and Site Spectra - Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 1/61 Topics...

PSHA, Site Response,and Site Spectra

Technical PresentationRockville, MD

August 28, 2007

TOPIC 1: PSHARobin K. McGuire

Gabriel R. ToroRisk Engineering, Inc.

Boulder, Colorado

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 1/61

Topics of Discussion

* Topic 1 - Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

" Topic 2 - Site response

" Topic 3 - Site hazard

* Topic 4 - Site spectra

E'N G,:, N 6R) ýN` GTechnical Presentation, 08/28/07, 2/61

Topic 1: PSHA

" PSHA methodology

* Seismic sources (EPRI, New Madrid,Charleston)

* Ground motion models

• Revised a's

* CAV

* Calculations (rock, soil, deaggregation)


Steps in seismic hazard analysis

t inl.r,

el• , t r N./ .

"" .... ?N

Source: McGuire (2004)


-i - 111.1 ý -, -

AYI ý W, EJE R'"I N' GI

Step A- Distribution of location

AX. Seism~ic Souvke,- j.Emarihqinie locations in rpnice le-d tontdietributionl of Iocaliorc P [I1]

Rupture

†L†-.li Ie

Site®

P IlI =.f(I/,)

Location I

Source. McGuire (2004)

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 5/61rdI" VAAQ'

Step B - Distribution of magnitude

B. Size diciribution (ma,,gnitudle n) anidmrae of occurrence for sourcef:

P[T 1, vj 1 I I =.()

rl0 17 111N



Step C - Distribution of ground motion

P IC >1js al/ I

I' [C '- !sn .Il (3 rs) nd

(log scale)

Loeatiuss (distwice on log gc-alu)


Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 7/61' I '.,j -

Step D- Integration of hazard

1). P'robability analysis:

y[C>(:= V .[ rrr>,I-., l]P[S IP[l I AdlIJf I

y [C>c)(lOg scale)

Ground notion level c(log scale)

Source: McGuire (2004) ITechnical Presentation, 08/28/07, 8/61

EPRI-SOG sources for Bechtel team

Source: EPRI-SOG (1989)


EPRI-SOG sources for Law Engineering team

15117.,__-- _- -_3--


Technical Presentation, 08128/07, 11/61

I

EPRI-SOG sources for Rondout teamY + • • .,- ':I (". '). - I 1 .L i

\1 v



Ait-

EPRI-SOG sources for Woodward-Clyde team


Technical Presentation. 08/28/07. 13/61 N E t O'k,13

EPRI-SOG sources for Weston Geophysical team


Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 14/61"

.

Seismicity parameters in EPRI-SOG project

* EPRI-SOG seismicity parameters determinedby statistical analysis of historical seismicity

- Seismicity parameters calculated for eachsource per degree cel)Odsing smoothing optionsspecified by each team for each source

" Alternative sets of seismicity parameters wereweighted using weights specified by each team


Seismicity parameters for Bechtel sourceBZ5, constant a and b

* 07.00 bI.W b$ob1 ba.n 1.09 l0O l• 0.00W I *D.0 l 70.01.001 7.0010+.0l 15.0e 70.00 ').0l

--.-- 0--.--,.--.----.--0 -*-----------------

00n, 9 0 * * 0 *.0l.,03l.b-zla,.001.l.,+1 .I0-I.,a4|

II.01 I I * 0 I0 .- ,..5.-,.....ba03-..I ,10-I. ... I .... .I0,.0 :11, o.. .. .'=q -l-l to .4-, l.... -l..0$- .-o00.00 0 0 0 0-.&41-t. 409- 1 40-o. *10- t,1.00•.-1.A n$4- ,450 900.09 0 + , *-1.00, .04n1.O0-l-.0, 1.- I 050.0,10-2 I.On..a.-.o. a, a11.S30.0 01 0- 1,400- 0. 40-|,.42I. cn-l..4•,n 1..-a,SI.-I.,n-o.,o. aS 0 I

00.00 *-0.a00l.00- lp.03-l4+1.90 l.bso, ln- ,00-l.,50--., 9-.anI 0 I

00.00 I | *.510-l., S0+.i.0l-,l00l.0-I. 411..I. 01- i.l.,I 5* a 0 0 I

,l.O+*-1. 4S -, .009•- * 05•X il 0 44 0 04 0 0 0 0 9 0

* 17.09 *I0.n 05.09 0I.01 I)On I0.01f01 a IS. 01 ,o.o1 +Io.I 7.01 71.00 70.001 '1013.01

00.04 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 O0 l 0 , 0 0.931 0.0)0 0.oII 0.040 0.04000.0O I I 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0.00l 0.000I 0.000 9.900 0.020 0.00 000

o1,n I 0 0 0 0 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.,00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0)009.00 0 0 0 a 00.0 .Ion 0.+0:0 O sIb 0.04l 0.Il ool 0.000 0.,001

00.00 0 0 0.000 0,100 0.0W 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.009 0.000 0.900 000.00 I 9 0 Ot 0.100 0.IH0,I.0.0.,10 0.050 0.0)1 0.$09 0.920 0 0"

00.00 0 0. *:l 0.020 0.009 0.0001.0'.0W 0.000 0.000 0.120 0,.009 0.001 0 0n3+n 0 0.1i1 0.54 .11 0.0 0.11 ,0W 0..0040,101 0.021 0.I 0 I 000.01 0.00I 0.001 0.001 0.000 o:.,o 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31010,000. 10.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7oM". 0m W ToI. -0 41.11.1*. a-n

Source: REI 1989 EPRI Report

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 16/61 ,R I

Seismicity parameters for Bechtel sourceBZ5, variable a, constant b

S-4k I . ." " M"

... ... .... ..

tiit i i t it • l t i i , e .t.. "cl-.t ti. t-l". '- it•od t* o I I e. 0-• 01-.031• oe-i|- *t14-iL. 0i- i t- if-.c00.0? I t , 01 tI I' t-i Cl-I e7- t.toi t•. fl- i . t-i. cti-i. ofl

i-l 0 0 I 0 1 ,- * e•- ,tzs•).e-t.iit0-t].ti --iot. L in-0). oit--i.t$ :

ititl ,- S. 0 I • IlD. l 0.1-iif11.l-t# .Ol)-i.tit-i.ji1itt- .~ O t

il-.0 P- . I|l)q t te- iiit|- i.00, )14-1tt$e-i.tii-.;•-i1tlt f~i-. Itt 0

oiii, p t-leiit0i-it-0 0 i t e-.iit-i.t o-i .ll o*t I . t Ioi I~~

30.09 " , t-ctii-liel t- .ii$1ii-..e-o.e'e-o.i•o.-i .i4e o.e e.ciie ti .iii oi-.iit-i.sii0.iit-i.iit- 0.ii?-ti 0~o t*o . 0. 0

to-it * o *.• *.~ 0.• o 0~ ,.* *~o *,•2 0.• tteno tte io~

tico, I .*) *.s I. *.s .) I. 0 *.l *o) oi itt cot it. .

m

Source: REI 1989 EPRI Report


Seismicity parameters for Bechtel sourceBZ5, variable a and b

-+ -.I -- - -- -- -I -- - - -

ito lo. O lu l.00oi oIi.OI' l,0 i.0 ii.O Z0 II .1?.1].1],l710 SQ 40 ]0

.. .. .~ ~~~~~~~~ i . - .. . -i . . i . . 1 . . . . . . . . . .... .. ~.. i.. . i ..... i ..... . .... i .. . . . . .

tO.1 tol t It ti 030 tic oti to. Ito flo hit f.471 l l.o ' 1oo - |.3 '3-0

00.00 e 0 o 0 e . e t 0-|.q+.li . I000- .ttt-o.'?to-~

ooie e t t e o e C e- )l--.oit-i.1tcl-o.t~t-i.cottol-o36-t.ie

l1 t01 l e I C 01.iii~iit-3.070-3.tO-O. t-0. it-l.l.t.- . .I . .00.30 3 i io-~i-i tte 1-0'e .4to-i.Jl-I.47i--o. o--. tot-i, -ti .1t -I 7fl$t 0 -i. el to-l.1Ze-lio.0o-. OotI-0l 3h.iit .i.ti l- 1.ti 1-1t I0. 0 .1p t

io$it-i io -o .oo0i e-.'l-0 . oct• - 0. ?~-0.0t. C.q+- .S C . }•t. 0h1 C. ?S C e 0

bid-. ot2it-2 os - I.o ..-.o$1- t.,,1 to too 13 loo 'i-c Ici 'it'0 fi

Siot e-. 0 0 R t p 0 e . ii e 007.01 t * tit oto lIi o +t .It tIt i*iI .0 1 1.0t1i .

00.00 0 0.* Ott l 0too I O .ne cote I O .t l 0.o1e i .03t Ln l.01

it.O C 0 .00 i .tc l .iiOi-o 0.I0.00 o .1t i .ii, l IOt 0.10 t 0 t

00.0. O .toi O .iiO 0 .000 i 0 .Ott 0.000 i.t0I 0ot17 ole'] o.000 0

00.00 #0. 00 i-oe+itt 0-to o ctoo Dl 0.000 0itie O.itI .tl I0 0 e t

ite .001 ei o, 0000) 0.100 0.160 0.000 0. I 0.l+ 0.e t C t t *01.00 0-Ott Otlot 5•I• 0.m e,6 0. l 1 o o t 0 0

.- I--0----I-t- -o-...---- 0-t-... --,.-.i...---.--.*---t-t. - 0l.+l.- - -.+e...

Source: RE1 1989 EPRI Report

. F ý ý",. .. ýýýITG I -N E'ý R I ý Ný'. G[Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 18/61

PSIA requires evaluation of whether seismicity from1985-now would change seismicity parameters

* I

Seismicity, LocalSource, & CharlestonSource

Source: Vogtle 2006 ESP Application


I -f , , ..

E IýG'I-N E E"'R 1:W

PSHA requires evaluation of whether seismicity from1985-now would change seismicity parameters

Comparison of catalog seisrmicity for Charleston source

.01

- Charleston

o source thrux 1984,•. .001

0- - Chaeston

rd source thru"mid.2005

.00001

'1.5 5.5 6'5 7.5magnitude (mb)



PSHA requires evaluation of whether seismicity from1985-now would change seismicity parameters

Comparison of catalog selsmicity for triangLgar So. Carolina source

01

o .

X 0 - Triangt.1'o .001 source tOru

o 1984

0

.0001 . --- riangul-a 'source tlyut-O mId-2005

.o0001•4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

magnitude (mb)


Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 21/61EI t''I-NIG

Geometries of postulated faults and 1811-1812 rupturesequences in New Madrid seismic zone

.'- ". - ,I ' . 4'"

itO

*1 ..? .7.f

r 7

l....."_ .- __..

Source: Exelon (2003) Clinton ESP application

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 22/61 EIR I N G

Geometries of faults in New Madrid seismiczone as modeled for PSHA

3B,

3/C I(.

-......

Source: Exelon (2003) Clinton Report

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 23/61 `1'ý tR'I!N Gý

Distribution of mean repeat times for New,Madrid earthquakes

1 ' - .. -

.8 n Poisson ,' A--- - Lognormat. sigma 0.33

- Lognermo . sigma 0.55Lognormalt. igmo 0.7 . 'i07

SCramer (2001), /

7- 2 / ./y000

.4 7.

A-'0.2 ~

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Atean Repeat Time (years)



F- •

I f

ý'. ;''• i \ - io ,,i



12F W-1111-

ENGINEERING

Updated Charleston seismic source geometries

-N,-

Source: Southern Nuclear Co (2006) Vogtle ESP application

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 26/61 E N -G I N E E R I N G

Maximum magnitude and recurrence intervaldistributions for Charleston source

Source G~onrfry

A Char~ston (0.70)

a Coastal Zone(I iclduing offshore) (0 10)

8' Dbastalzone.(exdudfrothe( !0)

-.C Proposed EastCroostfouttsystern- south (0.10)

Portion of RocQrroncoData Used to Palooliquofaction Interval

Constrain Mmax Record Us ed to (contilnuOusMmax Recurrenci Model Recmrrrnce distribution)

-2.O0-year 531 "'p (:0.25) years6.7 (0.10) r dco (,1 080) nmoan of 548 years)

86.9 (0.251 Geologic (1.a0) /

Aso . .0-yea/ 84t 'oxp (10.511 tyoarsE 7.1 (0:301 .n Rý 0C record 0.20) an ot t58 yeamrs)

7.3 (0 26i

7.5 (0.10)

Fij~ur~ H. tUpdatnt (:orIlehoo sdmnic souriceiLISIS) logic tore smth Aciplits Ictsr .rch branch slrio1,0 in lics

Source WLA UCSS

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 27/61A F

E N G: i WE~ t'ý I'N ý'Gl

Example of treatment of alternativesource geometries

5oscurrcA /

Soorce 8-. y es

HJ10,iks5 Inreearltqusbe F,-

POSSIBLE STATES OF JOINT SOURCE ACTIVITY

A. B.ns d Ct•Ce. " svryo'active A/

Aarrnd B ocmrve. >C inactive

A and C ciB oeaonve

B eno C live.A Inaoctivme

Bonly WITr

C oejacie

Norne to, dibta~l xic

Source: REI (1989) EPRI Report


ýr 4

E'N:G1' E'ERING

Example of "donut" sources representing regionssurrounding alternative source geometries

B•cgrom somre, p - I 0

P'IO

A..d Ba.. Ban. OS,&jIrSO-kQrO w gmound bW cgIOqu d bSckgmomfld

Source: RE1 1989 EPRI Report

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 29/61 IE GNERN

Four alternative geometries forCharleston source

* . s-n

7,.....

Source: Southern ESP Application Rev 0


Example: Rondout source 26-A

Source: Southern ESP Application Rev 0


I

Example: Rondout source 26-B

fion 08/2N/07,-32/6

!:: -": : • • , ,

• • .. :. .... ,.. \f .

P Application Rev 0 • •• !

lion, 08/28/07, 32/61Source: Southern ES

Technical Presental

Saline River source

D - _ -sm7$ -1A/-coY

Source: Entergy (2003) Grand Gulf ESP application

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 33/617,4

I ýN E CA44 61

1.E01.

. ...- " • . EPRI 2004

10 Hz SAfor Mb 7,

o I.E-01 comparedI2"• to SGEPRI-

1.12-02 .. •equations

1 .E-03 .

1 10 100 1000

Epicentral Distance jkm)

Source: EPRI, 2004

Technical Presen lation, 08r2.8/07, 34/61

IE-01•

1040

I.E-01-

• .E-02

CL

.IE-03

1. E-04

I-I II~p'~- ~uil,,

- 1.), ~1.0.00 EPRI 2004N 1 Hz SA for

0 m~, 7,.-. -

o 1.0-01 - compared

E PRI 20041 Hz SA forMb 7'compared

to EPRI-SOGequations

.I1 10 100

Epicentral Distance (kin)

1000

Source EPRI, 2004

r-al N- i-E-RiIN''GITechnical Presentation, 08/28/07,.35/61

EPRI (2004): Four PGA models(M=:5.5, 6.5, 7.5)

..... ..... .

17

- mm

.' .. 1...

Source: EPRI (2004) Ground Motion Report


EPRI (2004): Four 1 Hz models

EPRI (2004): Four I Hz models(M=5.5, 6.5, 7.5)

Ko •.,.

..... ] ..., 2: ,

c-'1l•:•.

Source: CEUS Ground Motion Project 2003


Im

Comparison of rock hazard curvesfor Clinton

Li.

0.

o REI

. ck\\

Q;l .02 .2 .00.- 1 .2 .5 1.005..oo .ew 7o .05 .1 .2 Slook ~ ~ .O~Z A0010,00 -k-) .i'oo~ Arih,0I, (21T1.SPOO~t-I A-1"0 .SI-0I0C?

Source: 2005 EPRI Report

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 38/61tRI N-

Comparison of rock hazard curves for Grand Gulf

IE-002 II

S,(1O Hz)

IE-003 0.15

" t\ *- + - -°le -

O 0.2 0.4 .6 OB l0. 5 . 1.

IE-OW5-

I E-005prCD7

or 1 E-007

a 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6Spectral Acceleration (g)

Source: 2005 EPRI Report


EPRI revised a's

-a is standard deviation of In (groundmotion amplitude)

- a represents aleatory uncertainty

- Multiple a's represent epistemicuncertainty

- In California we get a's from data


California data vs distance

Peak ground acceleration on rock for M=6.5

to

0

C,

ti 0

*- Abrehataiioo-Silv. (1997) CI drim (1993) 000

163 Pointst plotted .Nlsgittwk nuip- 6.'0 to 1.0 LD.11 .oaiod to 14 = 6.5 0 1

sundg toalta of .ap(-0.5*M) M-6.5Distamevrmop = Ito 200 kr Despth = 3ko,WUS rock Fault ground motons od"rte0

10

Distance to rupture surface, km

100 200

Source* McGuire (2004)


HU

California cy's vs period

Reported Scatter in Attenuation Data for M=6.5

0.6

0.4

0.30.01



Period, sec

E N G I

i

L"

California 0's vs magnitude

-s

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

U, nnttteetinty term itt PGA cqutttiott. vs. M.

C-stn.pA (1995)3,11m. (1993) -od 5.dish . .1 (1997)AbT=.h'to sad Sit,. (1997)

A.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

Moment magnitud If

7.5 8.0



M, -A,

I ýi&E 141b

0.9

0.8 i •i

0

- 0.7

0.5 -

E-0 .SEA97 :

0.4CO7

BJF97

0.3

0.1 1 10 100

Frequenc7y (Hz)

Figure 2.5-54C Comparison of Aleatory Signas Reported for California withWeighted Average Aleatory Sigma from EPRI Ground Motion 2003Models for M a 5,5. Rco - 20 km

Source North Anna 2003 ESP Application


EPRI revised c's (continued)

In Central and Eastern US we have toestimate a from models

Why would a (CEUS) > a (WUS)?4Earthquake energy release more variable

(stress drop)->Crustal path conditions more variable


a's for 10 Hz SA9 M =6

Fio

ob

> 0.4

0.2

... . . . . . . . .. ... .. .. .. ... ..

Go

Joyner-Boore Distance 1krn)

Source: EPRI (2004)

kift A NýGTechnical Presentation, 08/28/07, 46/61

EPRI (2004) sigmas, model 1, 10 Hz

1.1

1.0

-J 0.90 0.8Em0.7

0.6

S0.50.4

.03-

0.2

0.1

0.0

Model 15 Ordinate: .5Hz

-- Magnitude 5.5

. . . Magnitude 6.5-Magnitude 7.5

1 10 100Joyner-Boore Distance (kin)

1000

Source. EPRI (2004)

Technical Presenation, 08/28/07, 47/61 ENGIN ERIN"Gi

a's for I Hz SA, M =6

. 1.0M i 2 2 Z Z 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:E 0.8. • .. . . . . . . . .i i -

ý6 0 .4 ------. " .. . . . . . . . .... .

C

0

CD0.2

0.0

I A, I*, I *6I0*11 1V W2. CAb bM o h rbO, Fý M 6 Sao

3AVUOP eI G?4A Mod,[& I:FC 34.46 Sa I

10 100Joyner-Boore Distance (kin)

1000

Source. EPRI (2004)


EPRI revised a'sRvoxniniended Stanidard Deviationiq. a , 61~r the. CRIS. \uanen are in Ln uniIs

NModc Id, MdI IVI IB

V.175 Inter-event V/US Inetr-evrei

WUS1 Intr-.i e.ent WI'S Intun-eventRc'hlcý'd fbr

10111 0gtewohs cinslIr1iOnit,

\, I It =03.3

Fieleqency [nutia Ituci To~i W ell- hlelr 'rorai(bbs) es-nit L sen evenil evell

NUA 0511 3 . 0. tO 01.3? 0.(1125 0.56 0-13 0. 1 0.13 0.43 0Dos10 0 5A 0.13 71 0.53 0.1 0.685 05s( 01 -0 0." 1 0.53 0.43 0.682 0.56 043 0.7- 0.53 0411 0.6.1 0.1.0 0.40 0.74 0.5 0.43 O.-b

0.5 0 e'2 0.1! 0.5 05 so 0)11 0473

Source: Abrahamson and Bommer (2005)

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 49161 ý 37-E--NV(A` tA

Mean effect of revised a for 28 sitesMean effect of revised sigma on ASCE DRS

1.1

E,) 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.1 110l 100

•Frequency, Hz

Source Risk Engineering, Inc. (2006)

1 EI `Technical Presentatien. 08/28/07, 50/61

Observations about revised a

* Affects 10-5 ground motion more than 10-4ground motion

* Little effect for sites dominated byCharleston & New Madrid sources


EPRI CAV Model

CAV = Cumulative Absolute Velocity

Really: Cumulative Absolute Acceleration x Time

Units are g-sec (velocity)

N 1+1

CA V H(pga, -0.025) fja(1 dti=1 tt

Gýý I'N'jE"'E---R'- "ON --GTechnical Presentation, 08/28/07, 52/61

EPRI CAV model (continued)

* Fraction of ground motions with CAV <0.16 g-sec are eliminated from hazardcalculations

* Estimate of CAV = f(M, amplitude,duration, Vs30)

" CAV for spectral acceleration is linked toPGA through correlation

- CAV depends on amplitude, M, duration,and VS30 (site conditions!)

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07. 53161

Ground motion correlation with PGA(of logarithmic deviation above &

below logarithmic mean)

I,Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 54/61

Spectra from small and large earthquakes

S44ALL CLOSELEARTýI/UAKE, El

* ~ 1 5 -S 20T-~e (s)

LARGE DISTANTEARTHOUAKE, E2

5 15 20Ti e (s)

EI

* Fou-ierAroplitude of

Acceleration(log scole)

Frequency (loo scale)

Source- McGuire and Arabasz, (1990)

E"E I NTechnical Presentation, 08/28/07, 55/61

Dependence of CAV on PGA amplitude

0

0.02. 0.1 1 2PGA (g)

Source: Abrahamson and Watson-Lamprey (2005) EPRI report

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 56/61 I-E

Dependence of CAV on PGA amplitudeand magnitude

i a

7.5

7

o6,5

iA1 6

-A 5~4.5

4

0.001-

Peak Ground Acceietaton MO



Dependence of CAV onstrong motion duration

cool UI o A. eI l" 1

Source Abrahamson and Watson-Lamprey (2005) EPRI report

Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 58/61EN INERN

Probability of CAV > 0.16g-sec

IPGA = 0.1g

0D PGA = 02g

0.8- PGA=0.4g

0.4-02 ____d031 ______


Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 59/61 E -N G I N E E R I N G

Effect of CAV on contribution to hazard

20 Hz 10-4 deaggregation, no CAV (left) and CAV (right)

-~


Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 60/61 E N G I N E E R I N G

Summary of PSHA applications

* Hazard based on EPRI-SOG updated by NewMadrid and Charleston models (+ others)

* EPRI (2004) ground motions with revised cG

" CAV filter applied to account fordamageability of small-magnitude earthquakes

Technical Presentalion, 08/28/07, 61/61

Date post:	06-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

and Site Spectra - Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Technical Presentation, 08/28/07, 1/61 Topics...

Documents