View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
UCRL-53582, Rev. IDistribution Category UC-11
Natural Phenomena HazardsModeling Project: Seismic
Hazard Models forDepartment of Energy Sites
D. W. Coats
R. C. Murray
Manuscript date: November 1984
Prepared for the US. Department of Energy Officeof Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, andHealth, Office of Nuclear Safety
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY aUniversity of California * Livermore, California * 94550
Available from: National Technical Information Service * U.S. Department of Commerce5285 Port Royal Road * Springfield, VA 22161 * $1130 per copy * (Microfiche $4.50
"I 8912140219 891212PDR WASTEWM-I 0C PDC
-
PREFACE
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) under contract to the
Office of Nuclear Safety (OKS), Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety,
and Health, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), J. R. Hill, Project Manager, is
developing uniform design criteria for critical facilities at DOE sites
throughout the United States. The criteria in question relate to a
structure's ability to withstand earthquakes and strong winds from both
tornadoes and other storms.
Work began on the project in September 1975, when representatives of
LLNL's Structural Mechanics Group met with James Hill of DOE's Division of
Operational and Environmental Safety to discuss the project's goals. In other
mettings in late 1975 and early 1976, it was decided that a three-phase
approach to the project was best. The first phase, completed in late 1978,
involved information gathering. Sites were selected, their critical
facilities were identified, and information about the facilities was gathered
and summarized (Coats and Murray, 1978).
In the second phase, experts in seismic and wind hazards were asked to
develop hazard models for each site. TERA Corporation, Berkeley, California,
was selected to develop the seismic hazard models. McDonald, Mehta, and-
Minor, consulting Engineers, Lubbock, Texas, and T. T. Fujita of the
University of Chicago were both contracted to independently develop hazard
models for tornadoes and high winds.
Once all the hazard models are developed, LLNL will support ONS in
developing uniform hazard criteria for the DOE to use in evaluating the
existing design criteria at the various sites and upgrading or modifying
critical facilities.
The purpose of this report is to present the final wind/tornado hazard
models and recommended response spectra for design and analysis, and the
methodology used to develop them. The final hazard models presented in this
report are based on the site-specific studies produced by TERA Corporation, as
part of the Natural Phenomena Hazards Study. Final seismic hazard models have
been published separately by TERA and were distributed to DOE Headquarters and
DOE Field Ofices for review and comment. The final wind/tornado hazard models
were published by LLNL in UCRL 53526 (Coats, 1984).
-iii-
CONTENTS
Seismic Hazard Analysis Methodology ...... 00000000000000...... 00.. 5
Ip................................................g00.o.g. 6
Methodology .......o..o.o.o..o...o.....e.o....oe.....o...o.e. 6
Source Regionse.......................... o. 0 o ............... .07
Source Region ........................................ 10
Magnitude and Intensity Relationship.................................11
Attenuation Relationships........................ ................... 11
Hazard Calculations...o.0000.00 00000000 000000000000000000 .......... 13
Response Spectra .............. .15
Summary and Conclusions. geg.... ................. ooooo*0o 000e000 e.19
References ~~oooeooeoeoo~ooooo~oosoososeoo21
Bibliography.. .23
Albuquerque Field Office Sites..............e............o....o.o .27
Chicago Field Office Sites..o......o... .........oo .....e.......... 45
Idaho Field Office Site 55
Oak Ridge Field Office Sites 59
Nevada Field Office Sie .69
Richland Field Office Site 73
San Francisco Field Office Sites..o.....................0..0..0.... 77
Savannah River Field Office 89
ABSTRACT
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has developed seismic and
wind hazard models for the Office of Nuclear Safety (ONS), Department of
Energy (DOE). The work is part of a three-phase effort aimed at establishing
uniform building design criteria for seismic and wind hazards at DOE sites
throughout the United States. In Phase 1, LLNL gathered information on the
sites and their critical facilities, including nuclear reactors, fuel-
reprocessing plants, high-level waste storage and treatment facilities, and
special nuclear material facilities. In Phase 2, development of seismic and
wind hazard models, was initiated. These hazard models express the annual
probability that the site will experience an earthquake or wind speed greater
than some specified magnitude. This report summarizes the final seismic
hazard models and response spectra recommended for each site and the
methodology used to develop these models. Wind/tornado hazard models have
been published separately by LLNL in UCRL 53526 (Coats, 1984).
In the final phase, it is anticipated that the DOE will use the hazard
models to establish uniform criteria for the design and evaluation of critical
facilities.
)1 -vii-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank James R. Hill (DOE), the technical
monitor for the Office of Nuclear Safety for his support and assistance. The
support and assistance of the Office of Nuclear Safety, Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Safety, and Environment, US Department of Energy, is also
gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks go to Mr. Lawrence H. Wight, Vice
President, TERA Corporation, and to Dr. Christian P. ortgat, Project Manager,
TERA Corporation, for their valued technical contributions throughout the
course of this project. The seismic hazard studies performed by TERA
Corporation, provided the material for this summary report (see Bibliography).
Finally, thanks go to members of the DOE community, and DOE contractors
for their critical reviews of TERA's work. Thanks also go to Carol Meier
(LLNL) for typing the original manuscript and for publications support.
INTRODUCTION
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL) has been providing
technical assistance to the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Safety
(ONS), Assistant Secretary for Policy, Safety, and Environment to develop
seismic, extreme wind and tornado hazard curves for Department of Energy (DOE)
sites throughout the country. (See Table for a list of sites included in
this study and Fig. I for their geographic distribution.) Experts in seismic
and wind hazards were asked to develop the hazard models for each site. TERA
Corporation, Berkeley, California, was selected to develop the seismic hazard
models. McDonald, Mehta, and Minor, Consulting Engineers, Lubbock, Texas, and
T. T. Fujita of the University of Chicago were contracted to independently
develop hazard models for tornadoes and high winds. These consultants were
selected based upon their nationally recognized expertise and their previous
experience in hazard model development.
The hazard models produced have received widespread distribution for
review and comment. This distribution included: DOE Field Offices; DOE site
contractors; DOE headquarters; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and the United States
Geological Survey (USGS).
After review comments were evaluated and acted upon, final hazard model
reports were issued. TERA Corporation has issued their final seismic hazard
model reports in the form of individual binders for each DOE Field Office.
These binders contain the final seismic hazard models developed, as well as a
brief description of the methodology used to develop the hazard curves.
The draft wind/tornado hazard models produced by McDonald and Fujita were
updated to reflect review comments and reissued. A summary of the final
wind/tornado hazard models and the methodology used in their development has
been published by LLNL in UCRL 53526 (Coats, 1984).
The purpose of this report is to consolidate all of the seismic hazard
models and response spectra developed for the sites listed in Table 1. A
brief description of the seismic hazard analysis methodology is also included.
Earthquakes present a unique challenge in the design and evaluation of
-1-
structures. Host people in the US view earthquakes as being a threat only in
the western United States, although the historical record would contradict
this view, for damaging earthquakes have been widely distributed across the
US. In 1811-12 a series of earthquakes in New Madrid, Missouri, was felt from
New York to Florida, and was the largest series of earthquakes in recorded US
history. If seismic design requirements were based upon historical data
alone, then design requirements for the Mid-West and the East would be as
severe as those for the West. However, in addition to the maximum earthquake
size possible, the frequency of seismic events is also an important
consideration in establishing seismic design requirements.
The hazard curves contained in this report characterize the earthquake
hazard at a given DOE site by a frequency plot which gives the return period
or annual probability of exceedance of different peak ground accelerations of
the site. These curves have been derived from a combination of recorded
earthquake data, estimated earthquake magnitudes of known events for which
recorded data is not available, review of local geological investigations, and
use of expert judgment from seismologists and geologists familiar with the
region in question. A more detailed description of this procedure is
contained in the next section.
-2-
TABLE 1. Project sites, with DOE field offices.
DOE field office Sites
Albuquerque, NM
Chicago, IL
Idaho
Oak Ridge, TN
Nevada
Richland, WA
San Francisco, CA
Savannah, GA
Bendix Plant
Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory
Hound Laboratory
Pantex Plant
Rocky Flats Plant
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque
Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore CA
Pinellas Plant, Florida
Argonne National Laboratory-East
Argonne National Laboratory-West
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Feed Materials Production Center
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, X-1O, K-25, and Y-12
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Nevada Test Site
Hanford Project Site
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300
Energy Technology and Engineering Center
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Savannah River Plant
I.
-3-
.4
Figure 1. DOE sites for seismic hazard analysis.
-4-
SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
There are two distinctly different approaches to seismic hazard
characterization-deterministic and probabilistic. In the deterministic
approach, the analyst:
* Estimates that an earthquake of a given magnitude or intensity can
occur at a certain location.
* Attenuates the ground motion from the earthquake source to the site.
* Determines the effects of the earthquake at the site.
With this approach, it is difficult to define the margin of safety in the
resulting design parameters. As a result, the analyst generally uses upper-
bound estimates of ground motion, which are typically overly conservative.
In a probabilistic approach, on the other hand, the analyst quantifies
the uncertainty in the number, size, and location of possible earthquakes and
can thus present a trade-off between more costly designs or retrofits and the
economic or social impact of a failure.
Although the probabilistic approach requires significantly more effort
than does the deterministic approach, TERA used it to develop seismic hazard
characterizations that would make it possible to:
* Quantify the hazard in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) return
period, which is defined as the inverse of the annual probability of
exceedance of a specific PGA.
* Rigorously incorporate the complete historical seismic record.
* Incorporate the judgment and experience of seismic experts.
* Account for incomplete knowledge about the locations of faults.
* Assess the hazard at the site in terms of spectral acceleration.
In fact, the method is particularly appropriate for eastern facilities where
the seismicity is diffuse and cannot be correlated with surface faulting, as
it can be in the western United States. The locations of the Safe Shutdown
Earthquakes (the maximum credible earthquake at a given site) in the eastern
United States are particularly uncertain, and the probabilistic approach can
quantify these uncertainties. Its major weakness is the lack of plentiful
statistical data from which to characterize the various input parameters in
probabilistic terms. Nevertheless, the credibility of the probabilistic
-5-
approach has been established through detailed technical review of its
application to several important projects and areas. Applications include
assessments of the seismic risk in Boston (Cornell, 1975), the San Francisco
Bay Area (Vagliente, 1973), the Puget Sound Area (Stepp, 1974), the country of
Nicaragua (Shah, et al., 1975), the continental United States (Algermissen and
Perkins, 1976), the country of Costa Rica (Mortgat, et al., 1977) and the
Nuclear Regulatory funded Seismic Evaluation of Commercial Plutonium
Fabrication Plants (Bernreuter, et al., 1979), the Systematic Evaluation
Program (SEP) (Bernreuter, 1981), and the Seismic Safety Margins Research
Program (Bohn, et al., 1983). Results of these studies have been applied to,
among other areas:
* Development of long-range earthquake engineering research goals.
* Planning decisions for urban development.
* Environmental hazards associated with the milling of uranium.
* Design considerations for radioactive waste repositories.
* Licensing decisions for plutonium fabrication facilities and commercial
nuclear reactors.
This diversity of application demonstrates the inherent flexibility of
the probabilistic approach.
INPUT
TERA used the probabilistic approach to characterize the seismic hazard
for each site in this study. The input to a probabilistic hazard assessment
comprises specification of local seismic sources, earthquake frequency
relations and attenuation functions. Because hazard assessment calculations
are very sensitive to the particular composition of the input, experts in
local and regional seismology were consulted during the preparation of input
for each facility.
METHODOLOGY STEPS
The product of a probabilistic approach is a measure of the seismic
-6-
hazard expressed in terms of return period, or reciprocal annual
probability. The methodology used to determine seismic hazard at a site is
usually divided into the following steps:
* Specify the geometry of local seismic regions. Based on the geology
and historic seismicity of the region, sources are identified as line
sources (faults) r area sources (Fig. 2a). The largest magnitude
earthquake associated with each source is established.
* Describe past seismicity in terms of earthquake occurrence. The
recurrence of earthquakes of various magnitudes is based primarily on
historical seismicity. A straight line or a set of straight lines is
fitted onto the data, using regression analysis to develop these
relationships (Fig. 2b).
* Develop an earthquake recurrence model. The model assumes that the
earthquake occurrence follows a Poisson distribution in time. This is
a standard assumption.
* Derive or select a transfer function (attenuation relationship) to
mathematically carry information from the epicenter to the site in
terms of structurally relevant parameters (Fig. 2c). Most attenuation
relationships are empirically derived, at times modified by theory, and
express PGA as a function of earthquake magnitude and distances from
the epicenter. Different attenuation relationships are used in the
western and eastern United States because their ground motion
characteristics vary significantly.
* Combine the potential activity of all sources for all earthquake
magnitudes to determine the probability that a certain acceleration
will not be exceeded within a given time period (Fig. 2d). This
completes the seismic hazard model.
SOURCE REGIONS
A basic assumption in any seismic hazard analysis is that seismic source
zones can be defined within which the future seismicity is homogeneous and
stationary.
The seismic zone about each site can significantly influence the site
-7-
hazard; therefore, particular care was taken in the zone definitions for this
project. The zones prepared by Algermissen and Perkins were a starting point
in the definition of source regions. Their zones were generally considered
inadequate for the site-specific results sought by the program because their
objective was regional seismic hazard assessment. TRA critically examined
the Algermissen and Perkins zones from the perspective of their seismic data
base, as well as from various geologic, geophysical, and tectonic data. In
the eastern and central United States, TERA relied heavily on the results of
the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). As part of this project a panel of
10 seismologists was formed to provide expert opinion related to the seismic
zonation, earthquake occurrence, upper magnitude cutoff and ground motion in
the eastern and central United States (TERA, 1980). The zones were modified
as needed to capture the site-specific assessment required.
Where the hazard at a site was sensitive to the zonation, sensitivity
studies were performed on that parameter.
-8-
I s Maximum-Z *m agnitudeSite ~ ~ ~~~~~~~*earthquake
9)~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ II
\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Magnitude- MA_ fi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b)
(a)
loI I/ Besi
^ relationship ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~etia01 10 - 2 0 0
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EL
Disetaince' Pekhrznaaclrto-Area 8np
specifies the geometry of mportant seismic regions; (b) characterizes the
relative frequency of earthquakes of various sizes; develops an earthquake
recurrence model (usually a Poisson distribution in time, not shown); and (c)
selects transfer function that transforms information about the earthquake
at the epicenter into information at the site, such as ground acceleration,
that a structural engineer can use. The result of such an assessment is a
plot of return priod s peak horizontal ground acceleration (d).
4
-9-
SOURCE REGION SEISHICITY
TERA updated the earthquake data base to 1977 and found that, for many
source regions, there was little change in the earthquake statistics from the
1974 data used by Algermissen and Perkins to calculate the rates at which
earthquakes occur in each source region. TERA carefully compared the
seismicity model calculated with their data against the model prepared by
Algermissen and Perkins and reconciled any differences. Where applicable, the
results of the SEP survey were also heavily relied upon. TERA often
researched data points that were crucial to the statistics, and always
compared their model with all appropriate previous models.
Consistent with conventional practice, the resulting seismicity model for
all cases was characterized by
log N - a + bm, (1)
where
Nc - the cumulative number of earthquakes greater than mb s
a, b - parameters of a straight line, and
mb - the measure of the earthquake severity (magnitude or intensity).
The upper magnitude cutoff (Mu) is a rather uncertain parameter, particularly
in the less seismic areas which were considered. For each source, Mu was
obtained from reviews of expert opinion conducted by TERA. The values used
were intended to maximize the agreement among experts. Both the recurrence
relationship and the upper magnitude cutoff were considered uncertain and
sensitivity studies were performed on them.
-10-
MAGNITUDE AND INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Although most data are already available in terms of magnitude, an
important part of the data is described in terms of intensity. In general,
the subjective nature and the wide range of uncertainty of the Modified
Mercalli intensity scale are such that they cannot be easily compared to the
Richter magnitude. This has led to the use of empirical relationships between
magnitude and intensity. TERA used a widely accepted linear relationship in
the form:
mb a + b I (2)
where
mb ' Body Wave Magnitude
10 = Epicentral MM intensity
with the values
a - 1.75
b .50.
This relation has been derived separately for the central United States by
Nuttli (1974) and is used by TERA to estimate magnitudes when only intensity
is given.
ATTENUATION RELATIONSHIPS
Once the seismic activity has been determined within a source region,
attention focuses on the effect of such activity at the site. Attenuation
relationships are transfer functions that carry the information from the
source to the site in terms of parameters structural engineers can use (i.e.,
acceleration, velocity, spectral acceleration). These attenuation
relationships are inexact because of the lack of understanding of earthquake-
-11-
generation phenomena, variations in travel paths, variable site conditions,
and the limited descriptive capability of the parameters used. Probabilistic
models consider the whole spectrum of uncertainties associated with these
relationships for any event at any location. Thus, all possible outcomes at
the site are covered, from the most favorable to the most adverse, each
expressed in terms of how likely it is to occur.
The attenuation relationships were derived empirically. Because data are
widely available in the West, but practically nonexistent in the eastern,
central, and southern United States, two approaches were used.
The attenuation relations used for the eastern, central, and southern
states were developed in two steps. Given the paucity of strong motion data
and availability of intensity data, a model for the attenuation of site
intensity was first developed.. The site intensity was then converted into
ground motion parameter, namely, peak ground acceleration, by using existing
eastern United States strong motion data in conjunction with data from the
western states. The epicentral intensity as a parameter in the attenuation
model is changed to body wave magnitude by using Eq. (2). The local magnitude
can be transformed to body wave magnitude by the relation:
mb 0.98 H - 0.29 (3)
Attenuation relationships for the western United States were obtained directly
from the abundant strong motion data, by regression analysis of the PGA versus
magnitude and distance.
It is very important to consider the data dispersion around the mean
recurrence relationship. The statistical properties of peak acceleration are
usually characterized by the natural logarithm of acceleration, thus,
dispersions are expressed in terms of the standard deviation of In PGA where
PGA - Peak Ground Acceleration (cmlsec2). TERA has computed values for this
parameter on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, data dispersion is truncated
at three sigmas to eliminate nonplausible accelerations.
-12-
HAZARD CALCULATIONS
TERA used the total probability theorem to calculate the probability that
peak ground acceleration, A, will be exceeded in a given period of time. This
is calculated by multiplying the conditional probability of A, given
earthquake magnitude, m, and epicentral distance, r, times the probabilities
of m and r, and integrating over all possible values of m and r:
PEA] - ff PA/m and r] fM(m)fR(r) dmdr
where P indicates probability,.A is the parameter whose probability is sought,
and M and R are continuous, independent random variables which influence A.
In TERA's assessments, A is taken as maximum acceleration and is related
by the attenuation relationship to epicentral distance and earthquake
magnitude. The distribution on earthquake magnitude, fm(m), is readily
derived from frequency relationships of the form of Eq. (1). The distribution
on distance, fR(r), depends on the geometry of the source region. For simple
geometries, the distributions can often be integrated analytically. Realistic
geometries, however, require numerical evaluation of the integral.
TERA used versatile computer programs that incorporated the theory
presented above with a numerical integration scheme to evaluate complex
source-site geometries. For small areas within each source region, the
computer code calculated the annual expected number of earthquakes causing
accelerations greater than a specified acceleration. The expected number for
each source region was obtained by integrating over the whole source. This
process was repeated for each source region, and the total expected number was
obtained by summation. The resulting annual hazard was calculated as:
annual hazard - 1.0 - exp(- total annual expected number).
This expression results from the conventional assumption that earthquake
occurrences follow a Poisson process in time.
The return period associated with the specified acceleration can than be
-13-
approximated by the reciprocal of the annual hazard. It follows from the
definition of return period that accelerations with a particular return period
have a 63% probability of being exceded within a period of time equal to the
return period.
TERA's estimate of the seismic hazard represents the weighted reuslts
from individual calculations for a base case (best estimate) and perturbations
on input parameters about this base. The parameters that were considered
uncertain and included in sensitivity analysis are:
* The boundaries of the source regions.
* The intercept annd slope of the recurrence relationships.
* The maximum earthquake n each source region.
* The attenuation relationship and the uncertainty associated with it.
The sensitivity analyses resulted in a family of hazard curves at the
site. Each curve was weighted by subjective estimates Of its probability of
occurrence.
Results of the probabilistic seismic characterization are presented as
three plots of return period vs. peak acceleration: the best estimate
together with the estimate of the lower and upper limits. These limits can be
taken in a loose sense as the one standard deviation with respect to the best
estimate.
These plots are presented in the Appendix of this report.
-14-
RESPONSE SPECTRA
TERA also determined appropriate response spectra for the sites because
some structures and equipment have fundamental frequencies in the range of
spectral amplification of the ground motion. The response spectrum for a site
clearly cannot be developed in association with a specified earthquake, since
the return period accelerations represent a wide variety of earthquakes having
an integrated effect at the site, and the response spectrum must reflect this.
The hazard at most sites is generated by one of two types of events:
near-field earthquakes of small to moderate magnitudes in the host region, and
large earthquake motion from distant sources. The energy of near-field events
is released at the site mainly in the high frequency range, and their response
spectra are governed by body waves. On the other hand, large earthquake
motions from distant sources are transmitted by surface waves and contribute
to the low frequency side of the spectrum.
These considerations, as well as the site soil conditions, are used to
develop response spectra for each site. The resulting spectra are, in
general, a conservative envelope of the broad frequency range that may be
expected to occur at a given site, and are also presented in the Appendix of
this report. These spectra may be considered as median centered spectra for
conducting seismic analyses.
Two alternatives are also provided for selection of response spectra.
These are the use of the median Newmark and Hall spectra (Newmark and Hall,
1978) or the use of median centered site specific spectra developed by a local
site study. Formulas for the control points needed to define median centered
Newmark and Hall spectra are given in Table 2. These control points are shown
in Fig. 3.
-15-
TABLE 2. Formulas for determination of control points for median centeredNewmark and Hall spectra.
1. Select soil type
Competent soil V < 3500 ft/sec Rock V > 3500 ft/sec
ag - PGA (g) ag - PGA (g)
vg - 48 ag (in/sec) vg M 36 ag (in/sec)
dg - 36 ag (in) dg - 20 ag (in)
where: PGA - Peak ground acceleration (horizontal motion), andVs - Shear wave velocity of soil at site.
2. Determine maximum values
amax - ag(3.21 - 0.68 n B)
vmax - vg(2.31 - 0.41 n B)
dmax - dg(1.8 2 - 0.27 n B)
where: - Damping
3. Determine control points
Horizontal spectraFor a peak horizontal ground motion
Control Frequency Spectral AccelerationPoint (Hz) (g)
E 0.1 0.395 dmaxg
vmax v2 max27r dmax g dmax
g amax
2w vmax amax
B 8.0 amax
A 33.0 ag
A' 100.0 ag
where: g - acceleration of gravity
Vertical spectra
Sa (vertical control) - 2/3 Sa(horizontal control) at horizontal controlpoint point point frequency
where: Sa - spectral acceleration
-16-
IsI
.a
0.1 fc 8 33 100
Frequency, Hz (log scale)
Figure 3. Controland Hall spectra.log-log paper.
points for horizontal and vertical median centered NewmarkUse linear Interpolation between control points plotted on
-17-
A
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report has presented a summary of the methodology used by TERA
Corporation to develop seismic hazard models and response spectra as part of a
DOE, Office of Nuclear Safety project to evaluate natural phenomena hazards at
DOE sites throughout the country.
The seismic hazard curves and response spectra shapes presented in the
Appendix are the curves recommended for use in the design of new facilities
and in the analysis of existing facilities. We believe these curves represent
the most realistic evaluation of seismic hazards at DOE sites currently
available, and we strongly recommend their use in analysis and design
applications.
-1 9-
-
REFERENCES
Algermissen, S. T. and Perkins, D. M., A Probabilistic Estimate of MaximumAcceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States, U.S. Geological Survey,Open File Report 76-5416 (1976).
Bernreuter, D. L., et al., Seismic Evaluation of Commercial PlutoniumFabrication Plants In the United States, Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-52705 (October, 1979).
Bernreuter, D. L., Seismic Hazard Analysis--Application of Methodology,Results, and Sensitivity Studies, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report,NUREG/CR-1582, Vol. 4 (1981).
Bohn, M. P., et al., Application of the SSMRP Methodology to the Seismic Riskat the Zion Nuclear Power Plant, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report,NUREG/CR-3428 1983).
Coats, D. W. and Murray, R. C., Natural Phenomena Hazards for Department ofEnergy Critical Facilities: Phase 1 - Site and Facility Information, LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-52599-Draft (1978).
Coats, D. W. and Murray, R. C., Natural Phenomena Hazards Modeling Project:Extreme Wind/Tornado Hazard Models for Department of Energy Sites, LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-53526, Rev. 1 (August,1985).
Cornell, C. A. and Merz, H. A., "A Seismic Risk Analysis of Boston," Journalof the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. STIO, Proc. Paper 11617, pp.2027-2043 (1975).
Mortgat, C. P., et al., A Study of Seismic Risk for Costa Rica, Report 25,John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford,.California (1977).
Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J., Development of Criteria for Seismic Review ofSelected Nuclear Power Plants, US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report,NUREG/CR-0098 (May 1978)
Nuttli, 0. W. and Zollweg, J. E., "The Relation between Felt Area andMagnitude for Central United States Earthquakes," Bull. Seismol. Soc. America,Vol. 64, p. 73-85 (1974).
Shah, H. C., et al., A Study of Seismic Risk for Nicaragua, Report II, Part I,John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University (1975).
Stepp, J. C., "Analysis of Completeness of the Earthquake Sample in the PugetSound Area and Its Effect on Statistical Estimates of Earthquake Hazard,"Proceedings, Conference on Microzonation, Seattle (1974).
-21-
TERA Corporation, Seismic Hazard Analysis: Solicitation of Expert Opinion,prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1980).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The Correlation of Peak GroundAcceleration Amplitude with Seismic Intensity and Other Physical Parameters,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report, NUREG-0143 (1977).
Vagliente, V., "Forecasting the Risk Inherent in Earthquake Resistant Design,"Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University,Stanford, California (1973).
-22-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TERA Corporation, Influence of Seismicity Modeling on Seismic HazardAnalysis," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (June 1978).
TERA Corporation, "Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Bendix KansasCity Plant," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (October 1981).
TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for Los AlamosScientific Laboratory and Sandia Laboratories, New Mexico," report preparedfor the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (Hay 1981).
TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Paducah,Portsmouth, Mound and FPC DOE Sites," report prepared for the LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (June 1980).
TERA Corporation, "Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis Pantex Ordnance PlantAmarillo, Texas," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (April 1978).
TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis for Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory and Site 300," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (May 1983).
TERA Corporation, "Draft-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Pinellas Plant,Florida," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (October 1982).
TERA Corporation, Seismic Risk Analysis for Argonne National Laboratory EastArea," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (May 1978).
TERA Corporation, "Draft-Seismic Risk Analysis for Argonne NationalLaboratory, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory," report prepared for theLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (June 1978).
TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for BrookhavenNational Laboratory and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory," report preparedfor the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (July 1981).
TERA Corporation, "Draft-Seismic Hazard Analysis for Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (September 1978).
TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for Area 410, NevadaTest Site," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (October 1981).
-23-
TERA Corporation, Seismic Risk Analysis for the Hanford Reservation Richland,Washington," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore, CA (September 1978).
TERA Corporation, Draft-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratory and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center," report prepared for theLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (October 1981).
TERA Corporation, Draft-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Liquid MetalEngineering Center Santa Susana, California," report prepared for the LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (March 1982).
TERA Corporation, Draft Report-Seismic Hazard Analysis for the SavannahRiver Plant, South Carolina," report prepared for the Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, Livermore, CA (August 1980).
TERA Corporation, Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy-Sites, DOEField Office-Albuquerque," report prepared for the Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, Livermore, CA (September 1982).
TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Chicago," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (January 1983).
TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard.Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Idaho," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (October 1984).
TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Oak Ridge," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (February 1981).
TERA Corporation, Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Nevada," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (February 1984).
TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office--Richland," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (September 1982).
TERA Corporation, Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-San Francisco," report prepared for the Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, Livermore, CA (March 1984).
TERA Corporation, "Seismic Hazard Analysis of Department of Energy Sites, DOEField Office-Savannah," report prepared for the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Livermore, CA (September 1982).
-24-
-
APPENDIX
Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectrafor DOE Sites
This appendix contains hazard model curves and design response spectrafor all DOE sites considered in this study.
The hazard curves on either side of the best estimates represent lowerand upper bound confidence limits; they can roughly be considered the onestandard deviation with respect to the best estimates. These curves provide abasis for selecting seismic design criteria for these sites in terms of free-field peak ground acceleration.
For those structures and equipment that could experience structuralamplification, we have included the design response spectral shapes which webelieve to be most appropriate for the sites. These spectral shapes arescaled to 1.0 g.
-25-
Albuquerque Field Office Sites
Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectra
-27,
104'
a;
I
uJ
A:
-- ~~~~- - -0'
-_ S
7~~~~~~- = -
- ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - F~ A k---
-- - -
. - S
_ _ _ / I_ _ I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I- S
- -I--- I___ I =,~~~~~
___ IX~~~~
o2
100 so 00 '50 200 250 300 350
PEAK ACCELERATION (cmnlsec2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Bendix,Kansas City Plant, Missouri
-28-
400400
200
100Us
60
4
.2
.04 .04 .03 .1 .2 .4 .6 .3 1 2 4
PERIOD sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(22, 5, and 102 of Critical Dauping)Bendix, Kansas City Plant, Missouri
6 a 10 20
-29-
10000.
C - ____s ll
bI - 0I
10. I___
0 1OO 200 300 400 500 60
PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/3=
Earthquake Hazard at the Los Alamos National Laboratory,New Mexico
D
-30-
400~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
2W 1 < i tx¢3; 200
100 1 t M oAQ0 so Al ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~so
60 N0, 60
20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~20
C 10
- M- I £o
O 6
2 2
_ N 2 t t-A N A 7 , 7-1Z *0,4.6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A .4
.2 .2
04 6.6.1 .2 .4 .6 1 2 4 6 10 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico
-31-
S02
'a
1 0 ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~~~~~~~~~0 / 1 00
103
102~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. 1 101/
Aa 50 lug 1sO 250 300 35u
PEAK ACCELERATION (a s2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Mound Laboratory, Ohio
-32-
400400
200
100 tooso
160
40
20
10a
I
0'U
w
PERIOD (seC)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Mound Laboratory, Ohio
-33-
104
VwCAP&M02w
0
z£,.
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. I 1 /F - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E / Z &I
/ ,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __If_04
-a' 4 /
II/// I
IX I
102
100 40 80 120 160
PEAK ACCELERATION
200
(cm/sec2 )
240 280
Earthquake Hazard at the Pantex Plant, Texas
-34-
400400
z~~~~ -# riJL r X 'kAj12W = e '\ 1 N= 200
100 100
30 £0
40 40
§ < ro <y <n <~~~~~X <M 20 20
C w- . NF12
)> 10 1 0
I. I 'Y/ PIA Z N X Y/9
.4Ct5 I I'N /,%A' /\ " > I
0 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6
4
2 E B \ 12
.6 ~
.4
.2 .-002
.04 6 .01.1 .2 .4 .6 . 2 4 6 10 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Pantex Plant, Texas.
-35-
104
io3
a2
I
w
_ -7' I__
-A--I-- -_
-/-
-q/$� /_____ _____ � _____ _____ _____
-A l _______ _______ _______ _______
___ I / ___
II / I___ I ___ I ___ ___
___ -I
102
lo,00 200 300
PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/see2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado
-36-
400400
200
I0so60
200
t00t0
60
40
20
S
C
0-I
'I
10
6
.04 06 . .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 a 10 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado
-37-
I0000.1
1000._
0 100 200 300 400 500
PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/se 2 )
Earthquake Hazard at the Sandia National Laboratory,-New Mexico
-38-
600
400400
200
300s0
60
200
300so
60
40
20S
0-I
tu'I
10
£
6
A*:.0
.4
.04 06 .0o .2 .4 .6 .1 2 4 6 5 10 20
PERIOD (sec
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)Sandia National Laboratory, New Hexico
-39-
10,000
1000
0%
4n
8.0U
w
100
100 200 300 400 500 600PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Sandia National Laboratory,California
700
-40-
400 400
200 C o-e d 2 0 I . V A. E x As N I 0 2
100 10030 By 060 60
40 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
*) 20
>0- 10
O S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.64
.2 z a,
.04 .06.0.1 .2 .4 .6 . 2 4 63 10 20
PERIOD sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Sandia National Laboratory, California
-41-
l,
l0
lo,2S SO 7S 100 125 ISO 17S
PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (cmsmc2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Pinellas Plant, Florida
-42-
400 400
200 lop, I . x1 x NZv x OFX Ix x x z
100E so40
20
10 E VY/
.6
.4
.2
.04 .068 .2 A .6 .81 2 4
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2?, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Pinellas Plant, Florida
6 5 1o 20
-43-
Chicago Field Office Sites
Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectra
-45-
lo4
LU L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ i I _/l _ _LI
101
LU I 02
I-
~ i l_ __
_ l l__ _
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois
-46-
400 400
,_ago I'k v xV VI % A I 1% t 1 IF 1 ,- 200
oo 100
60 6
~20 20
>- 1 10
- SAaU
4
.4 X/N .4
.2 2 V 79 2
.1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*.4 .06 .1 .2 .4 .6.1 2 4 6610 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois
-47-
104
0C
2
w.ZI-
I 'At= p
X~~~~~ T
I~~ 7 f
! I 1/1
ff I_______- -
= == =-7' I _____-_~~~~
1010 s0 100 150 200 250 300 350
PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2 )
Earthquake Hazard at the Argonne Natlonal Laboratory, Idaho
-48-
400 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~400
200 '\200
100 100so go60 60
20t4C
> X0 to eH' _ \ % t > X > ~~~~NA Y/->-*
PE 610 D 6-a.'a
> 44
2 2
.6 N6
4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
.2 X 2
*1 -1
.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6.81I 2 4 6810 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(0.5%, 2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Argonne National Laboratory, Idahq
-49-
to1W00
a
zUr
1 7 1 7 1 / rF §~~~~~~7
102 _ / L =
__________________ _____________ _____________ _____________ l____________ I
l0~ ___ _, 7__1___
0 50 100 150 200 250 * 300
PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2 )
Earthquake Hazard at the Brookhaven National Laboratory,New York
350
-50-
400400
200
tooso
60
40
C
0-U'I
20
t0
3
6
4
2
.3
.6
.4
.2
.04 .06.09.1 .2 .4 . . 1 2 4 6 6 10 2C
PERIOD Isec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(22, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York
-51-
o
0
z
I-Iw
'e''''
/ 7/
/~ a If4
Io . 4 K / P
I / C
i
o~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,I ._
-o so o
PEAK
Earthquake Hazard at the
ISO 200 2W 300
ACCELERATION (cm/sec 2)
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory,New Jersey
350
-52-
400400
200 'k 'O L0 20
Too lO
so so 717
60 60
40 4
20 20
> l A..a dI- \ N _1fl A A Nx
0
.1w
2 2
1 I
.6 )<N 47 ~.8
.04 .06.08.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 6 6 10 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, New Jersey
-53-
Idaho Field Office Site
Earthquake Hazard Curve and Response Spectrum
-55-
Cn
4
w
00
w
0:
_ _ _ _ _ _ / _ __X
I T 1, Z d 1
__ I i/ . 1
= /1 i r
1010 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/sec2 )Earthquake Hazard-at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Idaho
-56-
400400
200
00
200
100so
60
U
C
50-aw)
40
20
t0
a
.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 5 10 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(0.5%, 2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho
-57-
Oak Ridge Field Office Sites
Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectra
-59-
lo' _ _____ e _
I0~~ ________l_
1 7 1_ / 7 / A/ 7 _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
!_________________________________________ ___________________ I ______________________ ___________________
w
I I I I __ I
IO10
I I I A -�
so 100 I50 200 250 300 350
PEAK ACCELERATION (t/s2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Feed Materials Production Center, Ohio
-60-
400400
200
toos0
60
200
100to
> 0 s4
.6 CIO.4
.2
.04 .06.08.1 .2 .4 . . 1 2 4 6
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g
(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Feed Materials Production Center, Ohio
10 20
-61-
02 $X1 1a I ~ I II.
*0 I
0 -I ISO lo 200 250 300 350
PEAK ROUND ACCELERATION (n/s2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,X-10, X-25, and Y-12 Sites, Tennessee
-62-
400 400
200 I
100 tOOso to60 6
4°~~~~~~~~h 404
40\ 20
> I 10
W _ I Am1 eS A 0 6 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6
> 4 4
2 2
.04 .06 .08.1 .2 .4 .6 .3 1 2 4 6 .10 20
PERIOD sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, X-1O, K-25,and Y-12 Sites, Tennessee
-63-
i .
I ~ T :I--7I
103 1 {k
- lt I I
_2_
zF-
II.
i
lotLl i
I 100 200 * 300 400
PEAK ACCELERATION (Cm/se 2 )
So5 600 ?on
Earthquake Hazard at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky
-64- .
400
200
100to
60
40
q'~C 'V
S
400 * - . we mq *Wfl � 400.
$ K / K/ K '-
I - m -a � a -a r. a � a
40Q
~0C>x, AS
N 6~t \ A i
~~x <4
ISs"$4A el
~~LXz
n- U - -& 4 - - '- I -
p'9YAtK -4- _l7VA
I _, C _ ,%7 - 3' - aim
47 _M -6-&.- 54--~S
U
C,
0wj
nV
I036
4
S ~/Y A~t YN A A X°e-A'N
\'M /I / r, \ Aoo Y/
X'V/4 ^qI>>SX>~
XsS V S
f s > M! °9XM AtA > _ A A Y\ \l 5 O&> NS 1 X
200
100J0
60
40
20
l0
6
4
2
.3
.6
.4
.2
.1
2
*8
.6
.4
.2
.1
.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 10 20
PERIOD Isec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky
-65-
I
a
0.z
1 0 * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ 1 i' I I
I ~ ~ I 7_ I I_ 1_ 1_ 1
T I , I 11
_ _ .1 .i/_ I _ _ 1 1_ 1_
_ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ -"4
IC: -- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- --- --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U so 1o 150 200 Z50 300 J50
PEAK ACCELERATION (cmsac2 )
Earthquake Hazard at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio
-66-
400
200
100
s0
60NV6
K CLW I - 1 9.W1 -t� � 'I !
I 1 - i - d � 9-4 � 6 4
-1 M
& i'co
) 6'07
/ %
N
400
w _ . _ _ - ~ / -5~~ A--.N
�r iam �i at �-�r -'t- I
40
on
9-Er- P � S I � 9- U -4 .d � - I - b * � 9h 9q1 -
U4)
0
-a'a
I/K
S I r -w _r -_ _-
'1%
/ K/_ *, fl yy & K
200
100s0
60
40
20
10
a
4
p- -' I '_ P -S Xto7 A ~N\A/
10
8
6
4
_ A_ - _ - 9 ,*- -4 _ .F -
K A tKA AK Ns t\/K NYU_ P P _ _ L _ . r.'� I. A �. &a haN - a
N X#A/XM Y\_ __ W w _. _ 0_, lo,
/F9 n . ,
\ /< K1.40
.IV
* 4'~~~~~~4<O"
lAI -1 . . I-
: o-tI'N MNN&•x
2
.8
.6
.4
.2
.1
- I y4 ; In - Ie In
10% K* lk 4- -x 2
A 0
N 6X IIcn 4- i, 4\ 4 -a
;/15�/A/K N Y'A/\ZK N ,NO
_ � . , , A F \
/N )4NN77>x_ _ Sf _ | _ _ _ - e e Ail
N\5 WA/I- 4. �-9 - I w.-9 *�. 4-. -�. 4
\ /
2<IK K~jN
.8
.6
.4
.2
.1E SzBEX/.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 .6 I 2 4 6 10 20
PERIOD (see)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g
(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio
-67-
Nevada Field Office Site
Earthquake Hazard Curve and Response Spectrum
-69-
le
103
aI
-~~~~~~,
/~ /
___ _ , ___ ___ __
__ __ __ _ __ _ I l _ _ __ _ I _ _
102
100 t00 2Xo 300 500 600 700
PEAK ACCELERATION (cms2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Nevada Test Site,Area 410, Nevada
-70-
400400
100 100
10 60
U
9 40 40Ear
1 20 20
U0
10 10
w * 6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6
W 4
0
D 2 2
'I,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 1 > a.6
.4 *4
.2 ;2
*1
.04 .06.08.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 4 10 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g
(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Nevada Test Site, Area 410, Nevada
-71-
Richland Field Office Sitek,
Earthquake Hazard Curve and Response Spectrum
-73-
ao,ooo I__I___ ,1 _ 1___
/f /
- /|!W~~f =, /
1000 -1. / __ _
si- / __ ____ _
__go / __ _
V
o /, I ./1I00j_ _ __ __
z ili___Iw _ _
10 .:I _ _ _
0 50 100 150 200 250PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (cm/sec2 )
Earthquake Hazard at the Hanford Site, Washington
300
-74-
400
200
100
s0
60
40
U
C
-
w
400
200
I00
30
60
40
20
10
8
6
4
2
A
.6
.4
.2
.1
.04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 6 8 10 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g
(0.5%, 2, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Hanford Site, Washington
-75-
San Francisco Field Office Sites
Earthquake Hazard Curves and Response Spectra
-77- .
0
0.zw
200 4oo coo goo lo0 1201
PEAK ACCELERATON (cmls=2 )
Earthquake Hazard at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,California
-78-
400 400
200
100so
60
C
.0-j'U
200
100so
60
40
20
to1
6
4
2
.8
.6
.4
.2
.04 6.08.1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 2 4 6 6 10 20
PERIO0 (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g
(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California
-79-
10,000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/~' I
1000 _ __ __ _
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0
0
w
0
z ,_ _ ,_ _ ,__.
0 100 200 300 .400 S00 600 700PEAK ACCELERATION (cmlSec2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore Site, California
-80-
400 400
SOo IfC.
60 60
jO \20
c? toa IC
. aaCAD ''C
- £
> 4
2
.6
.4
.2
.04 .06.0.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 6 0 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(22, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,Livermore Site, California
-81-
0,o0
1000
U800
.z
U - U IIF A
I I I I I 'S -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J
C 1 11 ' / a
X1 1 1 1,t'--I'
C7/0%iA.1j /+, . , . .
I I 17
10C
- T r , T V 7
I ~I / /
j~ ,r X,1;- IH_ -A__ -_i
_ -I- -_ _
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
PEAK ACCELERATION (cmsec2 )
Earthquake Hazard at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, 854 Complex, California
-82-
10,OOC
I nn
-A. Ar A'
- -
-q d
Is / l
=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I" ', F 'ile= ==-n E I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
/4A '/
vw .9 4. -- .9 Y.A , 0
0.t2
w
C.z
I.-wU
1 A
-/~~~~~~~ / I
/.l w
.9 4* ��-9 U *9-� -& .& L
4 4. .9 I 4 4.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
PEAK ACCELERATION (cmlsec2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, 834 and 836 Complex, California
-83-
400 400
200 P l.qNV IX xxx 0
100 100
60 ,
40 40
> l20 20
> 10
I- Y
'LI> 4 se A~ 1/St,
2 2
N N1
.6 .
.4
.04 .0.08.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 8 3 10 20
PERIOD see)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(22, 5%, and 102 of Critical Damping)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, Entire Site, California
-84-
8 102
101
=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C
3 . / /~~~~~4
BEST~~~~~~~ESTIMATE...
lno0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Earthquake Hazard at the Energy Technology andEngineering Center, California
-85-
400 400
2002W-n_,*x10 N( !\\/ V 00
o W" I z 0 so °
40 8 0
4)20 \ _ 20
C
>C tO> 10 10
C)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
-$9<i b \L
Si
* 4~al 2eDSv.4
.2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.04 .06.08.1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4 6 8 10 20
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(0.5%, 2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Energy Technology and Engineering Center, California
-86-
12
1
2Irt!Z
5w
to"~-7
103 z / t7 X ,'T / ~/ +0
_ ____=
I 2
55/ __ _
IC-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a Z00 400 600 1000 1200
PEAK ACCELERATION (cm/s 2 )
Earthquake Hazard at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,California
-87-
400
200 'PNN OFx '
100 +L N 1
60
40 or @ f i
20 N
> aI-
4
4 4
2
I4Il
.4
.2 f R
.04 .06.0 J .2 .4 . . 1 2 4 6
PERIOD (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5, and 10% of Critical Damping)
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, California
-88-
Savannah River Field Office
Earthquake Hazard Curve and Response Spectrum
-89-
I .I .. ,,
- _ 1_ _ IISO 200 250 3
EartqaI Haar at th SaanhRvrPanSuhCrln
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ l _ I _ _ I i_ _
50. 100 150 200 250 300 35CPEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (cm/sec 2)
Earthquake Hazard at the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina
-90-
400
60 O
520E5 a + X\
106
w* 4
O | ~~~~~~X Y ~wNA
.6
.4 e0
4 A6 0.06 .1 .2 .4 .6 . 1 2 4.
PERIOD (ec)
Design Response Spectrum Scaled to 1.0 g(2%, 5%, and 10% of Critical Damping)Savannah River Plant, South Carolina
6 10 20
-91-
Recommended