluid pressure O"E" / ydrostatic /

f

- . O. . .

O (bors)

Injection pressure of 110 bars O

Figure 22 A 77

9 I,

e i R

a 8

1 I

I - _ _ e-1 a

Ne 0

- _ _ g )

I g

i l 1 M

__ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ ..__. . g,  ;

i

. .>J m l g m

. - _ _ _. . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _, 3 o

E w

- _ _ . _ . .o a L O w E

t.

- W _

6 O _ _ . . _ __ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _e s e

~

X .J

m. ..

s Q

- - - _ _ _ -. . . .o g SG = = _

e

• N

.N

_ _ _ _m g _

\  % I I s o

% M E f - .g O

E m

. s ws .J -n M

W >

% .J i e -

-- --N U e .

H .J .

M E Z # . _ _ -

a m __

b Z L i g

mH -

n DE 01 0 DC suoq <eanesedd 79 i

j

e

r. .

,i .  !

jl a g . -

. 'l *I-

.IId. ,_

il; ii! I , .  !

{ l- I8 !I e i

3!. .

g. lI

' il

-  :  : i , ,I ,

, > ' ! l , i' 1 ;1 3Il l

J

.l i ,

, - .  ! s , '

l8 ' . ' i j , i 8 ;I l 7l 1 l,g' s l.

.' , 3 i! ! - 8 ' , .' , .l t- I{

l l

. ,I t Ij  !!el, 1 . g' * .a t !l

• 0 _

'g. * *

• l- -

! - i ;i .'--l. l }

l~

1 x _.

5 5 _

I $ i+ ,II i

4 7 _

R I j

l' ,

I  : I' ' .I - - ., a *! , :I O s V /

r&

t R 2 E w S w E m i - j*l q-j i g N

R l. 4 i , .  ; .g .,,e l3l. s .

e r P y I t .

R i l .l , l ii  ; .,s g .! l .l l_ -

g T v _

S i : _

s m .

i[ i - . , i E s k { i  !: j ' .  ;.: 4i T i ,

I m _

N sh

'* i  !

, , 1 ' : .l  !

l '

I nt _

. -i ' j , ]

F ad .

N rL .

I T W . _ _. _

_ 8- g s o g g g g a O mgE *e smme Q S

2

, , 9 1

8 l' . ,1 I '

n_ , 1 Ii i 4 l.- l , -l l I .l r;7 g l 1

- ,, ' j I ! ,l  !  ! ' , ,6 l I I!' ,- : 1 I : .

l

,5

' .i 1i 1 i .j * ;ilI I .;; j . il:ii. .. .i,i,I ,si

.r

' , 4 1

, . %g ,3

( V  ; l

~

1

.l:- '; i l l

,2

• ' . t . -  :. 1 .8l 1

.I mg l -

l

- w1 1 Ii i * - - .I'.tjl is . it! ii  !

• l w.,,0 1 j - _

9 0 l.  : . l *' ;y  ; * . . .. . i-

!! 3 - ,8 1 .

w _

5 _

lI 7 4 .

,lg!I!i i. ,6

.: - 1ltI ' I - , i s _

/ _

2  : i i 5 w _

R w .

I m _

,4 O I ' .'l .* -! .I(i 1 t .

• 1

.. e j!

' .g s

. .:il V , .

8

, e R 3 A E t ,

E 3 S i c e'

l-I * ,it Il .

Y E v y, R i

-m & _C s

E s T i I m i:l . : i t i .l

'4 P

C j

l' 2oE ,2 N s

• l.' h

!I 1 n

,1' '* l-I F a .

N r _ 0 I T g o o 8

m L o O. %eLoe 9LL mw llI

e i

. i i i R

. l  : 1 4 I l l 1 m

i a i g

' l l l e l  ! l

.e '

h i

• l

_ _ _..___. ....___2._.__._. _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . .

3

! /  ;

5

, , t f '

a . 'l g ._.-=

c, x

Q __ . . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . .

. _ . . _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ .g J

J U

' l  :

l m e 3

, y l

.e b i

"0

- . _ . _ . . . . ...._.L.. , g

__7 w t-N

' I'

.._. I  :-._ _.. _- .

ee t i- C Y  !. O

..j._..

g ,

.e s X . I W i  ! .J O. O. - -- -

N Q

g, ,

i

! I gg i e i

~ .. _ . . . _ . _ _ . . . . L_.. . . _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ . . u _. . ca 1 O C0 i.

I i

> N I 1

g N . l in y x ---

M X , . .

' l WE '

i I

Q:: - - _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ -- .,

' l b Z f.

M 4 i l

M .J i

-n H > - . i j M .J ** h -

. j 2 E N I

,  ! . l w ax __

__.7 , _ - - . .n

!:il-z . .c e lt

.# lh-t i

I-m C 4 k O T .-  ;

I i

Z L .J i M H2 a ,

s a a o

001 06 00 04 09 OS Of DC OC 01 0 sJoq 'eJnsseJd 85

Figure 29 A MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION 5

$HEET 1 O! 2

.. r 4 . . ._ p

.:e ,.

',- ., e

~

.;C .. .

]

f *wa o-r . . - .

l* / -I

_' le, m \

"+ os

. m.e\\ l

\,-

i

,- , .. \

. a6 "$ ec. ,, .e ,I .

s, r' {.

• es &o*

np / -

~_, ~J i E@ *= g,

-~~~~~~~

g"/ /. pp,WE .O .

%.s e 5

er L

,t V ~ . ;.a f'S g

,..Jj . D. m k.

,- a ,.f.- - .

I

\

>;s r***..

_,,,.,,,.f ' _ *- \

k 's

\

-%.;'-s,-

.~.~/..-r.. y -

\9g504O.Y'# \ . . g. - .-

.. . " " l i

A 4 e .s,o r ' -

~# Ph.,%i' ,

so

\,

..1 g.8. \ \. . ~ * @.-

- . .f t / i .- e- t.

' ( ...\

N./ CtoG ~ ..;. @ .. A. . i_. . ('

5. .g.-

• x g4 , .

,sc .-

.- - [,

p

,s-

, - -./

i-

- 90ss

. ~.

)c. - ,\

l n

' .i __ V e' .

. GASS _. *Q-

• _a ~~~ & h.> , p'l -

' . , ' , . * * , , -el. h

.w #M ,

.-c

'$.4'

,\ L - '" c* ' -I T_f--

m" -

, /.- ,

\ \

u s

s >-

g,,,,,,73ng l i

'.1 g ,\, ,, . ; solution uma netos on sms

( ,

./

i y p*t.

acwve naamooneo osm to.c.ao.ov.emo s=r

/ _ ___ . . - N ,

g

- I ,,d,T4se! h ' . , 'y~;, - - / .g "' e o *.iee

/,,,, -9 "~~ 80^ g'.

~

8 0 * ' "

', ~~~~-r ~~m e?"" ,,

I

..-~heEY" ,.

g {

., e o ses ien r hi '.* . .,yf y J e o ==

p w ,- y 3 -, , . -

_ a -- - r a a -+

=-~ .

-- .3&r ^ w~ ,,;,q..7 w' . . i ;N .

~~- '

~...

- _ r'" --Otco-

'- ',d, '". , M "^ Sowno" "*'"* 8'5^"

, s ,,,,

e ..\

• 464466im

..& ,~, .g ,- , ., g

. ..,pEL.

/' ] -ssoas,A ..Jg ___ - ;. . ' ' ' ' . ,

~

-M _ ,- ;ry 9,- 6556 , , , , , ,

t x

,/ .a--

,;' .m /..

% r . . u Leg,

~- ~' , - . . .

.~~~

.3s . . . rv .V, , . , - f + f +- f '-*-'-

~~

.E i,0' fj +++++ -~

_,. . , z. . . .

-.y d - % .'. )i, , west ***f .

.. i gGsHe.. .

u. .%. -..,.

, ..+es ~~.

• y . .,.' - .y . . - - . ,g . ~~~

..g4 ,,,. y'. - . ....'....-b

.. ,,e- .- . +

oeo n_- ,,

so n , .. as see..

",,, #,,, a f s * &, ws.Lt .-

- ,r - ~.. -. -

-/ ner.", " e suemodNc

. .. . y33 m CK4 ,_ -

j a g i.{u,ee.am ** --.s** )% f.e..\s $inc, am., =. .wu .

~. .j, ,,,,

._

• n..

• ' , - - - . ,i,

,. .g.,,.-*"~.,."

~~~~,,

• == .,*"g

. ) g gas n ig y sene nme.

L."'".'~~~ /.'_ ,,,. ** * - @ OLINA Non,usrs amtuNt or aNowN ewaaon,ta

,-TJ e b-'/,'

. NOM

, -., -/. .i/ -

Rocus. Postao to is7s. exclusive os

.p ea= A ,.

~

,j * .- , ,. - *gM7 guatgRNARY OSPOsits; PRINCIPAL i .s"'./"". p . , - . e,,, -" ,, souRC JOHNS

• U~~ "'

0No.,W AND. .GONZA.LE s.1976- l

_ "'~ENNESggg. ,,. ,[ - . _ . s' ' *. ~

8

.e.m. .Ef t sa t

. *~ " ,,,.,.,1.,

.. h.",'ag .9 n.a....,.

.T-.,.,..-

_. - , . iso I

, e -e t .. - # ,, ._, _ s s . mea.m. .as ow., = pana.u au sg , , -. .,e .

L",,~ ,- . , ,

,'],,,, s y

,. . un etun,p.e a.e,wea .no.a

, .'4 -.

mNews unenas

"- ._ #j "'",,,,,,--.,,.._..%

?

.. s

. . . u- ~ , . * .

.# . in u 1

• ' - /

\ .-- *

• .=a t.. . - : -. 3 , S M CABOLINA~

• 7

..- .r. --. .

~ . . . ~

1

~ -. .

~

._.ye

~

---

s , o .a a ., o.ni c >

I

- s- ,- . . - -

. . . g _ _ _

,s v i

l i - _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -m

I

• ~' l

• F. . 4, anom .

'summunusum"'"""

3g;

. -. )

O

~

Guos * *

, , ,g,, .y e.

l t . . .i. .

_i. t

.i. _

i 2 .E- , s l e ' M 'h w =l' . . e Q

. . . . . =..-

Figure 1. Side and front panel view of the General Earthquake Observation System

(GEOS) together with a WWVB antenna and two sets of three-component sensors )

commonly used to provide more than 180 dB oflinear, dynamic range. System operation for routine applications requires only initiation of power. Full capability to reconfigure system in the field is facilitated by simple operator response to english language prompts via keyboard.

Figure 30 89 l

1

91 i

Figure 32 d

PRINESVILLE CHIO 30' 20' 10' 81 * - 50' 40'

'''' i''

42' ,' 42'

~

20 KM

_ i.,,..,,,.i ,,,.,,,i -

/ f  :

-50' 50' { -

O) t, v -j ,

4, c J .

1 -

J -

g ' .J p .. -40' 6 i, i a ss ' '  ;

N

'5 -

3 3, _

] ^ ' K .

23

~

_3./ " u -30' t

J W[

J

+

J

-y t

20' I - 20 '

C

y e, e/  :

_-- - l '.

v

]

I J '

10 ' - AV u

- 10 ' .

\M-ij.

41' g ... ., ,, ,

\

, 41*

30' 20' 10' Bl* 50' 40' Locations of sites occupied by GEOS recorders and location of main shock on January 31,1986 (J. Dewey, pers. comm.,1986). Major highways, city and community boundaries, and lake boundaries also are shown.

..~

3 v

\V/~

x v ,e =

V w . . .o r

" N *

• .s *

~ ~w r l g n K U

• • o en

~oo

' E55 e*i i n , .s l ED$

l m -

P

$ t I

do n -

0 .

- > - c l 1

m d < - 1 w~ l sc 2 c wo y 2

0 <2 C m5

4 e

)

, (>> 4

( .bo @.wA <

[ ) 1 l

M"CJ l $

(> {

g j E

f*

o i >

/' I c

2-gw w3 t e

a a l 2x > a l ) a u

w m

,.c .cg o=w .

o fe - -

Sa n

.n

~

w$$E x=ct I w r

S i a l

<EmMs m 1 i

C $ 1 oz 1 5E O

(>r 4

> w 1 l

w-"E < l ce d - } 1

<m= d ."',

w ,

l j

w~

She

?

1

? d>

) 1 l

)

m *w y _, f s

_a a

o b b -

g JE -

( -

m )

E *u .c l gr  !

m b;. - y m ..

-e 4

a; E =>

%,P rn gj .J t w k he u> M>W g -

=

8"O oj E= I I,

1

%> I

• w a. '

' l I

UU

• Mw ) N

, , , , , , 7, e o o * ~

• o c2 m -

E* n -

5o

• d p3s/o35/wo ?7 333ND -

WD e No!!yg3;3Dov 41:00'131 IW3W33V14310 I

1 l

4 93 )

I I

v

. g-

%V / E V . . .o" W

N 3-Y W

=

g .

- .Wb E' g bE" ea m

• O C

=c o 4 "e*YO s

&om g

• o l . y . e R .

' A w a E

(

• S*N a 2

M IhE C

CN l '

i i

E

$e ce f p o

< w .J c, * <

• W j D C 22 0* ,

I w v

< g" n

. i . Cm u wa 5 i &

agN s 4 w [

Wg M W

'. t

,2 E o U g, 6 C

~

g a. E %e '

o= 5 < ,

zs._

• i *W rw a

1 Eo .

d *

<mJ A <

W*E$ L l* s

$N' I f, I n r 2, w'., L <

. t n

< . . p* .

J CU < ,

g-

• O h r

.c .e

> i e .. s'r c Q  %

6 %

e  :==.

vb w su _

,g:

r

& f oEW o <w g adw i }

-0& 1 -

e 3,

~u2 ;l

• , , , . , A , . ,- ,

o o O o 1 o o- .

~

o O

• O m * " T

+ D33/335/M3 D33/W3 N*

WD NC11VW373DDY A113073r AW3W33V14520 95 4

)

x 7,

• s v

\V/~ "

\V/

V *~

w . . .o A E y

W g .

E *-

NDE aza w

a

=g.

s*

m

• n g 8 J rn o a. j '

i , p

o. .n. ,

y* h s.

1 l . W (D e-- 4 '

CD CD W M h. ) l' .

i

/ , 2 < s.> , i nEU i e i kW o w~ ', ,

• A p <

Mi o .

d i

n i 1>--

E h8 oa 1 4

L M

' ' C

< wa l ,

D%

• w i

, 2 r.)

2 z. # "

< =c

• O w

e, I

, as.wa ,

i , i y . . <

- < - o m 5 g - o ggg I'. d  ; i 8 If y w3*= p%

<, > .oa

.g E w w w

<o g m . ED m s l' 4 ,

r r

li

[

O=S5 <

' J' .

Z O = n, l , l

+-

Eo s "w .

, ]

. A l t i 1

<mJm '

. j a q'

]

w = E *~- . .

M e 1 <

d ,

j>p-

• C. a> g M 1 ,

=

a y

. . $ . c J cp , > d g ap

.c .c =

41 .

p 8D j ut

[<

"ew 3 D  ;?

e en 3;;; ,. N-. m >

Ea w &

n "o '

f o

o 6. E .c i

<  : a d

aJw '

c h 2. i s 4,

6 f

C"5 4, <8

, _, , , ,  ! , m . , o l

l c

~

c o h o l j m o*

• X.

n n e o o l

\

• D35/D35/WD 77 D35/W3 N' WD , l l

Ec!1YW31300V A l l ~ '113 / IN3W33Y"ld510 l

97

1 ~ _ _ - ~ -

N

/

S 3

A l

. I M A i S C I

T I

H R V S ,

M T C S F I . 0 4

U U  ;

R O F -

T S O -

C PT -

E6 8 MN -

P 9 O E - I C t i S1 R -

E

. P -

E 1 ~

S3 T .

N T mE T I 0

3 O R N .

7 PA A4L H SU P E N A .

RJ RE 2 , I f

t W i I, N

Y E O P

. , E TK 1 i y

U 1 A Q R E C U 0 A . 'y' . R ope 0 I 0 2

F l  ;

Li R t y E A U I VE NE R l Y A E 0 R '

I V5 R S i '

I E E .

sN.

1 L

T N P U.

l t

A A L V 0

E C  ;

I 1

R N 1

P M

A g.

4

^ ,,B

_ D  !,

I i 9 ,

i 1 ,

0 0 i, 8 ,

A i ,f .

1 1

0 0

, 0 o.

_ o. , o. O

, s 4 2 o

i OSt U iSs t t a

> < g

ll l1 l 4 -

Il

~

~

V 2

5 .

6 o 1

s r.

N

/ f\e

< s S i 3

A L Y<s n M A . t S C l<\-

I T

I l<\

sn R V S t M C S F 0

U i l 4

R P F -

T U O -

C PT - -

E69MO NE -

P 9 C C i i

S1 -

R ~

E -

P -

) E. 1 CN S3 T T T o O R i ' l J

N PA A 4 ~

7 SUL N P ( H A -

E A .

6 3 -

RJ RE 2 -

Y E O .

W i vI N Y

C e

r u

E g TM P t \ ,

U i I A Q F -

C U RO A , E

.R OH K0 Ill oF LT R LC I

i I' ,I ' 2 I s ,

E A U Ii VE NE R u E 0. R Y A V5 R S , t I E E '

L P U .

T M L A A L V

,O R E G N

1

..' l 0 4

P ,

M A

\

D

) t 2 ,I 0

0 '

8 ^

A .

1 1

o o, D'

o. o. o. o.

3 g 2 s 4 '

2 , i yN. . , D ;t 3* w ,. C < E 8

l(lll lj L

3 .

6 o

- s 1 - - _

N

/

S 3

4 L ,

M A ,

S C I

T I

R V S M T C S F i U S i R E F T WO -

C PT -

E 6 M N -

P 8 O E 9 C C , -

S 1 R -

OE E

. P -

1 S 3 T N Y T s' 3 O R N .

i s

P A A 4 ' 2 H

S UL E NA P . -

R J ER 2 ,

Y W ,

slt, C Y N E O .

E T MP 1 U

I A Q pR E C 0 A . . R O H E 0 [',i

\' i oF 2

L T Lt i

R E Au V E NE R

Y E 0. R A i

V 5 R S ,

I E E '

T t .PU '

M L A A t OLE R

V C

N 1

P p

M A i D 'i lg 1 p 2 l 0

0 8

A yf.

1 1

. , o. -

o , a

• i 2 ,

3 a .>=5gd> b =

g" 1

1 lI ll: j 0 0 0 9 0 9 P = = r = -

U H H u H H

• 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 S 4 5 S H H H H H H 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 .

0 0 0 0 O 0

, ( -

8 W,

^ A

^

t

4 '

h

~

g

=

1 M

v:

n O h u y-,

f.y g

a y

f 6

h y

= .

w.

8 b n

[ t 8

3

• e r

S u g _

C .

4E i .

S F

^--

h'

}

O h. _

W Y M M -

}

2

1. ^

}

=

n ,

g j

f 'S

, 0 _

2 0 0

O 1l[ff l 1 1lll l I -

A . . . . . - D8 . . . . . .

s .

3 .

80

.(o s . 1 -

Ds -

6 1 n 1 E i e 1

.W j .4 6 4 R. ~

"~

))$ t =, - - -

E- ..

.h .

B" ' ' ' ' ' '

E8 - - - - ' '

f%

(< .

s . .

6 9 .

~

M Q~

N O l 0 1 E l e . .

. - 4. .

U M

.- ,M . - -

C8 - - - ' ' -

F8 - - - - - -

s .

(D D S i H s .

d= - -

j

,E i

c ,

W . C .

{

.. .- i -

Y - - -

bi.hO s..

Oi,. b

===,.m. mann, . m.

f l  !

Figure 40 107 l

l

APPENDIX A HISTORICAL AND INSTRUMENTALLY RECORDED SEISMIC EVENTS WITHIN THE STATE OF OHIO i 1776 THROUGH 1986 1

~

I i

i 109 l

e

• H = 1.0 - 2.0 1 = 2.0 or 1t.rcer.

5. The rotervnce icentificttion numb e r s (Jnce r the HYP0 CENTER (REF) enc INTENSITY (RfF) columns indicate the sources of the hypocenter rpd intensity. These sources cre t.ve11rble on reouest.

o. The magnitudes are composeo of tnree sections: l

a. Under tne USGS nercing: .

l The mb values (Gutenberg ena Richter, 1956) rnd the Ms vr. lues (6rth, 196e or Gutenberg, 1945) were publishec in the Pre 11 mint.ry Determinetton of spacenters (POE) by the Nitional fertncurke information Center, U. S. Geologicel Survey enc oracocessor organizations.

[(,,/ ') b. Unoer tne neccing of GTHER, clessitlec by tyoe end source.

tne issocietea magnituces The sources are eve 11eble on ers recuest. The magnitvoe types ere icentified as:

(1.) ML....(Richter, 1958)

(2.) Mn....(Nutt11, 1973)

(3.) Ms....(seth, 196e or Gutenberg, 1945)

(4.) mb....(Gutenberg end Richter, 1956)

(5.) Mnx...CModified mblG3 (Jones and others, 1977)

(o.) MD....Ouration or Coco Length (7.) m3n...(Lesson eno otners, 1979)

-- (d.) Mfe...Megnitude besed on telt tree attenuation

'\s-) (9.) UAN... Unknown megnituoe

c. Uncer the FOMiNT needing:

Tne Ms values era computeo from the log of the moment in cynes/cm. The source of the contributed vtlue 1,5 coded at the riant. The termult. useo in tne conversion is from Hanks and Arnemori (1975).

7. Intensity. Velues tre based on tne Mocifica Merce111 Seele of i 1931 (nood eno Neumann, 1931). 1 letter "F" epoeers in this column if I

tne gurke wes telt: but the information was not sutticient or too ambigious to assign t. numericti value. A "*" copeers to the right of the intensity value it tne v iil u e was rssigned by the compilers.

9. Commwnts. Tne cottent lines tre generally usec to list some of

[ tne stronger effects cruseo by inose errthouckes uitn intensities 111

l1lI!i fI,Ii1 i 9 ,

e 2

3 3

8 9

,0 3 1

(

G e r fP 0 60 . 0 55303 4 0C50 55e t5 51503

.n a iE 6 72 . 2 00263 3 6403 003 11 e0 1

03044 111 ro e tR 1 1 1 11 1 1 eh y 5 M

~

eP e o s e eo o m E IvIv9 e- e T m uM t

v Tf . v II t Vt11I II11I 1

1 vI!v II!

l1t I1vn

!I tI I II1 G - h t ef 1 1I v , I! i II I I r t s

. e ro t t

.t u e t We h t n

.s g T t e sn .e . . .

Ca

. n re u

o r

t) f e am 0(

. nt

.et

. ue

. .. . e1

. .. . e1

.s1 1

.P e

el h # .Fr u . . . . . .

.eer yn

. e . . ....

uG e t E

0

.s 6e ne t

t t r 7 n en e S e c U .7 t . . . . . .. ..

. u

.lt .8 4

.e a

. .e

. .ee

. .s . .

.a . .

yr be.

i h Tt 1

d

. . . . . .. .hces 8 G . .Ss . . .O . . .

ue O f n . o.o e...

I n .tea . . . .. . . . .. e . .e0 . .

.f . . .

. . . . .. .f .f .f0 .

eete e. f . . . .t nd oe 4 n 1S 1 e f

o NO es en . . .le . . .. e 4 .2 . .m0

. S. 5 44 . . .

et n G ee . . .t . . .. eu . .

3 st el 3 3 42 mri e un k c 1 ooe t cCm t 4

)

.S o

.o cn .'

soe et r t a M 5m 5(

s

. ee nf t . .

. . .n.. . . . .. .

aa r

cn...

. . . . . .t

. . . .e s

t a s 5 t . ce O) ad f ee ycs t em t e h

t e

Un e

e

(

. nr

. i e d

e s.

O e.

n n.

.ean

.rne oet . . .

m s nn

..t .ea l

t e

ees . eeI t re 8 rt e s 1t s et e t s r f T P erst 605e0 35064 01i n5565 560e 55 55555 e n o NE 1 ueu720n2 50211 311 11 3 ssr0010 e e1111 013 11 s 00 11 00000 11111 soe f Ye 1 ct n cnn 11t1 u ct e nt C ess s e e s Cl oee P r e eet P a Ge0w1Mdp HMGs MM dMMMG eue l n e T u nO I eee1IGnI k ne a pMI G*

n0h e k ser r t oe a e 0. ut ah m t so s c u

q M

T3 P m u

. eet . .

. nt P

. . e.

s.

r . . ..

.y1o . . .

.e4s . . .

.e

.t n l o h E a t se f of e e pt e O( ret o P ean t ae ?a t an e

r uee o r a . eea..

melt hmeod e . n .

m.m e

. . .S mee,a a

o

' w hm4 . hm mhhh u S ne e h e nry oaa s

e t t T se t 201.l

. i 21 11222 637 12 cI l t f G 9 aD

e. T. 2 e3 e 4. e e u . 5 6 2 eoe o o at 6 net 633 6 646 61 t26 4 6 cns 0 1 . ns1l 4f2 0112* S0488 5 r a3a8 8 145 03 5 ot n$#45 448t 93 1 a u g L e gl 6 st e e 0n res er, n en . . . . Nmhg . . hm .emmmhh . . . ....

t el . t ie . . .t . . . . .. .Us oce i mst umh4e4 44hmh m t nmmhh e enu t . ee s tnr e

Gos s 7 een s aee s

cu a

i a L

6 uu 5. $. 1 g r3 e6

4. T. 5 68 2 ens t 6026 s

• . 4. F. e . 6 3 354.*.3 19000 l 9 n t111 o1 111 14 0ree0090 C90 e01 esi 6 e u4336

• 3 *tt44 436 64 t nt 3 it 4 6e4 4

• 6 *3 aen l h ne t ven h n gO s ee 9 eet t m e St c a c uet 1 svr 1 c p rs n eo.... 1 s

5 te.. . ...

9 eee i l . he . . e . . . . .

.tst n.... .

n.. . ... -

eur g f 5 . ett . . . . . . .

r tGa 3 hrt a ot .

o n. Mea . e nG s n.tes U

e T.

l o

n 4

l ef b

l eg C

(

u 3

0 ro 6

t ee e

vs . . .

s nys...c.

e3e . .

. . . s u.

r 0 . .

12 . .*

.6

.1 3

4 F r .

. e u....

2 e . s .130

. . 6

.1 t r S99Ot31 e e .0 ne

.3 50 . .

03 . .

52 . .F n51 o D 1 . 01 . .0 1 t ns .202 nea O11

. s 21 00 . .0 t

r s em t t e Cem ae h f eec s mt 53 .

e een s. C e . t eeee e1 1 o333 an n.309 419aa30 331Lt21 10 .

.5

.1 rsn - J . nna3d a0 4t122 l rnr.230 s f ev - e( s e eee r

! n  : t et GtP .a t

.t e g h la nsrsnNGe 4aPetC4 ns }D i

. t sefL .eT

. paaaU C aeauP uenauaui aaf etf4 ueE a er . i s

.2 mt nJ .AC msJJs Jwt eJJaP JmSheOJ amS m k e0 0 ae0 e an tt5 l s 365 0 'F a f 23 5 ef12 344 e5 5s126 a1 32 7f84 040 g8 8s899 e b a 7 23 4 5 55 e73 1Ai 83 1

3 3 o93 398 a4 8e89 d t e. a i v

7 848 11 1 9

1 11l11 1 1t11 111 t1 1l111 en3 So2 T 1

, waL

e 9

i

)

e.e ..... .e... .....- ..d.. e edge e.eee N-e=N p edeee eeeeo Oecoe e p op e e sul e N m el MOmmM N4eep m eee es se se me ee me se se se i

1 me me > ee me De 9 as me > me se ae y me me > > as se se > >>> > De Dme D D #8 De 3 9 p ee I e 9 em me me gun se me se se ye me se y se se me se me se p y e J se sesemememe sese he one me e& e e E .e C se .me &

.e *.e.

e se me me se .e e ese se ese se en

&a e

s l

l e er e 9 e e* eo I e L .9e er N e C e og ea e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e ee e e e e ee e ee ee o e e ee e ee es se e e e eWKwe ee o ee e ee ee o e e e e e e a ee se g er e e e e es ag e e e o e e o e e e o e e e e o e e e e o e ee e awe ye e e eb bw e e a e e o e e e e e e e e e e e e o e ee e o e e e e ee e e8 CU S e em *8 e e e e e e eo e e e e e e oe o e e e e e ast e e e e ne em a e o e e e e

o e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e a e e e e e

ea e e e e ee ee e ea ee e e9 e ee o e e ea he e e e o e C ed se e se e ee a e. me ee b eW e t a e b> ee eee 5m o e e e e e ee e e e ee e eS eE e e E e es e e e en ee e p a **

e 5e e e e se e a e e ee e o e o e e e e.m ee a e ea e e @ en e e e e se.e ' ee 6 e e e se e 69 e e e se se a e e@ an e ee e e e e eeee e o en e e C == e e* e Oe **@ e en ee e eC e g33e eoeeeeP ee e a e e ee eae& Ce6 **

ee e o e eae e e o e e 4 e ee e e e o e o e ee -e e e se es Lge a e a e 5 e er e e e ** e o e *

• eC*

• e*

• e ,e e, e e o e ,J e e*C *C eC e C ** e ee t

• e** ea e* EE E Ese e Et ra r r E E swwe a d epuse FE O E t ee e e e 4 4 e e e e e e en n e e en e e es e e e e e ee e c en ee ee e N9 e ]

ee e no e a e e e e o e e e a e o e e e D e o e e e e ee o e e e* e eC en a e g

• e e e se pe o e e o e 4M M M M3 eOAyeM @ eC 3 mM 8R 8n dW 'M ee 4 ee e se eau o e ** e S en e C e es W e W W e8 .

eg e e e o e e ee e e e e e e e 4 ge eee e e O e me 4 e e e e e o e e e o e a e e e e o e e e e e e se e e e e e se e e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e .e e e e o ee e e e e oe e e e e e 8 e e 39e '

ed a

b e e 3D J **

49ge eha > see ed b 3e e e e e e e e e . .o . e e e e e em oe see see

(; se eCasIe.o e e3e e e e e*eeb s ee e e e e o e e e o e e e

e e . e

.e e e e e . e o e o e . . e. e e e. e e e ee e 4 et o e ee .

d eem a

eese e es ee e gg 88 %J eC &e se 9 es e

• • U w e' E y e9 es euaa es e E. e e oe e en e e en m e e p p k em 3h e e et ee me e e e en O en e e e n e art en en p e e Wt e o e gh e e sus m 4 N p e p p.

se 4 @ d sa d e et er y e 48 es es e b 9 R se se se C6 es O s=m se O O OOOd se se se ao e as WD e O fut m M M e em es se me se ce se se se me se se os m es se se se mce se as se et me M ag e seos se m O h g amo 3a eeeOe me e e e U w

[,

e af me e ** ee er C se e i se e E U e se to e9 @ @ @ 69 49 y #3 eS Ob gg @ @ ee 49 tft @ @ @@@@e & e & 4 et Oba e o a e e @ @ s ** b ee 49 @ @ L5 @ w 3ee9b e& O e se e 9U w "e e e

• E dE Ob e ee4 e e> es e e e e 8 8 e e me e se eee se ee o se g e e e ** W 3e e e e e o e o e e a e e e e e e o e g to e se ee eeCCE 9 e e e a e e e e o e o e e egom,e o e e e e e .e e ee o ee o ee eo ee o e O O es e O OO Oe*

er b d 2 O e ** hi p k om g se eeW se se e e e4 e p me se e b o e e e e o ee er e se e C e eo e en e a e e e *

• e e e e a e o e e e e ,e e o C en e e

• e e o e e e e e e o e e D qw e ee e eeeO 4 ee3 eg g e g 3 ,e g eg m e sp 3 3ga 3g e3 e 33 333 eoe ee*e 933 e g eee 3 eg e .e 3 en e m em SW sus ne me es e e e e e o e' b e e e e me em O N se #1 e M e er e g b U D 8e ed se N A p Do N e en d en N 4 es se et p= a

e. 3 eg se se N N e g se & as N N N e se we N N *n at det me M vos se enNdd 4 O, e e o e e o e e e o e eg e se o e o e e e e e e o e e e e e e a e o e e e o eo e e er e e= e e eE d a d ** N me me me me d m e se se es N 3 N *e we se d m es m se d en m ee m o se es C e se ddd C C ** 4 d4 d e e 4 BB 9 9 M' 96 8899 99 's 8e5 m set *e en ist ge gt se 85 8P ep 90 e 9 889 e e e 8e e eeeae eae4 e 9 9 850 8e o eV ee h p se ee eeC e ee D Ik e se e g 9& b e e o e e e e e e e e s ee o e e e e e e e e o e e a e e oe a ee e e gg e o e e e e o e e e e e g&

E2RE2 ME432 1EFA2 9233E Reev 2JE8 E REEE2 E28E& 2 ee eu o eeERE 3 er e =e=e oe o se en e et *eb se as & > ce ses se d > e et e em OOe en E er e ** b C ee e e e e e. em et en d *e en N e &Nmeo *= e" se e 9d4 e no O *1 4 4 d ** 4 4 e e ,e nue o e em dm 4 m et eee e a e e e e er e e e e e e e o e e e e o e e e e o e a e .ae e e o e e e e e e 9 eag e e e e e S 'en en e o e se se am p& e geC U eOOOC e o me epo 9eesese o en a .o ee se m .e se se eg as e se es we O ee es e se e4dm4 4 et eC e4 be e e e**e' seg> O O es e o.e e m e ed 4 4 e d ee e# <e one4d a meomed4 e4 e m e d art ee en e er 3 e 5 ee e e se gg 9, re e C C **

4 e nW a et se w e eb ee op .e e en om se d ese e Cg e en 6 e fp ee 3 e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e ee e o e e e e e e e o e se ese se 9 e e e e4 Cn e e e e e set ge e eee e o me m e at ,e o e p. a ee eeee e en'egeg e U f3 e o e o e o e e e e e e ed e e e o e e e o ey emi ene m N og g erg et se et se d gg

'4 L eeee ##

s ae e = . en aeeee o en o m ., = .e ee O N e m en am se e M e me es e

• z -e e e Se ce e es o e d e c e se 3, m eme e se ****N e s'S N * '3 *n et est erg N en e e as . 8 e e sg e e esg g se m d O se @9 eed # pe 8't M d m O e et gS se 9 et et 4 3 u

• ee y w ee gg g e e eb p ee em e m et ,e e e em se 5 m es m 4 de me N m me 8> en

• es O 886 gs nC set

\ e se e e am en e 3ew e. en e. et ut as em N ag a me g se g as et ene O O se g ese N O se b ed so ee g e 9 e O q g se N g e es ese se O e, se 43 se es eJ P3 ee O g se e e g N seg eeT g as C ad E  %# ee e ed te QC h se 48 9 g3 er se J ee e O 8eJ e 3 U U C e to

• • pm *e > F#

• O e en h eP 88% 9 O est me se O se e* em og e e pu m og N e e sh me& s= e e or g e en g e est ert e C L eC 3 6 es e E O O 83 k eL Oe N N O se e4 e s use S et '*sees 84e m me 7 ene se ee 8!3 83 sg as e a ft sue N N *e se 9 N O 84 se O se O se e b

&b e o as 4 e ef e se C e en ye en pee e* ge e e* an 3 g y see e N E e" b 8W 'e F eI

• 2 eJ 49 83 eW D 4 ) E 3 e8 e* I en E $ ed om o E ee g se de g e eC eE E W e e ed e% eu4 9 3 3g 9 33se g'3 ee et 2se%at%s)e se)s (%, 3 e o e .3 se 3

• 3 e su a D su ete we e 3 e U es e 5 h es 8eee eC 3 m' b eeEOg E *t at F ap 9 gg ateOOQ =5 en e F "D E 9 9 89 F E e "9 en & E E "1 E e 3 3 e e e e' E E E 3 ored e e a= em *= a=

• se set det om et e p 9 as en se e en en e.

om en se 8st art 8Ws e6 et 9 em

• ft O 8Ft 885 M 4 #

op et m e O.ed4 d d 9 et es se es d *et est et en et en n eN en en eft e e e e en pa en p= em.

8 et fut m eR p sh 9 9 e m 8h 8eh*p p p p p et p 4 8m 8h e fh *

• sue et se se me

• 1. 9 ** 9 9 ese ad as es et sh .p em een en se me me se se 8B sp #p een e se se se se se se os en e=0 se se se one une se es se ad et se se' aus sue se 115

e.

-?

4r a

. APPENDIX B PHASE DATA AND PREFERRED LOCATIONS FOR

. EARTHQUAKES LOCATED NEAR PAINESVILLE, OHIO i

( FEBRUARY 6 THROUGH MARCH 24,1986 4

4 O

{

)

117

1 l

1 i

. . ....BEGIF ------ - ------------------------- -- - -- - ------

86/ 2/ 2 3/22 TEST DATA B6/ 2/ 2 3/k HORI2ONTAL MD VERTICAL SINGLE VARIABLE STANDARD DEVIATIONS (681 - ONE DEGREE OF FREED 0r,! J

[ VALUES TRUNCATED AT 25 KO SEH = 0.12 SEH = 0.13 SE2 = 0.30 QUALITY = A AZ = -132. AZ = -42.

SE OF ORIG = 0.03 TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 3 DMAX a 90.00 SEQUENCE NUMBER =

AT THE CLOSEST STATION USED IN THE SOLUTION BOTH P MD S IdERE USED. THE S MINUS P INTERVAL EQUALS 0.83 i

DATE ORIGIN LAT LONG DEPTH MAG NO D1 GAP D RMS SEH SEZ 0 SOD ADJ IN NR AVR AAR NR AVXM SDXM NF AVFM SDft 860202 322 48.53 41N38.75 81W 9.53 4.99 24 1 72 1 0.06 0.1 0.3 A A A 0 32 10 38 0.00 0.05 0 0.0 0 0.(

i l (- STATION DATA -) (- P-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME BATA MD DELAYS ) VARI (- - S-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA --)( - - MAGNITUDE DATA - 1 STN DIST AZM A!N PSEC PRMK+TCOR 0=TTOB-TTCAL C-DLAY-EDLY=P-RIS P-WT THIC SSEC SRMK TTOB TTCAL S-RES S-WT MX PR XMAG R FMP Fr4 l x03 1.5 330 161 49.62!P00 1.09 1.05 1 0.04 1.455 50.45 isi 1.92 1.90 0.02 0.818 we02 2.4 0 150 49.691PC0 1.16 1.11 1 0.05 1 455 50.32 s4 1.79 2.01 -0.22 0.000 hoch 4.5 161 132 49.90!F 1 1.37 1 33 1 0.05 0.818 50.40 es4 1.87 2.38 -0.51 0.000 h1h 5.7 38 124 50.111PC1 1.58 1.48 1 0.10 0.818 51.00 is4 2.47 2.67 -0.19 0.000

,O chob. 6.7 208 119 50.00!P 1 1.47 1621 -0 15 0.818 51.33 es4 2.80 2.90 -0.10 0.000

( j we04 6 8178119 50.161PC0 1.63 1 63 1 0.00 1 455 51 19 s4 2.66 2.92 -0.25 0.000 V howe 7.3 162 117 50.251PD3 1.72 1.71 1 0.01 0.0H 51.45 es4 2.92 3.05 -0.13 0.000 con 7.4 326 117 50.341P 1 1.81 1.72 1 0.09 0.818 51.31 ts4 2.78 3.00 -0.30 0.000 l x06 8.2 103 114 50.411PD0 1.88 1.84 1 0.04 1 455 51.75 is0 3 22 3.28 -0.06 1.455 x02 9.2 1 111 50.541PC0 2.01 1.99 1 0.02 1.455 51.95 150 3.42 3.56 -0.14 1.455 war 10.2 119 109 50.671PD1 2.14 2.13 1 0.01 0.818 4 ,

x04 11.7 252 106 50.951PD0 2 42 2.37 1 0.05 1 455 52.64 iso 4.13 4.21 -0.08 1.433 I vc03 11.8 37 106 50.871PC0 2.34 2 39 1 -0.05 1.455 52.54 is4 4.01 4.24 -0.23 0.000 wc01 12.4 234 105 51.041P 1 2.51 2.48 1 0 03 0.818 52.64 s4 4.11 4.39 -0.28 0.000 l sin 12.6 220 105 51.00!PC2 2.47 2.52 1 -0.05 0.364 52.92 es4 4.39 4.46 -0.07 0.000 poch its 345105 51.101P 1 2.57 2.54 1 0.03 0.818 52.80 es4 4.27 4.51 -0.23 0.000 hpv 13.8 41 104 51.20!PC1 2.67 2.70 1 -0.03 0.818 53.17 1s4 4.64 4.78 -0.14 0.000 wc06 16.0 137 102 51.66EP 3 3.13 3.05 1 0.08 0.091 53.73 is4 5.20 5.39 -0 19 0.000 x01 17.7 5 100 51.881PC0 3.35 3.32 1 0.03 1.455 4 cid 20.1 228 99 $2.20EP 3 3.67 3.70 1 -0.03 0.091 54.60 es4 6.07 6.52 -0.45 0.000 QUALITY EVALUATION j l

DIAGONALS IN ORDER OF STRENGTH Z SE W SW NE N E AVE. OF END POINTS 0.37 0.72 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.94 0.99

{

Vl NUMBER 24 RMS MIN DRMS AVE DRMS QUALITY 0.06 0.41 0.84 A l

l 119 1

f

_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ .a

a

........ P E G ! r --

86/ 2/ 5 6/34 TEST DATA 86/ 2/ 5 6/34 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SINGLE VARIABLE STANDARD DEVIATIONS (682 - ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM)

(VALUES TRUNCATED AT 25 KM)

SEH = 0.43 SEH = 0.45 SEI = 0.46 0UALITY = A AI = 14. AZ = -76. .

SE OF DRIG = 0.07 TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 5 DMAX = 90.00 SEQUENCE NUMBER =

AT THE CLOSEST STATION USED IN THE SOLUTION BOTH P AND S WERE USED. THE S MINUS P INTERVAL EDUALS 1.74 DATE ORIGIN LAT LONG DEPTH MG NO D1 GAP D RMS SEH SEZ 0 SOD ADJ IN NR AVR AAR NM AVXM SDXM NF AVFM SDFM 960205 634 2 40 41N38.94 81W 9.64 2.07 20 1 49 1 0.21 0.4 0.5 B B A 0.13 to 31 0.00 0.13 0 0.0 0 0.0

(- STATION DATA -) (-~ P-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA AND DELAYS -----) VARI (--- S-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA -)(~- MAGNITUDE DATA --)

STN DIST AIM AIN PSEC PRMK+TCOR-0=TTOB-TTCAL C-DLAY-EDLYsP-RES P-WT THIC SSEC SRMK TTOB TTCAL S-RES S-WT AMX PR XMG R FMP FM x03 1.1 328 147 2.27IPC1 -0.13 0.60 1 -0.74 1.047 4.01 1s2 1.61 1.12 0.48 0.465 fore 1 6 222 136 3.10!* 3 0.70 0.66 1 0.03 0.116 3.80 es4 1.40 1.24 0.16 0.000 rc02 2-1

. 4 127 3.391PC0 0.99 0.73 1 0.25 1.860 3.92 1s4 1.52 1.36 0.15 0.000 pop 4.8 131 51 3.62IPC1 1.22 1 19 1 0 03 1.047 4.24 154 1.84 2.15 -0.32 0.000 n x55 4.8 135 51 3.691PC1 1.29 1191 0.09 1.047 4.60 ist 2.20 2.16 0.03 1 047 I $1h 5.6 41 51 3.771PD1 1 37 1.31 1 0.05 1.047 4.82 is4 2.42 2 37 0.05 0.000 y'cfd 5.9 298 51 3.90IPC0 1.50 1.37 1 0.12 1.860 4 con 7.0 325 51 4.031F C1 1.63 1.55 1 0.07 1.047 4.98 is4 2.58 2.79 -0.21 0.000 wc04 7.1 177 51 3.97 P 1 1.57 1 57 1 0.00 1 047 4.84 es4 2.44 2.81 -0.37 0.000 ttr 7.4 203 51 4.061PD1 1 66 1.61 1 0.04 1.047 5.34 is4 2 94 2.89 0.05 0.000 x02 8.9 2 51 0.00 4 -2.40 1.86 1 -4.26 0.000 5.62 1s1 3.22 3.32 -0.10 1.047 tee 10.1 64 51 4.251P 2 1.85 2.05 1 -0.20 0.465 4 none 10.2 114 51 4.30!PD3 1.90 2.07 1 -0.18 0.116 5.75 es4 3.35 3 49 -0.35 0.000 we03 11 6 38 51 4.60!PD0 2.20 2.30 1 -0.10 1 860 6.00 es4 3.60 4.08 -0.49 0.000 x04 11 6 251 51 4.791PC2 2.39 2.30 1 0.08 0.465 6.41'is! 4.01 4.09 -0.09 1.047 vc01 12.3 -;;2 51 4.811PD0 2.41 2.41 1 -0.01 1.860 6.63 is4 4.23 4.28 -0.05 0.000 ein 12.8 219 51 4.851P 2 2.45 2.49 1 -0.04 0.465 4 QUALITY EVALUATION D1Ab0eLS IN ORDER OF STRENGTH 2 SE NW NE N SW E AVE. Of END POINTS 0.18 0.58 0.60 0.76 0.79 0.'/9 0.81 1 NUMBER RMS MIN DRMS AVE DRMS QUALITY 20 0.21 0.24 0.69 B

%d 121 i l

o

. -ggIw.. ......

86/ 2/ 7 15/20 TEST DATA 86/ 2/ 7 15/20 l

HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SINGLE VARIABLE STMDARD DEVIATIONS (68% - ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM)

[ VALUES TRUNCATED AT 25 KM)

SEH = 0.13 SEH = 0 16 SEZ = 0.56 00ALITY = A AI s 11. AZ = -79. ,

SE OF DRIG = 0.04 TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 4 DMX= 90.00 SEQUENCE NUMBER =

S MD P ARE NOT BOTH USED AT CLOSEST STATION DATE ORIGIN LAT LONG DEPTH MG NO D1 GAP D RMS SEH SEZ 0 S3D ADJ IN NR AVR AAR FM AVXM SDXM NF AVFM SDFM

'860207 1520 20.20 41N39.06 81W 9.24 4.59 27 2 42 1 0.00 0.2 0.6 A A A 0.07 10 46 0 00 0.04 0 0.0 0 0.0 l

-(- STAT 10N DATA -) f P-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA MD DELAYS --) VARI (-~ S-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA ~H-~ MGNITUDE DATA ~)

STN DIST AIM AIN PSEC PRMKtTCOR-OsTTOS-TTCAL C-DLAY-EDLYsP-RES P-WT THIC SSEC SRMK TTOB TTCAL S-RES S uc02 1.9 348 154 21.29 PC1 1.09 1.01 1 0.08 0.938 21.64 es4 1.44 1 84 -0.40 0.000 col 4.0 7 132 21.51!PC1 1.31 1.23 1 0.00 0.938 22.38 154 2.18 2 21 -0.03 0.000 poo 4.6 138 128 21.511PC1 1.31 1,29 1 0.02 0.938 22 17 is4 1 97 2.32 -0.35 0.000 hlh 5.0 38 125 21 591PD1 1.39 1.35 1 0.04 0.938 22.34 is4 2.14 2.43 -0.29 0.000 hoe 5.4 169 123 21.561p 1 1.36 1 40 1 -0.04 0.938 22.44 154 2.26 2.!,3 -0.27 0 000 O erj 5.9 83 120 21 771PD1 1 57 1.48 1 0.09 0.938 22.71 is4 2.51 2.65 -0.14 0.000 5

) vsh 6.2 245 118 21.761PL1 1.56 1.52 1 0.04 0.938 22.82 is4 2.62 2.73 -0.11 0 000 cfd 6 3 294 118 21.70lP 1 1.50 1 54 1 -0.04 0.938 22.60 es4 2.40 2.75 -0.3$ 0 000 con 7.2 320 114 21.911PCI 1.71 1.66 1 0.05 0.938' 22.86 is4 2.66 2.97 -0.31 0.000 vc04 7.3 181 114 21.911PD1 1.71 1.68 1 0.03 0.938 23.16 es4 2.96 3.00 -0.04 0.000 tte 7.8 206 112 22.041PD1 1.84 1.75 1 0.09 0.938 23.45 is4 3.25 3.13 0.12 0 000 x06 8.0 108 112 22 011PC) 1,81 1.77 1 0.04 0.938 23.22 ist 3.02 3.18 -0.16 0.938 x02 0.7 358 110 22.121PC2 1.92 1.88 1 0.04 0.417 23.39 ist 3.19 3.37 -0.18 0.938 cur 10.3 187 106 22 391PD1 2.19 2.13 1 0.06 0.938 23.89 is4 3.69 3 79 -0.10 0 000 ec03 11.1 37 105 22 451PD0 2.25 2.26 1 -0.01 1.648 24.05 es4 3.85 4.02 -0.17 0.000 son ' 11.6 424104 22.561PC1 2.36 2331 0.03 0.938 24.09 is4 3.89 4.14 -0.25 0.000 ecol 12.9 252 103 22.80!PD0 2.60 2.55 1 0.05 1 668 24.57 es4 4.37 4.51 -0.15 0.000 tot 13.3 91 102 22.83EPD1 2.63 2.60 1 0.03 0.938 24.71 is4 4.51 4.61 -0.10 0.000 min 13.3 220 102 22.70!P 1 2.50 2.61 1 -0.11 0.938 4 x08 13.4 203 102 22 78EPD1 2.58 2 62 1 -0.04 0 938 24.66 1st 4.46 4 64 -0.17 0.938 lox 13.8 42 102 22.85IPD1 2.65 2.68 1 -0.03 0.938 24.92 ise 4.72 4.75 -0.03 0.000 ec06 16.1 140 100 23.30lPCC 3.10 3.06 1 0.04 1.668 25.43 es4 5.23 5.40 -0.18 0.000 x01 17.1 3 99 0 00 4 -20.20 3 21 1 -23.41 0.000 25.84 1s1 5.64 5 67 -0.03 0.938 afd 21.9 162 97 24.20!P 1 4.00 3.99 1 0.01 0.938 4 OUALITY EVALUATION Z NW SE E SW NE N

\ DIAGONALS IN ORDER OF STRENGTH fNE. Of END POINTS 0.24 0.74 0.75 0.81 0.85 0.85 1.08 4

. NUMBER RMS MIN DRMS AVE DRMS QUALITY 27 0.09 0.29 0.80 9 l

123 l o

o

..... .. .gan_... . . . _ ...

85/ 2/23 3/29 TEST DATA 86/ 2/23 3/29 HORIZONTAL MD VERTICAL SINGLE VARIABLE STMDARD KVIATIONS (682 - DNE DEGREE OF FREEDOM)

(VALUES TRUNCATED AT 25 KM)

SEH = 0.24 SEH = 0.28 SE2 = 0.73 OUALITT = A.

AZ = -19. AZ = -109. .

SE Or DRIG = 0.07 T01 AL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 4 DMX = 90.00 SEQUENCE NUMER =

AT THE CLOSEST STATION USED IN THE SOLUTION BOTH P MD S WEEE USED. THE S MINUS P IWTERVAL EQUALS 0.55 DATE ORIGIN LAT LONG DEPTH MG NO D1 GAP D RMS SEH SE2 0 SOD ADJ IN NR AVR AAR NM AVXM SDXM NF AVFM SDFM 860223 329 48.46 41N39.06 819 9.44 4.77 16 2 95 1 0.00 0.3 0.7 B A B 0.07 10 16 0.00 0.06 0 0.0 0 00

(- STATION DATA -) ( P-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA AND DELAYS --) VARI (~ S-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA ~)(-~ MAGNITUDE DATA ~)

STN DIST AIM AIN PSEC PR W TCOR-0=TTOB TTCAL C-DLAY-EDLY=P-RES P-WT THIC SSEC SRPK TTO TTCAL i-RES S-WT MX PR XMAG R FMP wC2 .1.8 356 155 49.55!PC0 1.09 1.04 1 0 06 2 586 50 10 53 1.64 1.88 -0.24 0.162 pop 4.7 136 128 49.821PC0 1.36 1.33 1 0.03 2.586 50.47 is3 2.01 2.40 -0.39 0.162 hlh 5.2 40 125 49.86EPD0 1 40 1.39 1 0.01 2.586 50.81 is3 2.35 2 50 -0.15 0.162 con 7.0 322 116 50.141PC0 1.68 1 65 1 0.03 2.586 51 14 is3 2.68 2.95 -0.21 0.162 7.7 204 114 50.29EP 1 1.85 1.75 1 0.08 1.455 51.54 153 3.00 3.12 -0.04 0 162

/ m ttr wC3 11 3 38 106 50.66EP 3 2.20 2.30 1 -0.10 0.162 52.28 s3 3.82 4.00 -0.26 0.162 (j)tx01 12 6 252 104 50.911PD0 2.45 2.51 1 -0.06 2.586 52.79 153 4.33 4.45 -0.12 0.162 wo6 16.313910151.4EEF 3 3.02 3.09 1 -0.07 0.142 53.71 es3 5.25 5 47 -0.22 0.162 I

QUALITY EVALUATION DIAGONALS IN ORDER OF STRENGTH I Nii NC N SE SW E AVE. OF END POINTS 0.26 0.61 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.71 0.72

- NUMBER RMS MIN DRMS AVE DRML QUALITY 16 0.08 0.28 0.64 B

/

\

125

b

, .......BEGIN---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84/ 2/29 1/39 TEST MTA 86/ 2/28 1/39 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SINGLE VARIABLE STMDARD DEVIATIONS (681 - ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM)

(VALUES TRUNCATED AT 25 KM)

SEH = 0.28 SEH = 0.39 SE2 = 0.87 00ALITY = A AZ = 4. AZ = -84. .

SE Or ORIG = 0.08 TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 5 DMX = 90.00 SEQUENCE NUME R =

AT IHE CLOSEST STATION USED IN lHE SOLUTION BOTH P AND $ WERE USED. THE S MINUS P INTERVAL E00ALS 0.60 DATE ORIGIN LAT LOWJ DEPTH MG N0 D1 OAP D RMS SCH SE2 0 SOD ADJ IN NR AVR AAR NM AVXM SDXM NF AVFM SDFM B40228 139 34.07 41N39 11 81W 9.59 4.31 12 2 92 1 0.08 0.4 0.9 B A B 0.05 10 13 0.00 0.04 0 0.0 0 0.0

(- STATION DATA -) ( - P-WAVE TRAVEL-TIhJ DATA AND DELATS --) VARI (- S-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA -)(--- MGNITUDE DATA --)

STN DIST AIM AIN PSEC PRMX+TCOR-0=TT09-TTCAL C-DLAY-EDLY=P-RES P-WT THIC SSEC SRMK TTOR TTCAL S-RES S-WT AMX PR XMG R fMP fMAC wC2 17 3 154 35.10!PC0 1 03 0.96 1 0.07 2.560 35.70 es3 1.63 1.75 -0.12 0.160 pop 5.0135123 3f.45EF 2 1.38 1311 0.07 0 640 34.05 is3 1.98 2.38 -0.40 0 160 hlh 5.3 43 120 35.43IPDC 1.36 1 36 1 0.00 2.560 36.21 is3 2.14 2.45 -0.31 0.160 x09 6.8 177 114 35.70!P 4 1.63 1.58 1 0.05 0.000 4

/ con 6.8 323 113 35.65IPC0 1.58 1.58 1 0.00 2.560 34 60 is3 2.53 2.84 -0.31 0.160 i tte 7.7 202 110 35.78IPD0 1.71 1.71 1 0.00 2.540 37.13 is3 3.06 3.08 -0.02 0.160

\ wol 12.5 251 102 4.60EPf 3 2 53 2 47 1 0.04 0.160 38.30 es3 4.23 4.38 -0.15 0.160 QU%ITY EVALUATION ll!A00NALS IN ORDER OF STRENGTH Z NW E SE SW NE N AVE. OF END POINTS 0.26 0.51 0 b3 0.65 0.67 0.47 0.71 NUMBER Rt3 MIN DRMS AVE DRMS 'QUALITT 12 0.08 0.27 0.57 3 t

127

'o

........ ..gg01n ...~.... ~- _ ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . ~ . .

4_

86/ 3/12 8/55 TEST DATA 86/ 3/*2 8/55 HORIZONTAL MD VERTICAL SINGLE VARIABLE STMDARD DEVIATIONS (681 - ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM)

[ VALUES TRUNCATED AT 25 KM)

SEH = 0.30 SEH = 0.71 SEZ = 0.38 OVAL.ITY = A AZ = -115. AZ s -25.

• SE OF ORIO = 0.!3 TOTAL NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 9 DMAX = 90.00 SEQUENCE NUMBER =

S MD P ARE NOT BOTH USED AT CLOSEST STATION DATE ORIGIN LAT LONG DEPTH MAG NO Di GAP D RMS SEH SE2 0 SOD ADJ IN NR AVR AAR NM AVXM SDXM NF AVFM SDFM 860312 855 26.59 41N43.64 01W10.25 2.00 10 1 216 1 0.06 0.7 0.4 C B D 0 24 10 1V-0.01 0.04 0 0.0 0 0.0

(- STATION DATM -) (---- P-WAVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA MD DELAYS --~) VARI (---- S-MVE TRAVEL-TIME DATA -)(- MAGNITUDE DATA ,

STN DIST AZM AIN PSEC PRMK+TCOR-0=TT08-TTCAL C-DLAY-EDLYeP-RES P-WT THIC SSEC SRMK TTOB TTCAL S-RES S-WT MX PR XMG R FMP FW x02 1.1 79 146 25.551PC9 -1.04 0.59 1 -0.04 2.647 25.97 151 0 42 0.46 -0.04 SMP we02 6.7 171 51 28.161P 1 1.57 1.51 1 0.06 2 647 29.23 is3 2.64 2.71 -0.07 0.294 )

we03 8.0 87 51 28.35EP 3 1 76 1.73 1 0.03 0.294 29.56 es3 2.97 3.09 -0.12 0.294 vc08 8.6 223 51 28.40EP 3 1 81 1.82 1 -0.01 0.294 29.65 es3 3.06 3.25 -0.19 0 294 wc09 15.2 175 51 29.47EP 1 2.88 2.89 1 -0.01 2.647 4

(, j wc01 16.5 221 51 29.70EP 3 3.11 3.11 1 0.00 0.294 32.00 es3 5.41 5 49 -0.00 0.214

%d {

OVALITY EVALUATION l DIAGONALS IN URDER OF STRENGTH Z NW SE N SW E NE AVE. OF END POINTS 0.39 0.69 0.69 0.75 0.82 0.85 0.87 NUMBER RMS MIN DMS AVE DRMS QUALITY 10 0.06 0.64 0.77 A 1

[N b

d l

i 0

129

O

( AVERAGE kn! 0F ALL EVENTS s 0.10 XXXXX CLASS / A B C D TOTAL XXXXX NUMBER / 12.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 13.0 131 P/ 92.3 0.0 7.7 0.0 INCLU1JE ONLY CLASS B AND ETTER IN THE FOLLOWING STAT]STICS.

P RESI NALS S RESIDUALS S-P RESIDUALS X-fnAG RES F-MAG Rt3 STATIDW N WT AVE SD N WT AVE SD N WT AVE SD N AVE SD N AVE SD STATION .

but 1 0.8 0.12 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 bur col 4 0.9 0.12 0.04 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 00 0.00 col colo 1 0.1-0.01 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.M 0 0.00 0.00 cole efd 3 1.5 0.07 0.06 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 cfd cho 1 1.5 0.06 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 che che 2 1.5-0.02 0.01 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 che choh 2 1.0-0.15 0.01 1 0.5-0.09 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 choh cid 3 0.7-0.02 0.05 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 cid con 8 1.3 0.04 0.03 2 0.2-0.29 0.02 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 con cot 3 0.9 0.07 0.03 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 cot cuy 4 0.8 0.06 0.05 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 cuy elfe 1 0.1 0.16 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 elfe

( >J 3 0.9 0.06 0.03 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 vrj

[] fore 1 0.1 0.03 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 fore

( 1 fot 3 0.8 0.04 0.02 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 fot

( ,/ gar 1 1.2 0.00 0.00 1 0.1 0.04 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 gar hoe 4 0.9-0.03 0.05 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 hoe hoch : 1.0 0.06 0.02 1 0.1-0.39 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 hoch her 1 0.8 0.02 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 har hlh 9 1 4 0.05 0.04 3 0.2-0.22 0.07 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 hlh hown 2 0.1 0.05 0.03 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 hown hpv 2 1 5-0.02 0.01 1 0.1-0 18 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 hov hse 2 0.9 0.04 0.04 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 hse hsoh 1 1.2 0.30 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.06 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 hson

- htg 2 0.8-0.09 0.02 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 htg hwk 3 0.9 0.23 0.02 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.M 0.00 hwt lex 4 0.9-0.03 0.06 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 lox afd 3 0.9 0.03 0.04 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 afd sin 5 0.7-0.10 0.04 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 ein son 4 0.9 0.05 0.02 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 son none 1 0.1-0.18 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 sono stoh 1 1.2-0.05 0.00 1 0.1-0.26 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 sten poch 1 0.8 0.03 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 pooh per 1 0.8-0.26 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0. M 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 per rN poo 6 1.2 0.04 0.03 2 0.2-0.39 0.01 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.M 0 0.M 0.00 pop  !

[d

\

) toe tte 3 0.9-0.03 0.09 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 7 1.2 0.06 0.05 2 0.2-0.03 0.01 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 wc01 11 1.4-0.01 0.05 6 0.2-0.14 0.10 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 c.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 tes ttr wcol wc02 12 1.9 0.07 0.06 6 0.2-0 19 0.10 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 wc02 wc03 l' 1.4-0.05 0.05 5 0.2-0.19 0.08 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.M 0 0.00 0.00 wc03 wc04 7 1.4 0.01 0.04 1 0.5-0.33 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 wc04 wc06 7 1.3 0.02 0.09 3 0.1-0.13.0.08 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 wc06 wc07 2 1.5-0.09 0.02 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 4 00 0 0.00 0.00 wc07 wc08 3 1.4 0.03 0.06 3 0.2-0.14 0.10 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 wc08 wc09 3 2.1 0.00 0.06 2 0.1-0.23 0.02 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 wc09 4 wtr 1 0.8 0.01 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0 00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 wkr l vsh 4 0.9 0.10 0.04 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 wsh {

x01 3 1.5 0.03 0.02 4 0.9-0.07 0.04 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x01 x02 6 1.1 0.00 0.05 7 0.9-0.16 0.06 1 2.6-0.04 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 00 0.00 x02 x03 4 1 4-0.10 0.30 4 0.8 0.04 0.20 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x03 i

x04 3 1.1 0.09 0.04 2 1.3-0.08 0.01 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x04 l x06 5 1.3 0.02 0.03 5 1.0-0.12 0.05 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x06 x07 2 0.9 0.02 0.06 2.0.9-0.13 0.02 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x07 x08 3 1.1-0.08 0.15 3 0.9-0.21 0.14 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x08 x0? 2 0.9 0.01 0.02 2 0.9-0 15 0.04 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x09 x11 1 0.3 0.04 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x11 x55 1 1.0 0.09 0.00 1 1.0 0.03 0.M 0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 x55

, a v.s. cenmm re a m cir::t, m.m. eu.::c6 1