DP-1513 .

D i s t r i b u t i o n Category: UC-13

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE’TO
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES

bY
H. R. P r a t t *
W . A. H u s t r u l i d *
D. E. Stephenson

Approved by

T. V . Crawford, Research Manager

Environmental Transport D i v i s i o n

Publication Date : November 1978

E. 1. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY

SAVANNAH RIVER’ LABORATORY
AIKEN, SOUTH CAROLINA 29801

P R E P A R E D FOR T H E U. S. D E P A R T M E N T OF E N E R G Y U N D E R C O N T R A C T AT(07-21-1 P

uis%i?,iauTIoi)iOF TEIB lDoCLT:3~,_s”f

c 1s U N I , X W -

* Terra Tek, U n i v e r s i t y Research Park,

420 Wakara Way, S a l t Lake City, Utah 84108
 DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
 DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in

electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.
ABSTRACT

The potential seismic risk for an underground nuclear waste

repository will be one of the considerations in evaluating its
ultimate location. However, the risk to subsurface facilities
cannot be judged by applying intensity ratings derived from the
surface effects of an earthquake. It is common knowledge in
mining circles that the damage caused by an earthquake is
significantly less in the subsurface than it is at the surface;
mines have operated f o r a substantial period of time in some of
the most seismically active regions of the world.
If the smaller damage effects of earthquakes in the sub-
surface are to be used in assessing the hazard to an underground
nuclear waste repository, then a quantitative data base is needed
to replace the general precept that earthquake damage is minimal
to nonexistent in the subsurface. The purpose of this study was
t o develop such a quantitative data base.

A literature review and analysis were performed to document

the damage and non-damage due to earthquakes to underground
facilities. Damage from earthquakes to tunnels, mines, and wells
and damage (rock bursts) from mining operations were investigated.
Damage from documented nuclear events was also included in the
study where applicable.
Principal conclusions developed in this study are:
0 There are very few data on damage in the subsurface due to
earthquakes. This fact itself attests to the lessened effect
o f earthquakes in the subsurface because mines exist in areas
where strong earthquakes have done extensive surface damage.

0 More damage is reported in shallow tunnels near the surface

than in deep mines.
0 In mines and tunnels, large displacements occur primarily
along pre-existing faults and fractures o r at the surface
entrance to these facilities.
0 Data indicate vertical structures such as wells and shafts
are less susceptible to damage than surface facilities.
0 More analysis is required before seismic criteria can be
formulated f o r the siting of a nuclear waste repository.

- 2 -
PREFACE

The N a t i o n a l Waste Terminal S t o r a g e Program was i n i t i a t e d

t o conduct t h e r e s e a r c h t o s e l e c t a s i t e f o r t h e d i s p o s a l o f
h i g h - l e v e l r a d i o a c t i v e waste i n deep g e o l o g i c f o r m a t i o n s . As
p a r t o f t h i s program, t h e Savannah River Laboratory i s conducting
geologic research t h a t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant t o p o t e n t i a l
r e p o s i t o r y s i t e s i n t h e S o u t h e a s t and o f g e n e r i c a p p l i c a b i l i t y .
One g e n e r i c s t u d y i n t h i s program i s concerned w i t h e a r t h q u a k e
damage t o a r e p o s i t o r y i n a g e o l o g i c media. Part of t h i s s t u d y
was conducted by Terra Tek under c o n t r a c t t o t h e Savannah River
Laboratory. This r e p o r t p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e f i r s t phase
of t h e s t u d y .

- 3 -
0
CONTENTS

Introduction 9

Background 10

E x i s t i n g Data Base on Earthquake Damage 20

Tunnels and Shallow Underground Openings 20

Mines o r Other Deep S t r u c t u r e s 28
Wells 36
Nuclear Events as Earthquake Simulators 41

Conclusions 60

Appendix A - Earthquake Damage t o Tunnels 61

Appendix B - E f f e c t s o f t h e March 1964 Earthquake on

Wells of t h e Alaska Area 69

References 73

Special Distribution 79

- 5 -

J
LIST OF TABLES

Earthquake Measurements - Modified Mercalli Intensity

Scale (1956 Version) 12

Maximum Accelerations During 16 Moderate Earthquakes

Recorded Around Tokyo Bay, 1970-75 35

Wells Damaged by the Alaska Earthquake of March 1964 40

Data from Nuclear Events 42

Nuclear Event Statistics for LONGSHOT, MILROW, and

CANNIKIN 49

MILROW and C A N N I K I N Subsurface Motion D a t a 49

MILROW Surface Motion Data 50

- 6 - 8
 LIST OF FIGURES

1 Risk of Damage from Earthquakes in the United States 14

2 Earthquakes (Intensity V and Above) in the United States
Through 1970 15
3 Comparison of Site-Independent Spectra 16
4 Surface Acceleration Versus Intensity 17
5 Maximum Probable Ground Velocities 18
6 Predominant Periods for Maximum Acceleration in Rock 19
7 Calculated Peak Acceleration at the Surface and
Associated Tunnel Damage 21
8 Accelerations, Modified Mercalli Intensity, and
Associated Tunnel Damage 22
9 Spread o f Attenuation Relationships for a Magnitude 6.5
Earthquake 23
10 Velocity as a Function of Focal Distance for Various
Site Conditions 24
11 Various Relationships Between Peak Acceleration and
Distance from Source for Magnitude 6.5 Earthquakes 25
12 Acceleration Records Taken on the Surface and 38 m
Underground at Sudagai, Northern Gumma Perfecture,
Japan 30
13 Precursor Time for Several Different Failures as a
Function of Source Dimension 31
14 Schematic Cross Section of Structural Setting of
Earthquake at Welkom, South Africa, December 1976 31
15 Summary of Damage Levels 37
16 Measured Range of Displacements as a Function of Depth 38
17 Mean Surface-Wave Magnitude (M) Versus Body-Wave
Magnitude (m) for 28 Earthquakes and 26 Nuclear
Explosions in Southwestern North America, as Determined
by Canadian Measurements 42
18 Body-Wave Magnitude Versus Explosion Yield and
Rock Type 43
19 A Family of Predicted Mean Pseudo-Relative Response
Velocity Curves for Seven Yields with 5% Damping at
a Distance of 100 km 45

- 7 -
20 Acceleration as a Function of Period for the 1940
El Centro Earthquake and a Buried 1-Mt Nuclear Event 46
21 Pseudo-Relative Response Velocity Versus Damped
Spectral Response 47
22 Spectral Response to Ground Motion at Station SE-G,
N/S Component, Las Vegas, Event BOXCAR (L-7) 48
23 Surface Vertical Displacement Attenuation 52
24 MILROW Fault Displacement Hodographs, Rifle Range
Fault 53
25 Velocity and Stress as a Function of Scaled Range 54
26 Acceleration as a Function of Scale Range for the
GNOME Event 56
27 Average Spectral Response f o r the Roof and Floor
from the Colony Mine 57
28 Velocity and Stress as a Function o f Scaled Range 58

- 8 -
 EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND FACILITIES

INTRODUCTION

The p o t e n t i a l seismic r i s k f o r an underground n u c l e a r waste

r e p o s i t o r y i s c o n s i d e r e d i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e u l t i m a t e l o c a t i o n of
t h e f a c i l i t y . The p o s s i b l e damage r e s u l t i n g from e i t h e r l a r g e -
scale d i s p l a c e m e n t s o r h i g h a c c e l e r a t i o n s should b e c o n s i d e r e d
i n e v a l u a t i n g a p o t e n t i a l s i t e . Current concepts e n v i s i o n a
r e p o s i t o r y s i t e d i n one o r more o f a v a r i e t y o f g e o l o g i c media
a t d e p t h s r a n g i n g from 500 t o 1500 meters (m). The g e o l o g i c media
being c o n s i d e r e d i n c l u d e s a l t , s h a l e ( a r g i l l i t e ) , and c r y s t a l l i n e
r o c k . Independent g e o l o g i c s t u d i e s are b e i n g conducted t o assess
t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f s i t i n g a r e p o s i t o r y i n t h e s e media i n t h e
c o n t i n e n t a l United S t a t e s .

S c a t t e r e d through t h e a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e are s t a t e m e n t s
t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t below a few hundred meters shaking and damage
i n mines a r e less t h a n a t t h e s u r f a c e ; however, d a t a f o r d e c r e a s e d
damage underground have n o t been completely r e p o r t e d and e x p l a i n e d .

In o r d e r t o assess t h e s e i s m i c r i s k f o r an underground
r e p o s i t o r y , a d a t a b a s e must b e e s t a b l i s h e d and analyzed t o
e v a l u a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r seismic d i s t u r b a n c e . To develop t h i s
d a t a b a s e , a s e a r c h o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e was made t o document t h e
damage o r non-damage t o underground f a c i l i t i e s due t o e a r t h q u a k e s
and t o e v a l u a t e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e s e d a t a . A number o f
r e p o r t s l i s t e d damage from e a r t h q u a k e s t o underground s t r u c t u r e
such as mines and t u n n e l s , b u t t h e s e were p r i m a r i l y o f a q u a l i t a -
t i v e n a t u r e . Displacements a s s o c i a t e d with f o u r major earthquakes
i n s e v e r a l p a r t s of t h e world were documented i n 1959. More
r e c e n t l y , t h e e f f e c t o f earthquakes on shallow t u n n e l s , g r i g r i l y
i n t h e United S t a t e s , h a s been c o l l e c t e d and analyzed.
a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e d a t a , a l a r g e number o f i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t s have
i n d i c a t e d both damage and non-damage r e s u l t i n g from e a r t h q u a k e s
o f magnitudes g r e a t e r t h a n 5 . 4 - 8

In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e d a t a , o t h e r s o u r c e s of p o t e n t i a l
i n f o r m a t i o n were i n v e s t i g a t e d . These i n c l u d e :

0 More complete and r e c e n t d a t a from f o r e i g n s o u r c e s i n e a r t h -

quake prone areas such as Japan.
0 Data from mining o p e r a t i o n s where earthquakes are i n i t i a t e d
by t h e mining p r o c e s s . (These needed t o be e v a l u a t e d i n
terms o f t h e p o t e n t i a l damage from e q u i v a l e n t f a r - f i e l d
earthquakes.)
I$ - 9 -
0 R e s u l t s from t h e n u c l e a r e v e n t s a t t h e Nevada T e s t S i t e
and t h e Alaskan T e s t S i t e as well as Plowshare experiments.
These t e s t s p r o v i d e t h e most q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a i n t h e n e a r -
f i e l d environment. These t e s t s were well instrumented and
may assist i n e v a l u a t i n g and e s t a b l i s h i n g damage c r i t e r i a
w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e seismic spectrum r e s u l t i n g from an
earthquake.

Recent t e c h n i c a l i n t e r c h a n g e with t h e Chinese, Russians,

and Japanese h a s i n c r e a s e d o u r d a t a b a s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with
r e s p e c t t o methods f o r earthquake p r e d i c t i o n and t h e damage
r e s u l t i n g from d e s t r u c t i v e e a r t h q u a k e s . Thes,e f o r e i g n groups
were c o n t a c t e d as well as t h e United S t a t e s g e o l o g i s t s (Raleigh
and Brace) who have made r e c e n t t r i p s t o t h e s e c o u n t r i e s . Also
t h e c o g n i z a n t groups i n Asia, Europe, and South America were
c o n t a c t e d f o r p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n . I t was t h e aim o f t h e
s t u d y t o g a t h e r as l a r g e a d a t a b a s e as p o s s i b l e because o f t h e
r e l a t i v e l y i n f r e q u e n t o c c u r r e n c e o f l a r g e earthquakes i n any
one c o u n t r y .

Data on mines and mining o p e r a t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d from

government a g e n c i e s (U. S . Geological Survey, U . S. Bureau o f
Mines, C a l i f o r n i a D i v i s i o n of Mines and Geology, e t c . ) .
Personnel i n t h o s e a g e n c i e s were c o n t a c t e d f o r p u b l i s h e d d a t a
and i n d i v i d u a l d i s c u s s i o n .

Nuclear e v e n t s provided a q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a b a s e f o r t h e
n e a r - f i e l d e f f e c t s i n r e g i o n o f l a r g e displacements and h i g h
a c c e l e r a t i o n . Nuclear e v e n t s l i k e BOXCAR, BENHAM, MILRC)W, and
C A N N I K I N were g r e a t e r t h a n one megaton (>1 Mt), e q u i v a l e n t t o a
magnitude o f -6.5 e a r t h q u a k e . '-'' S c a l e d ground motion d a t a
from a number o f t h e s e s o u r c e s may p r o v i d e p a r t o f t h e e m p i r i c a l
b a s i s t o e s t a b l i s h a damage c r i t e r i a f o r a waste r e p o s i t o r y .

BACKGROUND

The f o c u s , o r hypocenter, o f an earthquake i s t h e s o u r c e of

t h e waves t h a t form t h e e a r t h q u a k e . The d e p t h o f focus i s t h e
depth o f t h e s o u r c e below t h e s u r f a c e .

Earthquakes are c l a s s i f i e d by depth o f focus as f o l l o w s :

Shallow 0- 70 km
Intermediate 70- 300 km
Deep 300- 700 km

- 10 -
 The e p i c e n t e r i s t h e p o i n t on t h e e a r t h ' s ' s u r f a c e above t h e
f o c u s of t h e earrhquake.

The magnitude o f an earthquake i s a measure of ground motion

recorded a t a seismic s t a t i o n . ' The term was o r i g i n a l l y d e f i n e d
by R i c h t e r (1935)12 t o f a c i l i t a t e comparison o f t h e amount o f
energy r e l e a s e d i n e a r t h q u a k e s . R i c h t e r ' s o r i g i n a l work was
done w i t h d a t a from s h a l l o w e a r t h q u a k e s i n s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a
and a d j o i n i n g states.

R i c h t e r 1 2 d e f i n e d l o c a l magnitude (ML) as t h e l o g a r i t h m
(base 10) o f t h e l a r g e s t amplitude measured i n microns (0.001 mm)
on t h e r e c o r d made by a s t a n d a r d Wood-Anderson t o r s i o n seismometer
( p e r i o d = 8.0 seconds, m a g n i f i c a t i o n = 2800, and damping f a c t o r =
0 . 8 ) a t a d i s t a n c e o f 100 km from t h e e p i c e n t e r o f t h e earthquake.
The magnitude o f an e a r t h q u a k e recorded a t o t h e r d i s t a n c e s can be
determined i f i t i s known how t h e l a r g e s t amplitude v a r i e s with
distance.

Gutenberg and R i c h t e r 1 2 " i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e r e l a t i o n

between t h e energy r e l e a s e d by an e a r t h q u a k e and i t s magnitude
and found t h a t

loglo E = 5 . 8 + 2.4m

and s i n c e t h e body-wave magnitude m = 2.5 + 0.63M, t h i s i s

equivalent t o

l o g l o E = 11.4 + 1.5M

where E = t o t a l energy r e l e a s e d by an earthquake i n e r g s , and

M = magnitude o f a n earthquake determined from s u r f a c e waves.

The i n t e n s i t y of an earthquake i s t h e amount of shaking,

damage t o p r o p e r t y , and e a r t h deformation f e l t o r observed a t

Modified Mercalli (MM) scale shown i n T a b l e 1. ''

a g i v e n p l a c e . I n t e n s i t y i s measured i n terms o f a r b i t r a r i l y
d e f i n e d s c a l e s . The most widely used i n t e n s i t scale i s t h e
Richter15
p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e i n t e n s i t y of an earthquake does n o t r e p r e s e n t
a measurement, b u t a r a t i n g , developed by a p r a c t i c e d o b s e r v e r ,
from r e p o r t s given by t h e p u b l i c . I n t e n s i t y h a s been c o r r e l a t e d
roughly w i t h magnitude by t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p ,

M = l + f - I
3 0

however, t h i s i m p l i e s t h a t t h e i n t e n s i t y i s a t r u e numerical
q u a n t i t y which i n f a c t it i s n o t .

- 11 -
 TABLE 1
Earthquake Measurements -
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (1956 Version)a
Intensity,
MM De s c r i p t i o n

I I Not f e l t . Marginal and long-period e f f e c t s o f l a r g e e a r t h q u a k e s .

I1 F e l t by p e r s o n s a t r e s t , on upper f l o o r s , o r f a v o r a b l y p l a c e d .
Average ground motion, 0.23% g; ground motion range, 0 . 1 t o 0.5% g.
I11 F e l t i n d o o r s . Hanging o b j e c t s swing. V i b r a t i o n ; l i k e p a s s i n g of
l i g h t t r u c k s . Duration e s t i m a t e d . May n o t be recognized as an
e a r t h q u a k e . Average ground motion, 0.31% g; ground motion range,
0.1 t o 0.8% g .
IV Hanging o b j e c t s swing. V i b r a t i o n ; l i k e p a s s i n g o f heavy t r u c k s ,
o r s e n s a t i o n o f a j o l t l i k e a heavy b a l l s t r i k i n g t h e walls.
Standing motor cars rock. Windows, d i s h e s , doors r a t t l e . Glasses
c l i n k . Crockery c l a s h e s . In t h e upper range o f I V , wooden walls
and frame c r e a k . Average ground motion, 0 . 9 3 % g ; ground motion
range, 0 . 2 t o 4.6% g.
V F e l t o u t d o o r s , d i r e c t i o n e s t i m a t e d . S l e e p e r s wakened. Liquids
d i s t u r b e d , some s p i l l e d . Small u n s t a b l e o b j e c t s d i s p l a c e d o r
u p s e t . Doors swing, c l o s e , open. S h u t t e r s and p i c t u r e s move.
Pendulum c l o c k s s t o p , s t a r t , change r a t e . Average ground motion,
1.33% g ; ground motion range, 0 . 2 t o 7.5% g .
VI F e l t by a l l . Many f r i g h t e n e d and run o u t d o o r s . Persons walk
u n s t e a d i l y . Windows, d i s h e s , glassware broken. h i c k - k n a c k s ,
books, e t c . , f a l l o f f s h e l v e s . P i c t u r e s f a l l o f f walls. F u r n i t u r e
moved o r o v e r t u r n e d . Weak p l a s t e r and masonry D c r a c k . Small
b e l l s r i n g (church, s c h o o l ) . Trees, bushes shaken ( v i s i b l y , o r
h e a r d t o r u s t l e ) . Average ground motion, 4.0% g ; ground motion
range, 0.5 t o 17.5% g.
VI1 D i f f i c u l t t o s t a n d . Noticed by d r i v e r s o f motor cars. Hanging
o b j e c t s q u i v e r . F u r n i t u r e broken. Damage t o masonry D, i n c l u d i n g
c r a c k s . Weak chimneys broken a t r o o f l i n e . F a l l o f p l a s t e r ,
l o o s e b r i c k s , s t o n e s , t i l e s , c o r n i c e s ( a l s o unbraced p a r a p e t s and
a r c h i t e c t u r a l ornaments). Some cracks i n masonry C . Waves on
ponds; water t u r b i d with mud. Small s l i d e s and c a v i n g - i n along
sand o r g r a v e l banks. Large b e l l s r i n g . Concrete i r r i g a t i o n
d i t c h e s damaged. Average ground motion, 6 . 7 % g; ground motion
range, 1 . 8 t o 14% g .

a. Ground motion a c c e l e r a t i o n s taken from Reference 1 4 .

- 12 -

I
TABLE 1 (Continued)

Intensity,
MM Description
VI11 S t e e r i n g o f motor cars a f f e c t e d . Damage t o masonry C; p a r t i a l
c o l l a p s e . Some damage t o masonry B; none t o masonry A. F a l l of
s t u c c o and some masonry w a l l s . T w i s t i n g , f a l l o f chimneys,
f a c t o r y s t a c k s , monuments, towers, e l e v a t e d t a n k s . Frame houses
moved on f o u n d a t i o n s i f n o t b o l t e d down; l o o s e p a n e l w a l l s thrown
o u t . Decayed p i l i n g broken o f f . Branches broken from t r e e s .
Changes i n flow o r temperature o f s p r i n g s and wells. Cracks i n
wet ground and on s t e e p s l o p e s . Average ground motion, 1 7 . 2 % g ;
ground motion r a n g e , 5 . 1 t o 35% g .

IX General p a n i c . Masonry D d e s t r o y e d ; masonry C h e a v i l y damaged,

sometimes with complete c o l l a p s e ; masonry B s e r i o u s l y damaged
( g e n e r a l damage t o f o u n d a t i o n s ) . Frame s t r u c t u r e s , i f n o t b o l t e d ,
s h i f t e d o f f f o u n d a t i o n s . Frames c r a c k e d . S e r i o u s damage t o
r e s e r v o i r s . Underground p i p e s broken. Conspicuous c r a c k s i n
ground. In a l l u v i a t e d a r e a s , sand and mud e j e c t e d , e a r t h q u a k e
f o u n t a i n s , sand craters. Average ground motion, 25% e.
X Most masonry and frame s t r u c t u r e s d e s t r o y e d w i t h t h e i r founda-
t i o n s . Some w e l l - b u i l t wooden s t r u c t u r e s and b r i d g e s d e s t r o y e d .
S e r i o u s damage t o dams, d i k e s , embankments. Large l a n d s l i d e s ’ .
Water thrown on banks o f c a n a l s , r i v e r s , l a k e s , etc. Sand and mud
s h i f t e d h o r i z o n t a l l y on beaches and f l a t l a n d . R a i l s b e n t s l i g h t l y .
XI Rails bent g r e a t l y . Underground p i p e l i n e s completely o u t o f
service.
XI1 Damage n e a r l y t o t a l . Large rock masses d i s p l a c e d . Lines o f s i g h t
and l e v e l d i s t o r t e d . O b j e c t s thrown i n t o t h e a i r .

Masonry A Good workmanship, mortar, and d e s i g n ; r e i n f o r c e d , e s p e c i a l l y

l a t e r a l l y , and bound t o g e t h e r by u s i n g s t e e l , c o n c r e t e , e t c . ,
designed t o resist l a t e r a l f o r c e s .
Masonry B Good workmanship and m o r t a r ; r e i n f o r c e d , b u t n o t designed i n d e t a i l
t o r e s i s t l a t e r a l forces.
Masonry C Ordinary workmanship and m o r t a r ; extreme weaknesses, such a s f a i l i n g
t o t i e i n a t c o r n e r s . N e i t h e r r e i n f o r c e d n o r designed a g a i n s t
horizontal forces.
Masonry D Weak m a t e r i a l s , such a s adobe; poor m o r t a r ; low s t a n d a r d s o f work-
manship; weak h o r i z o n t a l l y .

- 13 -
 Earthquake risk maps (Figure 1) have been formulated for
the United States based on historical damage to various areas. 1 6 , 1 7
This map is directly correlative with maps showing the location
of major earthquakes (intensity 5 or greater) up through 1970
(Figure 2 ) . This correlation is due to the fact that the
risk map was developed from surface damage associated with
historic seismicity; however, how the risk map applies to under-
ground facilities is not yet known.

The resulting velocity, acceleration, and displacement

spectra from an earthquake are usually plotted as a function of
frequency (period) on a pseudo-velocity diagram. These plots
are helpful in evaluating and designing surface structures.
Figure 3 shows a plot of site-independent spectra from several
sources. 1 9
Relationships of surface acceleration (Figure 4) and
velocity (Figure 5)" have been established as a function of
intensity and magnitude with distance. The relationships
between predominant period and magnitude are shown as a function
of distance (Figure 6). 1 9

Moderate Damage
Major Damage

FIGWRE 1. Risk of Damage from Earthquakes i n t h e U n i t e d States16

- 14 -
 i
I
Ln
4
I
.SC .OL .SL .08 .SS .M .56 .DO1 .so1 .011 ,511 .(Y I .SL I .wI
3
 a
L
c,
u
aJ
P
m
w
S
aJ
U
S
aJ
Q
aJ
-0
S
N
*.
H
I I
W
0
c,
*r
3 m
4t rc
0
S
0
v)
*r
L
581 ‘A113013A
- 16 -
1000

IO 0

% b y ME DVEDEV. SPONHEUEi
IO

0.1 I I I I 1

II Ip PI mI X
Modified Mercalli Intensity, MM

FIGURE 4. Surface Acceleration Versus I n t e n z i t . v 2

- 17 -
 Focal Distance, km

FIGURE 5. Maximum Probable Ground Veloci t i e s 2 '

- 18 -
c c

v)
W
S
0
V
Q)
v)

t I 1 I I I I * 4 1
0 25 50 t5 ' 100 125 I50 175 200 22s
I I Oirtancr from cawatiu Fault-mib8 I I I
40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
Distoma from Cousathre Fault -km

FIGURE 6. Predominant Periods' f o r Maximum A c c e l e r a t i o n i n RockIg

EXISTING DATA BASE ON EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE

Tunnels and Shallow Underground Openings

Data on the seismic stability and behavior of shallow under-

ground openings are very well summarized in a thesis by Rozen2
and in a paper by Dowding. Observations from 71 tunnels responding
to earthquake motions were compared. Dynamic behavior was compared
with intensity and magnitude as a function of distance. The cases
which are discussed in detail in Rozen’s thesis are given in
Appendix A. The studies compared calculated accelerations at the
ground surface with tunnel damage and show that the tunnels are
less susceptible to damage than surface structures o r facilities.
Peak accelerations at the surface of less than 0.2 g did not
damage the tunnels; between 0.2 and 0.5g1s,damage was only minor;
and damage was significant only above 0.5 g (Figure 7). 2 y 3 Most
o f the damage that occurred was located near a portal. Richter
magnitude as well as Modified Mercalli intensity is correlated
with acceleration for various cases in Figure 8. 2 ~ 3Large
accelerations are correlative with large magnitudes and high
intensities. At any one specific site, calculations o f accelerations
were based upon the earthquake magnitude and the epicentral distance
through attenuation laws developed by McGuire21 and shown in
Figure 9.2’ The calculated peak acceleration, velocity, and
displacement levels given in Appendix A are at surface, and no
reduction was made for attenuation with depth. Rozen2 correlated
peak surface motion and related intensity levels with observed
underground damage.

and the data base used (Figure 9). ”’

Variation and attenuation of peak surface accelerations with
distance show the relatively large s read depending on the model
The variation in attenu-
ation is further complicated because of the variety of geologic
environments from which the data were gathered. The peak
velocity attenuation is also a function of focal distance (Figure
10) .2 The attenuation curves of Seed22 for a wide range of
earthquake magnitudes do not show a great deal of difference
between rock and alluvium. But the results in rock at 300-m
depth by Kanai23 indicate that initial peak velocities are lower
by a factor of -2 at depth. More detailed acceleration attenuation
curves from a variety of sources are given in Figure 11. 2
The data o f Rozen2 summarized in the work by Dowding3
indicate that: (1) experience shows that tunnels are more stable
than structures located on the surface; ( 2 ) critical frequencies
are lower for large underground chambers than tunnels because
of the increase in the size of underground chambers; and ( 3 ) if
the rock mass is considered continuous, the resonant circulation
of surface waves in the larger chambers cannot occur at frequencies
below 100 Hz.
A

- 20 -
 0.8

- ca No Damage
0.7
PA o Minor Damage Due t o Shaking
A Damage from Shaking
A PA Near P o r t a l
A
Ss Shallow Cover
cT, 0.6 -
n
0 O A
aJ
V
a
cc
psA 0
L
=1
v, 0.5
C,
a
S
0
'A 0
.I-
C,
a
L 'r 0
F
aJ 0.4
aJ
V
V
Minor
=c Damage
Y
tu Zone

I
aJ
a 0.3
U
aJ
C,
a
F
=1
u
7
a
0 0.2

0.1 Damage

0 I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Tunnel Number
FIGURE 7. Calculated Peak A c c e l e r a t i o n a t t h e Surface and
Associated Tunnel Damage2'

- 21 -
 aJ 0.5
V
rd
rc
L
3
v)
c, 0.4
a
S
0
*r
c,
a
L ' 0.3
aJ
7
aJ
V
V
=l
*
rd
0.2
a
n

0.I

I I 1 I , _.
OA IO 30 50 70 90
Distance to Fault, km
FIGURE 8. Accelerations, Modified Mercalli Intensity, and
Associated Tunnel Damage2'

- 22 -
 . .. I

7-i
H
G,
c Peak A c c e l e r a t i o n a t Surface, cm/sec2
;o
m
u
l - 0
- 0 0
0 0 0

N
CJ4
0-
I 3
A
ID,
P,
9
0
3
v)
3
-
1 .
-0
v)

-h
0
1 /
1 I 1
k
rp
3
-
1 .
ll-
S
0.
ID

I
 IO 20 50 100 300
Focal Distance, km
FIGURE 10. Velocity as a Function o f Focal Distance f o r Various
Site Condi tions2

- 24 -
 I I

Average o f peak acceleratianr

for 0"ond I"site clorrlflcatlons
and for M: 6.5 (thio study)

&:0.25 -\ ,Konai* (1966) M16.5

.T,=O.S
...e.

-- Schnabrl and Sred*(1973) M16.6

Majority of ovallobla data points

r f o r MI 6.4 to 6.6

Haurner * ( l 9 6 5 ) M: 6.5

\ -c-
-----___
(1969) M-6.5

(1956) M -6.5

Eiteva*(1970) M r 6 . 5

BIumr*(1965) M:6.5.H:IOkm

* Urer dlrtance to causative fault

U 808 hypocentral dlrtance
+ Urea eplcentral dirtonce

Milee 1
2 5 IO so 100 ' . so0
Kilometers 10
I I I
50 100
I I l l l l I I I
so0 1 1 1 1 1

0 I 2 3
Log (Di stance, km)
FIGURE 11. Various Relationships Between Peak Acceleration and
Distance from Source for Magnitude 6.5 Earthquakes'

- 25 -
 The c o n c e p t u a l d e s i g n s o f a waste r e p o s i t o r y i n d i c a t e t h a t
i t s c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i l l probably be “10 meters, r a t h e r t h a n 100,
i n d i a m e t e r ; hence, t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s a r e : (1) c r i t i c a l
f r e q u e n c i e s c a l c u l a t e d from Rozen’s data’ f o r underground open-
i n g s o f t h i s s i z e are -150 Hz, and, t h e r e f o r e , t h r e s h o l d damage
would n o t o c c u r u n l e s s t h e r e p o s i t o r y was r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e t o t h e
e p i c e n t e r ; ( 2 ) peak motions may b e s e l e c t i v e l y a m p l i f i e d on a
frequency b a s i s ; (3) t h e dynamic s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a r e prob-
a b l y no more t h a n 20% g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e caused by t h e opening;
and -(4) perhaps most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h a t t h e primary cause o f
f a i l u r e o f t h e s e underground e x c a v a t i o n s i s r e l a t i v e movement
a l o n g p r e - e x i s t i n g f a u l t s , o r a t t h e p o r t a l of t h e t u n n e l which
is l o c a t e d a t ground s u r f a c e .

Duke and Leeds’ reviewed i n f o r m a t i o n on t u n n e l damage as

well as some mine damage due t o earthquakes and drew t h e f o l l o w i n g
conclusions.

0 Severe t u n n e l damage a p p e a r s t o b e i n e v i t a b l e when t h e t u n n e l

i s c r o s s e d by a f a u l t o r f a u l t f i s s u r e which s l i p s d u r i n g
the earthquake.
a In t u n n e l s away from f a u l t b r e a k s , s e v e r e damage may b e done
by shaking t o l i n i n g s and p o r t a l s and t o t h e surrounding r o c k ,
f o r t u n n e l s i n t h e e p i c e n t r a l r e g i o n of s t r o n g e a r t h q u a k e s ,
where c o n s t r u c t i o n i s o f marginal q u a l i t y . S u b s t a n t i a l
r e i n f o r c e d - c o n c r e t e l i n i n g h a s proved s u p e r i o r t o p l a i n
c o n c r e t e , masonry, b r i c k , and t i m b e r i n t h i s r e g a r d .
0 Tunnels o u t s i d e t h e e p i c e n t r a l r e g i o n and w e l l - c o n s t r u c t e d
t u n n e l s i n t h i s r e g i o n b u t away from f a u l t b r e a k s can b e
expected t o s u f f e r l i t t l e o r no damage i n s t r o n g e a r t h q u a k e s .
0 Although it would seem r e a s o n a b l e t h a t competence o f t h e
s u r r o u n d i n g rock would reduce t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f damage due t o
s h a k i n g , i n a d e q u a t e comparative evidence i s a v a i l a b l e on t h i s
point.
0 Within t h e u s u a l range o f d e s t r u c t i v e earthquake p e r i o d s ,
i n t e n s i t y o f shaking below ground i s less s e v e r e t h a n on t h e
surface.

The f o l l o w i n g t u n n e l d a t a a r e t h e major examples o f damage

r e p o r t e d by Duke and Leeds. 1

San Francisco Earthquake, 1906

I n t h e San F r a n c i s c o e a r t h q u a k e o f 1906, t h e Wright‘s

number 1 and number 2 t u n n e l s on t h e narrow gage Southern P a c i f i c
R a i l r o a d were damaged. The 1863-m long number 1 t u n n e l , l o c a t e d
i n t h e S a n t a Cruz Mountains a t a depth o f 214 m y was o f f s e t
1.37-m t r a n s v e r s e h o r i z o n t a l where i t c r o s s e d t h e San Andreas
f a u l t . Other damage i n c l u d e d t h e caving o f r o c k s from t h e r o o f

- 26 -
and s i d e s , t h e b r e a k i n g o f u p r i g h t t i m b e r s , the. heaving upward
o f r a i l s , and t h e b r e a k i n g of t i e s . The second t u n n e l , d i r e c t l y
s o u t h , near Glenwood, was 1737 m long and 207 m deep. I t d i d
n o t c r o s s t h e f a u l t and was less damaged; t i m b e r s were broken
and t h e r o o f caved, b l o c k i n g t h e t u n n e l a t s e v e r a l
Other t u n n e l s i n t h e same area were undamaged.

Tokyo Area, 1923

Damage o c c u r r e d t o 25 t u n n e l s c l o s e t o t h e e p i c e n t e r . T h i s
damage was a t t r i b u t e d t o shaking and n o t t o f a u l t movement.
However, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , c h a r a c t e r of r o c k , l e n g t h , and o t h e r
f e a t u r e s of t h e t u n n e l s v a r i e d widely. Beyond t h e i s o s e i s m a l
corresponding t o approximately 50% of t h e houses c o l l a p s e d ,
t u n n e l damage a p p a r e n t l y was i n s i g n i f i c a n t .

Japan Earthquake, 1930

The Tanna t u n n e l was under c o n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e time o f t h e
earthquake. A t r a n s v e r s e o f f s e t o f 2.3 m was recorded a l o n g a
f a u l t i n one of t h e d r a i n t u n n e l s which extended ahead o f t h e
main t u n n e l heading. The o n l y damage t o t h e main t u n n e l was a
few c r a c k s i n t h e walls. The d e p t h was -160 m; a c c e l e r a t i o n s
were n o t a v a i l a b l e , b u t 55% o f t h e houses were d e s t r o y e d a t t h e
s u r f a c e above. The b a s i n was composed o f u n c o n s o l i d a t e d materials
t o -40 m. The r o c k a t a d e p t h o f 140 m was v o l c a n i c a n d e s i t e .
F a u l t d i s p l a c e m e n t s a t t h e s u r f a c e were less t h a n t h e 2 . 3 m t h a t
was measured i n t h e d r a i n t u n n e l , b u t t h i s may have been because
movement was d i f f u s e i n t h e u n c o n s o l i d a t e d material n e a r t h e
surface.

Kern County Earthquake, 1952

Kern County, C a l i f o r n i a e a r t h q u a k e o f 1952 damaged f o u r

t u n n e l s on t h e Southern P a c i f i c r a i l r o a d n e a r Tehachapi. This
was a r e g i o n o f l a r g e ground f r a c t u r e s w i t h movement along t h e
White Wolf f a u l t . T h i s i s a n o t h e r case where t h e s u b s u r f a c e
damage was g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t on t h e s u r f a c e . These t u n n e l s were
i n t h e e p i c e n t r a l r e g i o n , b u t t h e e x t e n s i v e damage was a t t r i b u t e d
t o t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n t h e f a u l t zone where displacements exceeded
those a t the

I n 1966, a r e s u r v e y of t h e Claremont Water t u n n e l n e a r

Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a r e v e a l e d t h r e e c r a c k s i n t h e t u n n e l a t i t s
i n t e r s e c t i o n w i t h t h e Hayward f a u l t zone, which were n o t p r e s e n t
when t h e t u n n e l was surveyed i n 1950.29 The t u n n e l i s -46 m
beneath t h e s u r f a c e a t t h i s p o i n t and shows r i g h t l a t e r a l o f f s e t
of 168 mm s i n c e i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n . O f t h i s amount, o n l y 48 mm

- 27 -
could be accounted for as displacement due to fracture of the
lining. The remaining 119 mm is accounted for as flexure of the
lining. The offset takes place in a segment of the tunnel <30 m
in length. Displacement of the tunnel is not known to be asso-
ciated with any seismic event, and except for buckling o f the
invert in the zone of fracture, no indication of vertical dis-
placement is found. Because of this, the displacement probably
reflects gradual creep along the fault zone.
Duke and Leeds’ report that with the exception of damage
caused by the 1906 and 1952 earthquakes, as reported above, no
other reports of tunnel damage were discovered after reviewing
over 215 tunnels in California including one that crosses the
San Andreas fault. They conclude that this experience is
significant because severe earthquakes occurred in 1915 (Imperial
Valley), 1925 (Santa Barbara), 1933 (Long Beach), 1940 (El Centro),
and 1954 (western Nevada).

Mines or Other Deep Structures

The damage from earthquakes to underground mines has been
documented in several places. Reports have generally been
qualitative in nature and recounted from incidents in which
damage has been assessed either by those working in the mine
o r by people that have visited the mines subsequent to the earth-
quake. Quantitative data have been much more difficult to obtain
and come primarily from a few sources. Most of these data are
in the form of displacements o r accelerations noted in mines in
Japan, South Africa, and/or the United States. Recent Japanese
data were obtained from Nishimatsu. 3 0
The earlier Japanese work has been summarized by Duke and
Leeds . Several Japanese investigators measured earthquake
motion at depth and simultaneously at the surface. Nasu31
determined the ratio of displacement due to earthquakes at the
surface and in tunnels at depths of up to 160 m. One of the
most striking was the 2.3-m transverse horizontal offset 0.6 m
beyond a tunnel heading during the 1930 Tanna earthquake. Surface/
depth displacement ratios were 4.2, 1.5, and 1.2 for periods of
0.3, 1.2, and 4 seconds, respectively. The geology consisted of
lake deposits at the surface and volcanic andesite and agglomerates
at 160-m depth. Nasu concluded that underground motion may be
four times less than at the surface.
Kanai32-34measured accelerations at depths up to 600 m in
a copper mine in Paleozoic rock in Hitachi, but unfortunately
recorded data were from small earthquakes. The ratio of surface
maximum displacement to that at 300-m depth was about 6:l at the
mine and about 1O:l on the surface at a school -6 km away on

- 28 -
alluvium. Many earthquakes occurred where the ‘ratio of surface
to subsurface displacements were three times the above ratios.
Displacements in these cases were exceedingly small because of
the small nature o f the earthquake measured. Kanai suggested the
following attenuation laws with depth to 300 m as equations of
the best fit curve to the data.

where

d = displacement, cm
v = velocity, cm/sec
a = acceleration, cm/sec2
T = period of the wave
M = magnitude
R = distance from the earthquake
Okamoto3’ also measured accelera ion both at the surface and
at depth. Acceleration records from the surface and at 38 m show
the marked decrease in amplitude with depth (Figure 12). 3 6 Based
on his findings, he suggested an attenuation law to 67 m in tuff.
amax
log10 640 = - R+40 (-7.604 + 1.724M - 0.1036M’)
100

The Japanese observations indicate:

0 For short periods, surface displacements are greater than
underground displacements.
0 The ratios of surface to underground displacements (to depths
of 600 m) were dependent on surface geology, with a
ratio of 1O:l in alluvium at the surface.
0 For long period waves, greater than one second, the ratio of
surface to underground displacement approaches unity as
period increases.
0 These data indicate that f o r a particular geology, a certain
average period of a seismic wave produces a maximum surface-
to-underground displacement ratio.

- 29 -
 6 1 SEC-
I I 1 I I I

(a) Surface

(b) 38m underground

FIGURE 12. Acceleration Records Taken on the Surface and

38 m Underground a t Sudagai, Northern Gumma
Perfecture , Japan

Carder36 reported that for the measurements made on the sur-

face and at 1524-m depth at the Homestake Mine, microseismic
events had periods of 4 to 5 seconds. In later studies, P-waves
of one second were recorded at the 91-m depth in the Homestake
Mine with twice the amplitude of that recorded at a 1524-m depth.
Recent-studies by brad^^^ have indicated that seismic activity is
noted prior to rock bursts, and some of these rock bursts have
magnitudes of 3 to 4. Damage has been significant in a few of
these cases. These small mining-related earthquakes fit a fault
length precursor time plot at the lower end of the spectrum
(Figure 13). 3 7 At the upper end of the spectrum are the large
earthquakes at Niigata, Japan, San Fernando, California, and
several locations in the U.S.S.R.
Information on earthquake damage from South Africa was ob-
tained during discussions with U.S. Geological Survey personnel.
On December 16, 1976, a damaging earthquake of magnitude 5.0 to
5 . 5 was recorded at Welkom, South Africa. A schematic structure
section of the area is shown in Figure 14. The surface damage
was extreme, with large structures failing. Displacements 510 cm
were noted in the mine at a depth of 2.0 km. The focal depth of
the earthquake was km.
Q J ~

- 30 -
 -0
.)
Danulllr.
Q)
Colltornia
E
.I-
I-
L
0
In
L
3
V
aJ
L
a

I I I I I
to 10-3 10-2 10-1 too I01 I I

Length ( L ) o f F a u l t , km
FIGURE 13. Precursor Time f o r Several D i f f e r e n t F a i l u r e s as a
Function o f Source Dimension37

WELKOM, SOUTH A F R I C A

0
v)
a
W
I- THROW ON FAULT
W 2
I 1-1.5 K M
s-
Y 4
r
.
c
a. DEPTH OF EARTHQUAKE
w 6
a

FIGURE 14. Schematic Cross S e c t i o n o f S t r u c t u r a l S e t t i n g of

Earthquake a t Welkom, South A f r i c a , December 1976

- 31 -
 I n b o t h t h e Rand Gold d i s t r i c t and t h e Orange Free S t a t e
d i s t r i c t , s t u d i e s were conducted t o a s s e s s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of
a c c e l e r a t i o n , displacement, and frequency of earthquakes t o
magnitude d u r i n g t h e mining o p e r a t i o n . These mines a r e up t o
4 km i n depth. McGwr3*noted t h a t s h e a r displacements on t h e
o r d e r of 5 t o 10 cm were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h magnitude of 2 t o 3
rock b u r s t s due t o r e s u l t i n g s t r e s s r e d i s t r i b u t i o n . I t must be
emphasized t h a t t h e s e displacements were measured once t h e a r e a
was mined so t h e s e displacements r e p r e s e n t r e l a t i v e movement i n
i n t a c t rock away from a f r e e s u r f a c e . These d a t a a r e very
important and may g i v e us, along w i t h t h e d a t a a t Welkom, some
i n d i c a t i o n s of upper bounds of d i s p 1 a c e m e n t s . n e a r earthquake
sources i n t h e s e very hard rocks.

The U . S. G . S. 3 9 r e p o r t e d i n t h e l e s s o n s and conclusions

of t h e Alaskan earthquake of 1964 t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t damage was
r e p o r t e d t o underground f a c i l i t i e s , such as mines, and t u n n e l s ,
as a r e s u l t of t h e earthquake, although some rocks were shaken
l o o s e i n p l a c e s . Included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s were s t u d i e s o f t h e
c o a l mines i n t h e Matanuska Valley which were undamaged, t h e
r a i l r o a d t u n n e l s n e a r W h i t t i e r , t h e t u n n e l and penstocks a t t h e
Eklutna h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t , and t h e Chugach E l e c t r i c Associa-
t i o n t u n n e l between Cooper Lake and Kenai Lake. There were a l s o
no r e p o r t s of damage t o t h e o i l and gas w e l l s i n and along Cook
Inlet.

The r e p o r t s of non-damage from t h e Alaskan earthquake are

s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s earthquake was one of t h e l a r g e s t (M = 8.5)
t o occur i n t h i s c e n t u r y , and s u r f a c e damage was extreme.

S t e v e n s 4 summarizes t h e n a t u r e and geography o f earthquakes

and g i v e s numerous examples p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e e f f e c t s of e a r t h -
quakes on underground s t r u c t u r e s . Because i n s t r u m e n t a l l y d e r i v e d
s e i s m o l o g i c a l d a t a have been a v a i l a b l e f o r o n l y about 70 y e a r s ,
t h e p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e s f o r t h e r e p o r t s a r e eyewitness accounts;
t h e s e made it exceedingly d i f f i c u l t t o q u a n t i f y t h e e f f e c t s of
t h e e a r t h q u a k e s . The f o l l o w i n g i n c i d e n t s from Stevens c o n c e n t r a t e
on t h o s e e v e n t s which had s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s on t h e s u r f a c e o r
i n t h e s u b s u r f a c e , and a l s o on t h o s e which have q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h them.

An earthquake was r e p o r t e d l y f e l t 457 m underground a t

V i r g i n i a C i t y , June 6 , 1 8 6 8 . 4 0 Observers s t a t e t h a t d u r i n g an
-earthquake a t V i r g i n i a C i t y , t h e mines were n o t caved i n o r
damaged; however, i n some mines, t h e flow o f water was g r e a t l y
i n c r e a s e d , w h i l e a t Gold H i l l , it was g e n e r a l l y diminished.

On August 2 2 , 1952, t h e s t r o n g a f t e r s h o c k of t h e Kern County

earthquake caused concern f o r a p a r t y t o u r i n g through C r y s t a l
Cave. The quake was f e l t g e n e r a l l y i n t h e a r e a of Sequoia

- 32 -
National Park; however, no one in the party underground noticed
the earthquake.

During the 1960 Chilean earthquake, one of the strongest

earthquakes on record, miners in coal mines heard strange noises
but felt no effects of the quake. Later examination of these
mines, which extend under the ocean, showed several old faults,
but no new movement. 40
Stevens has several general conclusions :
0 Effects on mines are less severe than surface effects.
- Severe damage is inevitable when a mine o r tunnel inter-
sects a fault along which movement occurs during an
earthquake.
-Mines in epicentral region of strong earthquakes, but not
transected by fault movement, may suffer severe damage by
shaking. Stevens did not define-the word severe quanti--
tatively .
-Mines outside of epicentral regions are likely to suffer
little o r no damage from a strong earthquake.

0 Damage to mines is most insignificant when they are located

in highly competent, unweathered rock; greatest damage occurs
in mines found in loose unconsolidated o r incompetent rock.
This is due to the diminished effect of shaking in competent
rock; unconsolidated sediment is much more susceptible to
damage caused by shaking.

Similar results were reported by C ~ o k e "for

~ the Peru earth-
quake of May 31, 1970. The earthquake of Richter magnitude 7.7
did no damage to 16 railroad tunnels totaling 1740 m under little -
cover in zones of MM V I 1 to V I 1 1 intensity. Also no damage was
reported t o the underground works of a hydroelectric p l a n t and
3 coal and 2 lead zinc mines in the MM V I 1 intensity zone.
A number of mines are located in areas where earthquakes
frequently occur; however, many of these areas are not studied
scientifically, and so reports of possible damage do not exist.
Japan is particularly significant because it is highly seismic,
and records should exist. Europe is less seismic, but it too'has
been carefully investigated.

A summary of recent (1977) data from foreign sources based

on personal communication and literature is presented below.

- 33 -
 I n Europe, we were u n a b l e t o f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t r e p o r t s of
damage t o deep underground s t r u c t u r e s and mines due t o e a r t h q u a k e s .
We have corresponded w i t h s e i s m o l o g i s t s p r i m a r i l i n S w i t z e r l a n d
and Germany, b u t r e c o r d s o f damage do n o t e x i s t . x 2

P r o f e s s o r K. Mogi o f t h e Earthquake Research I n s t i t u t e

r e p o r t e d t h a t h e knew o f no damage i n mines i n J a p a n . 4 3 However,
P r o f e s s o r K . Aki a t Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e o f Technology n o t e d
t h a t a r a i l r o a d t u n n e l on t h e main Tokyo l i n e was o f f s e t d u r i n g
t h e 1930 Kita I z u earthquake nearby. 4 4 P r o f e s s o r Y . Nishimatsu3'
o f t h e Engineering F a c u l t y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Tokyo r e p o r t e d
t h a t t h e r e were no r e c o r d s o f damage from c o a l mines n e a r t h e
e p i c e n t e r o f t h e Tokachi Oki e a r t h q u a k e s o f 1952 and 1968. One
mine o p e r a t o r r e p o r t e d a small r o c k b u r s t soon a f t e r t h e 1968
shock, s u g g e s t i n g a p o s s i b l e t r i g g e r i n g by t h e earthquake. The
r e c o r d s k e p t i n t h e c o a l mines are complete, and t h e n e g a t i v e
r e p o r t above s u g g e s t s t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , damage due t o earthquakes
is negligible.

Nishimatsu3' h a s made a f i n i t e element s t u d y o f s t r a i n i n

underground openings. He r e p o r t e d s t r a i n s o f n e a r l y 10 for an
a c c e l e r a t i o n o f 50 g a l ( g a l - a u n i t o f a c c e l e r a t i o n e q u i v alent
t o one c e n t i m e t e r p e r second p e r second).

The J a p a n e s e , as r e p o r t e d by Iwasaki e t a 1 . 4 5 o b t a i n e d
a c c e l e r a t i o n r e c o r d s t o d e p t h s o f 150 m below t h e s u r f a c e d u r i n g
a f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d from b o r e - h o l e a c c e l e r o m e t e r s i n s t a l l e d a t
f o u r l o c a t i o n s around Tokyo Bay. Three of t h e s i t e s were i n
sands and c l a y s ; however, t h e s i t e a t Kannonzaki was i n a s i l t -
s t o n e . During t h e p e r i o d o f o p e r a t i o n , d a t a were o b t a i n e d from
16 e a r t h q u a k e s r a n g i n g i n magnitude from 4.8 t o 7.2. The r e s u l t s
are p r e s e n t e d i n Table 2 , 4 5 which g i v e s t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n s r e c o r d e d
a t t h e f o u r s i t e s and t h e important earthquake p a r a m e t e r s .

Iwasaki e t a 1 . 4 5 concluded from t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e a c c e l e r a -

t i o n s recorded i n t h e bore holes a t t h e d i f f e r e n t depths t h a t :

0 The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e maximum a c c e l e r a t i o n s , w i t h r e s p e c t
t o d e p t h s , changes c o n s i d e r a b l y w i t h t h e change o f s o i l con -
d i t i o n s n e a r t h e ground s u r f a c e . R a t i o s o f t h e s u r f a c e
a c c e l e r a t i o n t o t h a t a t t h e d e e p e r l a y e r (110 t o 150 m) a r e
about 1 . 5 a t a rocky ground, 1 . 5 t o 3 a t sandy grounds, and
2.5 t o 3 . 5 a t a v e r y c l a y e y ground.

- 34 -
TABLE 2
Maximum Accelerations ( g a l ) During 16 Moderate
Earthquakes Recorded Around Tokyo Bay,
1970-1 9754

Eailarn

M-53
Eastern
Yunuushifen UD
2 29.1 9 7 2 16.1

516
32.3

23.6
18.6

21.6
/ 10.3

8.6
13.1

14.9 14.6
12.2
’ W-70km
n*i300km
I ’
17.2 10.9 13.3 / 6.0 I I 3 10.4
6.4 3.5 2.1 6.5 5.8 3.7 3.1 6.1 4.6 3.1
/H-BOkm
8.0 33 2.5 12.0 9.6 2.1 3.6 17.2 3.0 3.5
A.30-70 km
28 13 1.2 4.2 2.8 I6 I 1 4.0 21 1.8 /
2.8 1.6 0.8 3.3 3.2 2.0 1.8
’H-4Okm
5 s-51 EW 32 1.4 1.4 8.1 63 2.5 16
n’-6c-w km

’
fbareki-ken U D 18 0.9 0.9 22 1.4 0.9 0.9

(I
E
I 2 4.1972
H=7 2

Hbchiio
Off

12 8.1972
NS

EW
UD
NS
/-
12.3 7.2 3.2
20.0 14.6

156
41
10.1
11.3
3.6

9.3
7.4

7.1
30
5.3
6.4

4.7
3.0
4.4
6.5

7.3
-
8.3
10.1 10.4

10.6 107
- - /
50 4.2
/’ H-50km
nsi300-3akn

/ H-9Okm
7 M-48 EW 70 3.6 8.5 13.4 10.4 b.2 3.3 16.8 59 5.3
n.4-40 km
$!:*!& UD /
’
4.0 2.1 3.7 24 16 1.5 25 2.5

,’
I8 6.1

8
327.1973
H-49
T o b o Bey
NS
EW
UD
175
I21
7.1
30.7
12.3
6.5
7.4
13.7
5.8 /’
/’ / 18.6
31.5
8.5
25.9 , 1 6 8
267

9.3
-
5.4 /
/
H-60 km
&-.ZC-(o krn

1222.1913 NS 10.5 8.5 2.6 / 130 64 6.0

H-7Okm
9 M-sn EW 7.6 4.3 78 18.4 7.3 7.4
&50-55km
bl%%n UD / /
,’
3.4 1.8 2.3 6.3 3.0 3.9
5 9.1974 NS 380 22.3 28.7 30.0 14.7 11.5 ~ a ~ A-IUkm
I l L W J l u n
O f f Eq.
Izu
/’
10.6 264 13.7 I 377 17.7 224 / Pen.
13.9 6.8 7.1 12.5 6.9 5.5
7 8.1 9 7 4 4.1 2.4 09 4.2 2.0 2.9 1.0 3.5 1.9 1.5
/ H-4 0km
3.3 19 2.0 3.3 0.7 1.3 1.7 3.6 1.9 2.0
-160-14b“
UD 2.3 I7 13 1.5 1.0 1.0 IO 20 1.9 1.2
13.6 10.6 6.5 5.1 12.5 6.5 4.9 121 7.1 8.5 6.2
H-5Okm
12.9 7.7 5.5 4.4 150 7.1 6.5 8.2 6.010.8 4.8
5.8 3.1 2.0 1.9 4.5 4.5 3.2 10.7 4.7 - 34
-60-90 bn

II8 7.0 5.0 7.0 5.9 3.7 3 I 4.7 5.0 5.0 2.9
H-4Okm
10.2 7.1 5.9 5.5 50 3.3 I9 5.9 3.9 5.5 3.2
n+ 24Okm

/’
6.9 4.0 3.0 31 2.0 I3 13 4.5 2.5 2.3 1.6
4.8 4.0 3.0 2.8 5.4 3.4 2.9 18
H-4Okm
4 4.6 2.6 22 I7 I 3.6 4.2 3.3 I9 A+=!l4Okm
1.7 I2 1.6 12 3.1 2.8 2.9 1.4
II 6 8.5 4.0 6.2 7.0 25 28 62 3.2 56 4.2
H-3 5 0 km
8.5 58 45 83 50 2.9 22 62 34 6.8 3.6
550km

/’
A%
N e a r Tor I
3.1 28 23 17 13 I I 37 2.2 24 15
ahlmr 4.7
2 81975 142 9.3 4.8 4.2 /H-SOkm
/ 18.9166 7.5 5.5 // A% 50km
L6 31 26 20
 Although t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n v a l u e s a r e smaller a t deeper l a y e r s ,
frequency c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of underground seismic motions are
c l o s e t o t h o s e of t h e s u r f a c e motions.
The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f earthquake ground motions appear t o be
i n f l u e n c e d by seismic c o n d i t i o n s , such as magnitudes o f e a r t h -
quakes, e p i c e n t r a l d i s t a n c e s , e t c . , as well as s o i l c o n d i t i o n s
at the site.

The damage t o underground t u n n e l s and mines does n o t have a

l a r g e d a t a b a s e , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o measured displacement.
However, t h e r e l a t i o n between v e l o c i t y (and t h u s d i s t a n c e f o r
M = 5, 6 , and 6.5) and damage l e v e l has been summarized by Rozen. 2
Strong t e n s i l e and some r a d i a l c r a c k i n g was noted a t s u r f a c e
v e l o c i t i e s o f 152 cm/sec which would occur a t d i s t a n c e s of about
7-8 km d u r i n g a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. Even a t t h e s e l e v e l s
seismic damage would be n e g l i g i b l e i n competent rock (Figure I S ) . 2

The d a t a f o r measured displacements as a f u n c t i o n of depth

are summarized i n F i g u r e 16. S u r f a c e displacements range from
a t l e a s t 1 t o 10 m, depending on geology, magnitude, e t c . , b u t
d e c r e a s e markedly w i t h d e p t h . Displacements o f 525 cm have been
measured a t 100-m depth i n in s i t u rock masses. Displacements
of <7 m have been n o t e d a l o n g p r e - e x i s t i n g f a u l t s . The d a t a
b a s e below 500 m i s almost n e g l i g i b l e . The one d a t a p o i n t from
South Africa needs more d e t a i l e d s t u d y o f displacement, rock
t y p e , and l o c a l t e c t o n i c environment.

We1 1s
The damage t o water and o i l wells h a s been documented i n a
l i m i t e d number of r e p o r t s . F a i l u r e o f water wells i s p r i m a r i l y
due t o sanding o r s i l t i n g ; however, i n some i n s t a n c e s , t h e r e h a s
been c r u s h i n g , bending, o r s h e a r i n g o f t h e c a s i n g due t o d i f f e r -
e n t i a l movement o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g rock. The l a t t e r mode o f
f a i l u r e h a s a l s o a f f e c t e d some o i l w e l l s . The damage t o wells
a p p e a r s t o be more o f a n e a r - s u r f a c e phenomenon t h a n one a t d e p t h s
of >IO0 m, except where t h e well c r o s s e s a f a u l t .

The damage t o w e l l s d u r i n g t h e earthquake on J u l y 2 1 , 1952 i n

Kern County, C a l i f o r n i a has been summarized by Steinbrugge and
Moran.' Surveys were made of t h e o i l and gas f i e l d s i n t h e a r e a
by t h e o i l companies almost immediately a f t e r t h e earthquake;
however, d e t a i l e d surveys were n o t made u n t i l 10 days a f t e r t h e
earthquake when n o t i c e a b l e changes began t o occur i n t h e opera-
t i o n s of t h e f i e l d s . V a r i a t i o n s i n p r o d u c t i o n were pronounced
i n t h e Tejon Ranch, Kern River, and F r u s t v a l e f i e l d s which t r e n d
approximately n o r t h - s o u t h from about B a k e r s f i e l d t o Wheeler
Ridge, C a l i f o r n i a . The g r e a t e s t amount of damage t o s u b s u r f a c e
equipment o c c u r r e d i n t h e Tejon Ranch f i e l d where s e v e r a l shallow

- 36 -
 Distance, Magnitude

8or
km
5 6.5
200

Strong, t e n s i l e , an
some r a d i a l c r a c k i n
(Bauer , Cal d e r ) 150
lamage t o steep,
eathered rock (Oriarc
o damage t o cornpeten.
ock ( O r i a r d )

V
a
VI
\
E
D 1. 5 V

5 1.0
00 .-3
i,
0
r-
a
>

301 Formation o f new

cracks i n rock
(Langefors,
L inds trom)
image t o unsound rock
1 .o
F a l l o f stones i n
0
u n l i n e d rock tunnels ) .o
(Langefors,
L i nds trom)
10 .o
illing of partially
iosened rock
:casional fa1 1i n q o f
lose stones

'0 O i l f e (Oriard)

FIGURE 15. Summary o f Damage Levels2

- 37 -
wells were found t o have t h e c a s i n g c o l l a p s e d o r t u b i n g kinked.
I n 6 wells, it was n e c e s s a r y t o r e d r i l l t h e well. I n t h e Kern
River f i e l d , 150 wells were found t o b e sanded up as a r e s u l t
o f t h e e a r t h q u a k e , b u t no cases o f damage t o t h e c a s i n g s were
found. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t effects o f
t h e earthquake were predominantly i n t h e f i e l d s producing from
s o f t unconsolidated formations.

0.1 (METERS) 1.0 IO

IO I A
(SURFACE)

A
A
DEPTH A
(METERS)

1000

1 A OISPLACEMENTALONC
FAULTS
DISPLACEMENT

+ 1
1.0 10 100 1000 ( C M )
0.01 0.1 1.0 IO ( M E T E R S )
DISPLACEMENT

FIGURE 16. Measured:Range o f Displacements as a Function

o f Depth

- 38 -
 The U. S. G . S. documented t h e e f f e c t s o f - t h e Alaska e a r t h -
quake, March 27, 1964, on w e l l s throughout most o f Alaska and
t h e changes i n water l e v e l s n o t e d i n t h e lower 48. Waller46’47
summarized t h e damage t o wells i n Alaska as mainly due t o sanding
o r s i l t i n g o f t h e well o r d i f f e r e n t i a l movement o f c a s i n g caused
by movement o f t h e surrounding r o c k . Table 3 l i s t s t h o s e wells
r e p o r t e d by Waller as damaged and p e r t i n e n t d e t a i l s on each. A
d e t a i l e d t a b u l a t i o n o f d a t a , mainly from t h e Anchorage areas,
summarized from Waller i s p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix B . Three c i t y
w e l l s were damaged i n Anchorage and p o s s i b l y one p r i v a t e well.
The t h r e e c i t y w e l l s were a l l damaged by movement r e s u l t i n g i n
b e n t o r b r o k e n c a s i n g . One o f t h e damaged wells was i n a r t i f i c i a l
f i l l where d i f f e r e n t i a l movement b e n t t h e c a s i n g ; however, t h e
c a s i n g was s t r a i g h t e n e d and t h e well was p u t back i n t o s e r v i c e .
The o t h e r two c i t y wells were i n o r n e a r t h e Turnagain s l i d e
area and were d e s t r o y e d by t h e lateral movement. Three c i t y wells
i n Seward were damaged and rendered u s e l e s s by ground movement
and f i s s u r i n g ; i n Valdez, one well had t h e c a s i n g s h e a r e d a t a
t h r e a d e d j o i n t 4.7 m below ground s u r f a c e . Near Yakataga, one
abandoned e x p l o r a t o r y o i l well was s h e a r e d o f f . No damage was
r e p o r t e d t o any o f t h e o i l and gas wells i n and a l o n g Cook I n l e t .

After t h e earthquake (M = 5 . 5 ) i n Southern I l l i n o i s on

November 9, 1968, t h e I l l i n o i s S t a t e Geological Survey made a
survey i n t h e area; t h e r e s u l t s were r e p o r t e d by H e i g o l d . 4 8
One o l d plugged gas well s u f f e r e d c r a c k s i n t h e c a s i n g a p p a r e n t l y
as a r e s u l t o f t h e e a r t h q u a k e , and a few w e l l s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e
immediate v i c i n i t y of t h e e p i c e n t e r were damaged.

Some damage t o wells o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e earthquake on

February 9 , 1971, i n San Fernando, C a l i f ~ r n i a . ~ ”Minor ~ ~ damage
was r e p o r t e d t o a few o i l wells i n t h e a r e a , and a l l seven wells
which s u p p l i e d water t o t h e c i t y o f San Fernando s u f f e r e d damage
d u r i n g t h e e a r t h q u a k e c a u s i n g a s e v e r e water supply problem.

O i l wells i n t h e g r e a t e r Los Angeles area which c r o s s f a u l t s

have had t h e c a s i n g r u p t u r e d by movement along t h e f a u l t s ; however,
i t i s u n c e r t a i n i f t h e movement i s c r e e p o f a t e c t o n i c o r i g i n o r
s e t t l e m e n t due t o subsidence.

Damage t o wells i n t h e San J o a q u i n V a l l e y due t o compaction

o f sediments caused by t h e withdrawal o f ground w a t e r i s r e l a t i v e l y
common, b u t t h i s damage i s due t o aseimic c a u s e s .

A r e d u c t i o n i n peak a c c e l e r a t i o n o f a f a c t o r o f 5 , from
0.05 g a t t h e s u r f a c e t o 0.01g a t t h e d e p t h of 165 m i n a bore-
h o l e , was noted d u r i n g t h e Briones3’ earthquake (ML = 4 . 5 ) . 5 1
The b o r e h o l e was l o c a t e d i n t h e Hayward f a u l t i n Berkeley,
California .

- 39 -
TABLE 3

We1 1s Damaged by A1 aska Earthquake o f March 1964"

Locations Depth, Dime t e r , Earthquake E f f e c t s

m m
Anchorage 143.2 0.2032 Casing bent and broken. East of the
downtown section near Mountain View.
Generally i n clay with a few lenses
of sand and gravel.
Anchor age 23.5 0.1524 Casing damaged ( ? ) . Private well,
extent of damage unknown, new well
d r i l l e d . On southern edge of town.
In gravelly clay.
Anchorage 151.5 0.2032 Casing severely damaged, well
destroyed by movement (slide) of
s o i l . In the Turnagain Heights
area. In clay with several thick
sand layers and a few gravelly sands.
Anchorage 31.1 0.1524 Casing destroyed, probably by move-
ment of the surrounding material.
Near the Turnagain Heights area. In
clay with some gravelly clay and sand
near bottom.
Valdez 7.3 - Casing bent seaward by land movement
and sheared a t threaded j o i n t 4 . 7 m
below ground surface. In outwash
plane of glacier.
Seward 30.5 - Damaged; casing bent by movement of
rock.
Seward 30.5 - Damaged by movement of a portion of
the a l l u v i a l fan; casing bent.
Seward 30.5 - Survived quake; about one month l a t e r
pump turbine jammed because of slow
ground movement o r settlement.

a. In a survey of 106 wells i n Anchorage, Valdez, and Seward, these

were the only wells damaged, although others commonly showed some
e f f e c t such as a change i n water level o r the water becoming muddy
€or a period.

- 40 -
 In g e n e r a l , t h e performance of wells d u r i n g e a r t h q u a k e s i s
q u i t e good, with t h e major damage r e s u l t i n g from bending, c r u s h i n g ,
o r s h e a r i n g o f t h e c a s i n g due t o d i f f e r e n t i a l movement o f t h e
surrounding rock. I n g e n e r a l , t h e major damage a p p e a r s t o b e t o
shallow wells t h a t are i n u n c o n s o l i d a t e d sediments and near t h e
s u r f a c e . There i s v e r y l i t t l e damage t o wells deeper t h a n about
100 m except where t h e well c r o s s a f a u l t p l a n e a l o n g which
movement o c c u r s .

Nuclear Events as Earthquake Simulators

The u s e o f n u c l e a r e v e n t s as e q u i v a l e n t earthquake s o u r c e s
has been d i s c u s s e d by a number o f p e o p l e . 1 1 , 5 2 9 5 3 The d a t a from
n u c l e a r e v e n t s can b e u s e f u l i n a s s e s s i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l damage
from earthquakes t o underground f a c i l i t i e s . The r e s u l t i n g
v e l o c i t i e s , a c c e l e r a t i o n s , and d i s p l a c e m e n t s from n u c l e a r e v e n t s
have been monitored c a r e f u l l y because o f t h e i r importance t o
d e f e n s e - r e l a t e d i s s u e s . I n many c a s e s , t h e d a t a are o b t a i n e d a t
c o n d i t i o n s t h a t would b e n e a r t h e hypocenter o f t h e earthquake
and t h u s more s e v e r e t h a n would b e a n t i c i p a t e d from any e a r t h -
quake a f f e c t i n g a n u c l e a r waste r e p o s i t o r y . I t should be
p o s s i b l e , however, t o p l a c e c e r t a i n bounds on t h e maximum acceler-
a t i o n s , v e l o c i t i e s , and displacements expected from comparable
e a r t h q u a k e s . T h i s would be h e l p f u l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g damage c r i t e r i a
f o r p o t e n t i a l earthquake damage t o waste r e p o s i t o r i e s . It is
a g a i n emphasized t h a t t h i s r e p o r t i s n o t meant t o a r r i v e a t any
damage c r i t e r i a f o r a r e p o s i t o r y , b u t t o g a t h e r t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a
and b e g i n t o assess damage c r i t e r i a t h a t might u l t i m a t e l y be used
f o r t h e seismic r i s k assessment o f n u c l e a r waste r e p o s i t o r i e s .

A t t h e o u t s e t , i t i s important t o compare n u c l e a r e v e n t s
with earthquakes t o determine t h e s c a l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s between
the two. An important p o i n t t o make i s t h a t a comparable m a g n i -
t u d e o n l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t P-wave signals from b o t h earthquakes
and e x p l o s i o n s a r e of equal s t r e n g t h . However, n u c l e a r e x p l o s i o n s
t e n d t o produce much weaker s u r f a c e waves t h a n do earthquakes of
comparable body-wave magnitude (Figure 1 7 ) . A s a consequence, t h e
s u r f a c e wave energy a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an earthquake o f a given body-
wave magnitude i s on t h e o r d e r o f t e n times t h a t o f an e x p l o s i o n
o f an equal body-wave magnitude. l 1 T h e r e f o r e , a magnitude 5
e x p l o s i o n does n o t have t h e same p o t e n t i a l f o r c a u s i n g ground
motion damage a t t h e s u r f a c e , as does a magnitude 5 earthquake.
Table 4 l i s t s s e v e r a l n u c l e a r e v e n t s o f i n t e r e s t . Figure 1811
g i v e s t h e body-wave magnitude as a f u n c t i o n o f y i e l d f o r e x p l o s i o n s
i n v a r i o u s rock t y p e s . Events o f i n t e r e s t a r e i n s a l t (GNOME,
SALMON), g r a n i t e (PILEDRIVER, HARDHAT, and SHOAL), a n d e s i t e
(LONGSHOT, CANNIKIN, MILROW), and b a s a l t (DANNYBOY).

- 41 -
 EARTHQUAKES
6.5
I EXPLOSIONS

6.0 -
5.5 -
M

4.5
x 2’ xxe*AC

e
M+(1.43f0.19)m-
(2.87k0.00)

3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

m
FIGURE 17. Mean Surface-Wave Magnitude (M) Versus Body-Wave
Magnitude ( m ) f o r 28 Earthquakes and 26 Nuclear
Explosions i n Southwestern North America, as
determined by Canadian Measurements’’

TABLE 4

Data f r o m N u c l e a r Events

Nonriml
Y i e Id,
Gvent Region Mediwn kt M a p i tude

PILEDRIVER NTS Area 15 Granite 61 5.6

HARDHAT NTS Area 15 Granite 5.9 4.2

SHOAL Fallon, NV Granite ‘ 13 4.7

GREELEY NTS Pahute Mesa Tuff 1030 6.0

HALF BEAK NTS Pahute Mesa Rhyolite 365 6.0

BOXCAR NTS Pahute Mesa Rhyolite 1200 6.3

SEDAN NTS Yucca Flat Alluvium 100 4.2

LONGSHOT Amchitak, AK Andesite 81 5.9

MILROW Amchitak, AK Andesite 1200 6.1

CANNIKIN Amchitak, AK Andesite 5000 6.8-7.0

RULISON Grand Valley, CO SS.8 Shale 40

SALMON Hattiesburg, MI Salt 5.0

GNOME Carlsbad, NM Salt 3.1

- 42 -
t
I
h
I I
9
I I
v)
I I
*
I I
Pa
I
h(
1
-
I I
Q
- 43 -
 It will therefore be necessary to compare explosions and
earthquakes based on criteria such as accelerations and displace-
ments. One method of doing this is to plot the pseudo-relative
velocity (PSRV) curves for various magnitude explosions and relate
them to the PSRV curves from earthquakes at equivalent distances.
PSRV curves for nuclear events are shown in Figure 19 for the
range of 1 to 1000 kilotons (kt) . R. Simonson (Terra Tek)
compared the response spectrum for a megaton (Mt) shot at a scaled
depth of -1991 m with the 1940 El Centro earthquake (M = 7.1)
response spectrum (Figure 20). The results from the earthquake
are similar to the BOXCAR event acceleration curve for 0.33 g
maximum acceleration up to one-second period. Beyond one second,
the acceleration is lower for the explosion. 'The BOXCAR acceler-
ation curve is data taken 12.6 km from ground zero.
Figure 21 shows the PSRV response of the north-south component
from the 1940 El Centro earthquake and the north-south component from
Las Vegas for the BOXCAR event.54 The spectral plot is used to
estimate damage prediction, and the threshold evaluation scale to
analyze buildings and the effects of building damage from ground
motion. The BOXCAR event had a body-wave magnitude of " 6 . 5 .
The BOXCAR event showed much lower acceleration, velocity, and
displacement than did the El Centro north-south. The spectral
response in terms of velocities, accelerations, and displacements
is also shown for the BOXCAR event (Figure 22) .54

Direct measurement from large explosions in the Alaskan

peninsula volcanic rock (andesite) yields significant data for near-
field measurements of accelerations, velocity, and displacement.9
Measurements at the surface are important in assessing the role of
pre-existing discontinuities in the resulting permanent displace-
ments along faults in the neighborhood of explosions. These can
be compared with the acceleration, velocity, and displacement
measurements downhole. The problem of course, with the downhole
measurements is that they are in the near-field region in an area
o f extremely high accelerations, far greater than those that would
be expected in the repository unless the earthquake was directly
at the repository. These however, will be important upper bounds
for the trends of resulting accelerations and displacements that
might occur.
The three events of interest are LONGSHOT, MILROW, and
CANNIKIN whose event statistics are given in Table 5. Peak
yalues o f acceleration, peak velocity, and displacement from
both subsurface and surface stations are shown in Tables 6 and
7 . Of particular interest are the vertical scaled acceleration,
velocity, and displacement observed at MILROW and CANNIKIN. Even
though subsurface motion data are also in the very high acceler-
ation range, the peak and residual displacement values associated
with these near-field distances from the event are of interest.

- 44 -
10
t - - ...

0.01 0.1 1.0

?E1100 IN SKONDS

FIGURE 19. A Family o f P r e d i c t e d Mean Pseudo-Re1 a t i v e Response

V e l o c i t y Curves f o r Seven Y i e l d s w i t h 5% Damping
a t a Distance o f 100 km"

- 45 -
I .o
\
1 M t , 0.33 g Max.
A c c e l e r a t i o n R. S.
12.6 km (7.9 m i )

Response Spectra f o r a 1 - M t s h o t
1991 m (8500 f t ) B u r i a l Depth 1 M t , 0.66 g Max.
A c c e l e r a t i o n R.S.
0.I 7.5 km ( 4 . 7 m i )
f r o m G.Z

1940 E l Centro
Response Spectrum

01 0.I I .o 10.0 100.0

Undamped N a t u r a l P e r i o d
T, sec
FIGURE 20. A c c e l e r a t i o n as a Function o f Period f o r t h e 1940
E l Centro Earthquake and a B u r i e d 1-Mt Nuclear Event5*
 I

Spectral Response54'

- 47 -
 0)
n
!=
0
-r-
c,

- Damping: 0.02, 0.05, 0.10

ta
L
aJ
aJ
W
.035
aJ ,030
c,
20 .025
:: ,020
F
0 .015
-0
3
aJ
v)
.010
n
.005
W
$ .o
\
E
V
n

c,
2, 7.0
*r-
v 6.0
0
?

aJ
> 5.0
4.0
.r-
2
I--
3.0
&! 2.0
I
0
u 1.0
3
aJ
n .o
E
W
3.5
c,
!=
a 3.0
E
aJ
0
ta
2.5
7

v) 2.0
*?
1.5
al
>
.r- 1.0
c,
. t a
7
aJ .5
e
.o
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
P e r i od , seconds

FIGURE 2 2 . Spectral Response t o Ground Motion a t S t a t i o n SE-G,

N/S Component, Las Vegas, Event BOXCAR (L-7) 5 4
- 48 -
 TABLE 5

Nuclear Event S t a t i s t i c s for LONGSHOT, MILROW, and CANNIKIN’

Dent LONGSHOT MILROW CANNIKIN

Date 10/29/65 10/2/69 11/6/71

Depth, meters 701 1219 1791

Rock Volcanic Breccia Pillow Lava Pillow Lava

Yield, kilotons 81 -1000 <so00

TABLE 6

MILROW and CANNIKIN Subsurface Motion Data’

Slant Arrival Particle V e l o c i t y

Station Depth, Range, Time, Acce Zeration, Peak, Pos. Phase,
No. m m sec 9 m/sec sec rn m

MILROW
1-1-20 609.6 616.3 0.1465 67.3 11.3 20.073 >6
1-1-25 457.2 767.5 0,1372 36.1 8.35 1.38 3.53 +2.6
1-1-30 304.8 919.0 0.2332 27.3 9.57 2.05 4.65 +4.7
1-1-33 132.4 1071 0.2772 24.5 5.03 1.32 2.59 +1.7
I- 2-37 91.4 1131 0.2983 19.6 6.71 1.04 3.68 +1.4
I- 2-39 30.5 1192 0.3152 20.7 8.90 1.03 4.93 +1.7
CANN IK I N
I- 25 1042 753.8 0.155 110 18.6 >0.20 >2
I-30 888 906.5 0.198 57 18.3 >0.17 >2 -
1-40 623 1171 0.260 30 14.6 >0.45 >2.5 -
1-45 470 1324 0.305 14 6.1 >0.57 >1.2 -
1-50 316 1477 0.348 12 5.8 >0.52 >1.3 -
1-55 162 1630 0.400 12 6.7 >0.46 >2.1 -
1-57 90.8 1702 0.425 16 7.6 >0.20 >1.2 -
1-58 60.0 1732 0.435 18 11.0 0.57 >2.8 -
1-59 30.8 1762 0.450 19 10.0 1.26 5.69 -

- 49 -
TABLE 7

MILROW S u r f a c e Motion Data’

Arrival Particle Velocity,a

Station Range, m Mme, Aceelemtion, f Poaitive, Pos. Phase, Negative, Displacement,a
No. Component HorizontaZ SZant see InitiaZ Impact m/sec 8ec m/sec sec
s-0 Vert. 75.6 1220 0.328 35.5 10.3 8.44 1.1 -6.83 4.32
Rad. 1.6 2.9 0.49 1.9 -0.70 0.61
Tang. 0.22 -0.23 0.03

s- 2 Vert. 572.7 1350 0.368 14.1 10.4 4.79 0.64 -3.20 1 .so
Rad. 2.5 -7.8 0.91 1.1 -1.07 0.64
Tang. 1.2 6.6 0. 37 -1.10 0.05

s-4 Vert. 1225 1733 0.471 6.9 28.2 3.29 0.47 -3.23 0.79
Rad. 2.1 10.1 0.67 1.1 -0.73 0.53
Tang. 0.14 -0.37 -0.07

s-5 Vert. 1354 1792 0.482 5.8 8.4 4.24 0.36 - 3.75 0.81

SF-6 Vert. 1837 2196 0.620 8.6 19.4 1.86 0.30 -2.38 0.30
Tang. -0.9 -3.9 0.34 0.70 -0.34 -0.13

SF- 7 Vert. 2010 2350 0.628 2.7 20.5 1.22 0.26 -2.26 0.18
Tang. 0.82 -3.1 0.46 0.53 -0.28 -0.08

S-8 Vert. 2405 2697 0.722 3.2 6.2 1.83 0.24 -1.80 0.23
Rad. 1.5 4.3 0.76 1.1 -0.37 0.28
Tang. 0.46 -0.49 -0.11

s-11 Vert. 349 1 3696 1.000 0.98 0.27 -1.04 0.15

Rad. 0.43 -0.55 0.22

s-17 Vert. 5199 5339 1.405 1.6 1.8 0.76 0.21 -0.79 0.08
Rad. 0.73 0.43 0.34 -0.26 0.08
Tang. 0.12 -0.10 0.04

S-32 Vert. 9852 9930 2.401 0.25 0.16 0.21 0.22 -0.25 0.02
Rad. 0.19 0.30 0.14 0.34 -0.18 0.02
Tang. 0.03 0.10 0.05 -0.05 0.01

a. Positive motion is upward in vertical components, outward in radial components, and

clockwise in tangential components.

- 50 -
At distances of Q1 km, between 2.5 and 5 m of peak displacement
was noted, but only 1.7 m o r less of final residual displacement.
These data are for accelerations on the order of 20 g's. CANNIKIN
must be remembered as a very large 5000 kiloton nuclear weapon
equivalent to an earthquake of 'a body-wave magnitude of Q7.
MILROW was a smaller event with peak displacements of less than
2 meters at a kilometer range. The residual displacements were
not measured. The scaled surface vertical displacement attenuation
of the Alaskan event is shown in Figure 2 3 . ' The vertical dis-
placement scales as

where
6, = vertical displacement, cm
R = range, m

W = charge weight, kt
Motion along faults that were mapped prior to the MILROW event in
Alaska indicates that a maximum of 30 cm of vertical displacement
and 10 cm of strike slip displacement resulted from the event
(Figure 24). The distance of the Rifle Range fault was 1.9 km
from the MILROW surface ground zero and gives a good indication
of what displacements are like at those ranges. Two faults north-
west of the CANNIKIN site were bracketed at those ranges. Two
stations were on the opposite side of Teal Creek fault 1.5 km
from surface ground zero and indicated a surface fault motion of
0.3 m in the case of the Teal Creek fault strike slip displacement
and a vertical displacement on the order of 1.0 m. The differ-
ential motion across another fault at a distance of 3 . 0 km was
0.25 m strike slip displacement and the order of 0.2 m o f vertical
displacement. At these distances, accelerations are -50 g's,
equivalent to being near the epicenter of a major earthquake.
However, it is difficult to relate these data to the subsurface data.
Cooper54 summarized the velocity and stress data for nuclear
events in hard rock and indicates that velocity generally falls
o f f as

Uv = 1.6 x ~o~(~/w~/~)-~*~

for scaled radius (Figure 25). 5 5 The Alaskan events are included
in the data base. The data from softer rock (tuff) fall below
the scatter band for hard rock.

- 51 -
 100
80
n
m a
5
*
Y 40
\
I
2 20
L

A
2 1
0.8
w 0.6
>
0 0.4
W
5A 0.2
v)

0. 1
Id 2 4 6 8 Id
SCALED S L A N T RANGE (M/kt1/3)
FIGURE 23. Surface Vertical Displacement Attenuation’

- 52 -
 "1
25
SC. SF-6
SB. SF-7

a -io
W
>
-15
I 1 I I 1
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5

STRIKE SLIP DISPLACEMENT (CM)

FIGURE 24. MILROW F a u l t Displacement Hodographs, R i f l e Range

Faul t9

- 53 -
 100 1000
io08

* F R E N C H DATA (3.6-117 K
0 HARD HAT (5.9 K T )
IO0
0
. SHOAL (12.5KT.1
P I L E D R I V E R (61 K T )
0 CANNIKIN ( 5 MT)
100 MILROW ( I M T )
LONGSHOT (81 k T )

10
C
h

z
n \
IO u,
m
LL 0
Y Y

>
I

0.I
HARD ROCK

0. I
I00 1000 10,000
R (ft/kT'/3)
FIGURE 25. Ve ocity and Stress as a Function of Sca ed Range55

- 54 -
 Important,observational data exist from the PILEDRIVER event
in granite at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The senior author,
Pratt, visited the site and noted that there was no apparent
permanent displacement at a range of 425 m where accelerations
were measured at approximately 30 g's. The rock was jointed but
not faulted in the area observed. The conclusion is that there
was no large-scale differential displacement in this granite rock
mass at this acceleration level.
The GNOME nuclear event is of interest because it was l o -
cated in salt in New Mexico, near the current site of a waste
isolation demonstration program. The acceleration data from the
3-kt explosion are shown in Figure 2 6 . 5 6 These data, obtained
in one of the potash mines, fell within a standard deviation of
the particle acceleration -distance data obtained from a series
of small chemical explosions in the same mine. The regression
curve for this acceleration -distance data was

= 5.10 x 105(R/W
1/3) -2.43

Thus, this curve can be used with some confidence for predicting
scaled accelerations in salt.
Direct observations of vibration response and evaluation of
mines observed during nuclear events have been documented fof
project RIO BLANCO, RULISON, and MIGHTY EPIC.57-60 RIO BLANCO
was a 90-kt event where particle velocity, acceleration, and
displacement were recorded at oil shale mines located at slant
range distances of 20, 45, and 110 km.57 Because of the large
distances from ground zero to even the nearest mine, the peak
velocity recorded was 1.14 x cm/sec, peak acceleration of
27.02 cm/sec2, and maximum displacement of 2 . 7 7 X cm in the
Colony Mine. The seismic waves were relatively short and did
not cause any significant visible damage. However, the micro-
effects such as opening up subsurface joints and permanent micro-
displacement were not analyzed. There was no significant damage
due to the RIO BLANCO explosion in the mine. The average spectral
response for the roof and floor from the Colony Mine is shown in
Figure 27. 5 7
The surface motions from project RULISON, a nominal 40-kt
device, located in West Central Colorado, for the purpose of
natural gas stimulation in sandstone have been studied in detail.
The observed peak particle velocity and displacement were meas-
and the resulting PSRV plot for station 4 at 9 km is
presented in Figure 28.

- 55 -
 m
1
4

I-
a
K
W
-1
W
~

u
V
a
n
W

SCALED DISTANCE, R / W ' I 3 , f t . Ib.113

FIGURE 26. Acceleration as a Function o f S c a l e Range f o r the

GNOME Event

- 56 -
 -
COLONY M I N E R I O B L A N C O E V E N T COLONY M I N E - R I O B L A N C 0 E V E N T

*
4 218
I AVERAQE VELOCITY AMPLITUDE SPECTRA
A L L R O O F STATIONS I AVERAQE V E L O C I T Y A M P L I T U D E SPECTRA
A L L FLOOR STATIONS

I88
X
0
U
u
\
E
0 5 IO 0 5 10

FREOUENCY IN H t . - O . l HZ. PER DIVISION FREOUENCY I N H2.-0.1 H2. P E R D I V I S I O N

-
COLONY N I N E R I O BLANCO E V E N T
AVERAQE ACCELERATION AMPLITUDE SPECTRA
COLONY M I N E -
R I O BLANCO E V E N T
AVERAOE ACCELERATION AMPLITUDE S P E C T A
U
I A L L ROOF STATIONS A L L FLOOR STATIONS
uo 74
65
o
2 x
r:
nu)
.1W
2'
4f
0 5 IO 0 5 IO

FREOUENCY I N H Z . - O . I HZ. PER DIVISION FREOUENCY I N H Z . - O . l H Z . PER DIVISION

-
I
COLONY M I N E - R l O B L A N C O E V E N T COLONY M I N E R K ) BLANCO E V E N T

m
69
I AVERAQE D I S P L A C E M E N T A M P L I T U D E SPECTRA
A L L ROOF STATIONS
71
AV E R AUE D I S P L A C E ME N T A Y P L I T U DE S P E CTR A
A L L FLOOR S T A T I O N S

I
0
x
E
0 5 10 0 IO

FREOUENCY IN H2.- 0.1 HZ. PER DIVISION FREOUENCY I N H Z . - O . l H 2 . PER DlVlSlOk

FIGURE 27. Average S p e c t r a l Response f o r t h e Roof and F l o o r

from t h e Colony Mine57

- 57 -
 PERIOD IN SECONDS

FIGURE 28. Velocity and Stress as a Function o f Scaled

Range f o r the RULISON IV Event5*

- 58 -
 The comparison with the 40-kt NTS data is-alsogiven in the
response spect'rum plot. Accelerations of 1.0 g were seen at
slant distances of 10 km, and relative displacements about 2.1 cm
were noted at distances of 9 km. A body-wave magnitude of 4.5-5.0
was recorded for the RULISON event. Surface damage was noted at a
nominal distance of 8 km. Subsurface dama e to one well was noted
at 3-km radial distance from ground The ground motion
from this event was noted in coal mines at distances up to 90 km.6 0
There was no resulting damage to the mines at these large distances.

In addition to these events, relative displacement was ob-

served in the MIGHTY EPIC Event at the Nevada Test Site. 6 1 A dis-
placement of $33 cm was noted along a pre-existing discontinuity.
This was not one of the major distontinuities in the area, but had
been delineated by U.S. Geological Survey mapping in the area. This
data point indicates that within a tunnel system, relative block
motion can occur at moderate stress levels along a pre-existing
discontinuity. The stress level was high enough so that unless a
repository was in the immediate vicinity of a large earthquake,
displacement of this kind would not likely be observed.
The seismological and geological evidence for block motion
displacement associated with underground explosions has also been
discussed by Backe and Lambert, based on observations on surface
faulting, free field ground motions, and studies of aftershock
activity. They conclude that there is a general lack of data in
this field, but that the key parameter of block motion is the level
of tectonic stress in the region of the explosions. They also con-
cluded that it is unlikely that shearing block motion or large
relative displacements occur outside the explosions shatter zone.
They conclude from the large l-Mt BENHAM event that an upper limit
on the associated block motions for this event is $50 cm at ranges
up to 2 km or so. BENHAM was equivalent to a body-wave magnitude
6.5-7.0 earthquake. They also indicate that the data base f o r
surface events is very small, and they focused on data from con-
tained explosion events.
In summary, a large amount of acceleration, velocity, and dis-
placement data in the subsurface are available from nuclear tests.
These data are not directly applicable in evaluating subsurface
effects of earthquakes at the present time. Evaluation of these
data may set upper bounds to the parameters of interest, but earth-
quakes differ from nuclear tests in several important respects.
The surface effects of earthquakes should be greater than that of
nuclear tests of equivalent body-wave magnitude because more energy
goes into surface waves. Thus earthquakes of equivalent body-wave
magnitude are of higher total energy content. Also a nuclear test
is a point source of energy; but an earthquake is usually a dis-
persed source.

- 59 -
 Until there is a quantitative correlation of earthquakes with
nuclear tests, this wealth of data should only be used qualitatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential seismic risk for an underground nuclear waste

repository will be one of the considerations in evaluating the
possible locations. A literature search and evaluation were per-
formed to document the damage or non-damage to underground facili-
ties due to earthquakes. Damage was delineated in terms of dis-
placements and accelerations. The sources of data include both
U.S. and foreign experiences of earthquake damage to tunnels, mines,
wells, and other underground facilities. An analysis of the damage
from documented nuclear events was also evaluted where applicable.
The major conclusions developed from an assessment of the in-
formation obtained in this study are summarized as follows:
0 There are very few data on damage in the subsurface due to earth-
quakes. This fact itself attests to the lessened effect of
earthquakes in the subsurface because mines exist in areas where
strong earthquakes have done extensive surface damage.
0 More damage is reported in shallow, near-surface tunnels than in
deep mines. Specifically, data are very sparse below 500 m.
0 In mines and tunnels, large displacements occur primarily along
pre-existing faults and fractures or at the surface entrance to
these facilities.
0 Data indicate vertical structures such as wells and shaft are
also not as susceptible to damage as are surface facilities.
Even in the Alaska earthquake of 1964 (M = 8.5) few wells were
damaged in Anchorage except those sheared by landslides.
0 Not enough data were found to assess the exact influence of rock
type; however, the effects are less in consolidated materials
than unconsolidated materials, such as alluvium. Geologic struc-
tures, such as faults, seem to be a dominant factor in underground
damage.
0 Frequencies most likely to cause damage to subsurface facilities
are significantly higher (50-100 Hz) than the frequencies (2-10 Hz)
that cause damage to surface facilities.
‘0 Acceleration and displacement data from nuclear explosions can
give close-in upperbound limits for large earthquakes when a
facility is very near the epicenter.
0 More analysis is required before a seismic criteria can be formu-
lated for the siting of a nuclear waste repository.

- 60 -
 APPENDIX A - EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO TUNNELS
(Data Summarized from Reference 2 )
Damage Due t o
Ground Failure and
No. Earthquake hmne 1 Shaking Fault Movement Other Reasons
1 Central CA Wright-1 Caving in of rock Caving in of rock
(San Francisco) and some breaking from roof and sides.
of timber but to Breaking in flexure
lesser extent com- of upright timber.
pared to damage Upward heaving of
near the fault. rails. Breaking of
ties. Blocked in
several points.
Transverse horizontal
offset of 4 . 5 ft
under the fault.

la Wright - 1 No damage.
lb Wright-1 No damage.
2 San Francisco, Wright-2 Broken timber, roof
1906 caved in.
2a Wright- 2 No damage.
2b Wright- 2 No damage.
3 Tokyo, 1923 Terao Cracked brick portal.
(Kwanto)
4 Hichigama Landslide at entrance.

5 Taura Landslide at entrance.

6 Numama Cracked brick portal.
Nokogiri-Yama Concrete walls
fractured slightly.
Some spalling of
concrete.
Kanome-Yama Entrance buried by
landslide. Some damage
to masonry portal.
9 Ajo Landslides at entrance.
Damage to masonry portal.
10 Ippamatzu Masonry dislodged Cracks in masonry near
near floor in portals.
interior.
11 Nagoye Interior cracked.
12 Komine Destroyed. RC blocks
tilted. Ceiling slabs
caved in. Formed
section cracked.

- 61 -
 Lkqnse Due t o
Ground Failure and
No. Earthquake mnne 1 Shaking Fault M#vement Other Reaaons

13 Fudu San Clean interior. Cracked masonry portal.

14 Meno- Kamiama Partial collapse.

15 Yonegami-Yama Minor interior Cracks near portal.

masonry damage.

16 Shimomaki-Matsu Deformed masonry Portals closed by

in interior. slides.

17 Happon-Matsu Badly cracked Buried by slides.

interior.

18 Nagasahu Yama Some interior frac-

tures in brick and
concrete.

19 Hakone- 1 Interior cracked.

20 Hakone- 2 Undamaged.

21 Hakone- 3 Cracks in interior Ceiling collapsed near

portal. Some damage
to masonry portal.

22 Hakone-4 Collapse of loose Entrance almost com-

material. pletely buried.

23 Hakone- 7 Interior collapse. Landslides buried

entrances.

24 Yose Shallow portions

collapsed and day-
lighted.

25 Doki Collapses at shallow

parts.

26 m y a Cave in. Cracks with Landslide.

10-inch (25 cm)
displacement.

27 Mineoka-Yama Cracks in bulges in

masonry from local
earth pressure.

28 Idu Peninsula, Tanna Few cracks in walls. 7 ft 10 in. horizontal

1930 displacement, 2-ft
vertical displacement
just across the Tanna
fault.

29 Fukui. 1948 Kumasaka Brick arches of portal

partially fractured.

30 Off Tokachi, Minor cracks in both

1952 brick and concrete
linings.

- 62 -
 Rvmge Due t o
Ground Failure and
no. Earthquake hmne 1 * Shaking Fault Movement Other Reasons

31 Kern County, S. P. R. R. 3 Wrecked under

1952 White Wolf f a u l t .
Daylighted.

31a (Aftershock) S. P. R. R. 3 No damage.

31b (Aftershock) S. P. R. R. 3 No damage.

32 S. P. R. R. 4 Wrecked under f a u l t .
Day1ighted.

33 S. P. R. R . 5 Wrecked under f a u l t .

33a (Aftershock) S. P. R. R. 5 No damage.

33b (Aftershock) S. P. R. R . 5 No damage.

34 S. P. R. R. 6 Fractured, d a y l i g h t e d .

34a (Aftershock) S. P. R. R . 6 No damage.

34b (Aftershock) S . P . R. R. 6 No damage.

35 Kita Mino, Powerhouse No damage.

1961
36 Aqueduct Cracking.

37 Niigata, Nezugaseki Spalling of concrete Cracking a t p o r t a l .

1964 a t crown.

38 Terasaka Spalling of concrete

a t crown, crushing o f
i n v e r t a t bottom o f
sidewalls.

39 Great Alaska Whittier-1 Some overhead r a v e l -

1964 l i n g o f loose rock
which f a l l s on t h e
track.

40 Whittier-2 No damage.

41 Seward- 1 No damage.

42 Seward-2 No damage.

43 Seward- 3 No damage.

44 Seward-4 No damage.

45 Seward-5 No damage.

46 Seward- 6 No damage.
47 San Fernando, Ba 1boa Severe s p a l l i n g , breaking o f c o n c r e t e l i n i n g ,
1971 deformations where tunnel passed under canyon
a t shallow cover, only 36 m (120 f t ) south
o f Santa Suzana f a u l t . No breaking of r e -
i n f o r c i n g b a r a t RC blocks.

- 63 -
 hnage Due to
Ground Failure and
No. Earthquake hutnel Shaking Fau I t Movement Other Reasons

48 San Fernando Maximum displacement A large vertical dis-

and damage near placement of 2.3 m
Sylmar fault. along 9 km, causing
flexural cracks.

49 McLay Wide long cracks.

No local buckling.

50 Chatsworth Slight damage.

51 Tehachapi-1 No damage.

52 Van Norman No damage.

Inlet

53 Tehachapi-2 No damage.

54 Tehachapi-3 No damage.

55 Carley Porter No damage.

56 Van Norman Hundreds of new

North fractures in concrete
lining. No structural
damage. Fractures
primarily circumferen-
tial, also longitu-
dinal and diagonal.

57 Saugus No damage.

58 San Francisquito

59 Elizabeth No damage.

60 Ante lope No damage.

61 Inyokern, Jabbine- 1 No damage.

1946
62 Jabbine-2 No damage.

63 Jabbine- 3 No damage.

64 Freeman No damage.

65 Arvin, Saugus No damage.

Tehachapi
66 San Francisquito No damage.

67 Elizabeth No damage.

68 Antelope No damage.

69 Jawbone No damage.

70 Chalome. Jawbone No damage.

1927
71 Freeman No damage.

- 64 -
EARTHQUAKES' DATA

No. Earthquake 2lmne 2 M R Depth a V d I, Duration

1 San Francisco, Wright-1 8.16 135 15 0.13 26.9 42.1 10 RF 40

1906
la 6.1 40 15 0.10 10.4 10.4 <lo
lb 6.6 20 15 0.23 25.7 23.7 -10
2 San Francisco Wright-2 8.3 135.8 15 0.13 26.8 41.9 10 RF 40
2a 6.1 42.7 15 0.10 9.9 10.0 (10

2b 6.6 25 15 0.20 22.7 21.6 -10

3 Kwanto, 1923 Terao 8.16 31.6 10 0.47 82.5 91.8 35
4 Hi ch i gama 8.16 36.4 10 0.42 74.8 99.1 35
5 Taura 8.16 31.6 10 0.47 82.5 91.8 35
6 Numama 8.16 46.0 10 0.35 62.8 75.1 35
7 Nokogiri- 8.16 70.7 10 0.24 43.9 57.7 35
Yam
8 Kanome- 8.16 26.9 10 0.52 91.6 117.1 35
Yama
9 Ajo 8.16 25.0 10 0.55 95.8 112.5 35
10 Ippamat zu 8.16 25.0 10 0.55 95.8 112.5 ' 35
11 Naguye 8.16 24.0 10 0.50 98.1 107.4 35
12 Komine 8.16 26.9 10 0.52 91.6 99.1 35
13 Fudu San 8.16 24.0 10 0.50 98.1 ,107.4 35
14 Meno Kamiana 8.16 32.0 10 0.46 81.8 91.2 35
15 Yonegami- 8.16 32.0 10 0.46 81.8 91.2 35
Yama
16 Sh imomak i 8.16 36.5 10 0.42 74.7 85.3 35
17 Happon Matsu 8.16 20.0 10 0.63 108.7 112.5 35
18 Nagashu Yama 8.16 22.4 10 0.59 102.1 107.4 35
19 Kwanto, 1923 Hakone-1 8.16 15.6 10 0.72 123.0 123.2 35
20 Hakone-2 8.16 15.6 10 0.72 123.0 123.2 35
21 Hakone-3 8.16 17.2 10 0.69 117.4 119.0 35
22 Hakone-4 8.16 19.7 10 0.64 109.6 113.1 35

M = magnitude v = velocity, cm/sec

R = distance from the earthquake, km d = displacement, cm
Depth = depth to hypocenter, km Io = intensity at epicenter
a = acceleration, cm/sec Duration = seconds

- 65 -
 A

No. Earthquake Tunne 1 M R Depth a 2, d 10 Duration

23 Hakone-7 8.16 22.4 10 0.59 102.1 107.4 35

24 Yose 8.16 26.9 10 0.52 91.6 99.1 35

25 Doki 8.16 61.0 10 0.27 49.9 63.4 35

26 Hamuya 8.16 63.0 10 0.26 48.5 62.1 35

27 Mineoka Y a m 8.16 65.0 10 0.26 47.3 60.9 35

28 Idu, 1930 Tanna 7.0 0 - 15

29 Fukui, 1948 Kumasaka 7.2 25.0 10 0.30 39.5 39.3 15-20

50 Off Tokachi, 8.0 ? ? 4-5 30-35

1952
31 Kern County, S. P. R. R. 3 7.6 46.0 20 0.24 37.5 42.9 10-15
1952
3!a S. P. R. R. 3 6.1 29.0 20 0.13 13.0 12.2 <lo
31b S. P. R. R. 3 5.8 21.0 20 0.14 12.0 10.4 -5
32 Kern County, S. P. R. R. 4 7.6 46.0 20 0.35 37.5 42.9 10-15
1952
33 S. P. R. R. 5 7.6 46.5 20 0.24 37.2 42.7 10-15

33a S. P. R. R. 5 6.1 16.0 15 0.19 18.1 15.6 <lo

33b S. P. R. R. 5 5.8 16.0 15 0.16 13.8 11.5 -5

34 Kern County, S. P. R. R. 6 7.6 46.5 20 0.24 37.2 42.7 10-15

1952
34a S. P. R. R. 6 6.1 16.0 15 0.19 18.1 15.6 <lo
34b S. P. R. R. 6 5.8 16.0 15 0.16 13.8 11.5 -5

35 Kita Mino, Powerhouse 7.2 32.0 25 0.25 33.7 39.3 15-20

1961
36 Aqueduct 7.2 ? 25 15-20

37 Niigata, 1964 Nezugaseki 7.5 ? 40 20-25

38 Terasaka 7.5 ? 40 20-25

39 Alaska, 1964 Whittier-1 8.4 75.0 30 0.26 52.0 79.4 45

40 Whittier-2 8.4 75.0 30 0.26 52.0 79.4 45

41 Seward-1 8.4 85.0 30 0.23 46.3 64.8 45

42 Seward-2 8.4 85.0 30 0.23 46.3 64.8 45

43 Seward-3 8.4 100 30 0.19 39.7 60.9 45

- 66 -
No. Earthquake hmne I M R Depth a V d Io Duration
44 Seward-4 8.4 100 30 0.19 39.7 60.9 45
45 Seward-5 8.4 110 30 0.19 36.2 56.7 45
46 Seward-6 8.4 115 30 0.17 34.7 56.7 45

47 San Fernando, Balboa 6.4 16 13 0.23 23.9 21.0 8-9 15

1971
48 San Fernando, San Fernando 6.4 16 13 0.23 23.9 21.0 15
1971

49 San Fernando, McLay 6.4 16 13 0.23 23.9 21.0 15

1971

50 San Fernando, Chatsworth 6.4 20 13 0.20 21.4 19.. 4 15

1971

51 San Fernando, Tehachapi-1 6.4 70 13 0.08 8.7 10.0 15

1971

52 San Fernando, Van Norman 6.4 33 13 0.15 15.8 15.5 15

1971 Inlet

53 San Fernando, Tehachapi-2 6.4 73 13 0.07 8.4 9.7 15

1971

54 San Fernando, Tehachapi - 3 6.4 73 13 0.07 8.4 9.7 15

1971 .

55 San Fernando, Carley P o r t e r 6.4 65 13 0.08 9.3 10.5 15

1971

56 San Fernando, Van Norman 6.4 23 13 0.19 19.8 18.3 15

1971 North

57 San Fernando, Saugus 6.4 23 13 0.19 19.8 18.3 15

1971

58 San F r a n c i s q u i t o 6.4 24.5 13 0.18 19.1 17.8 15

59 Elizabeth 6.4 27.3 13 0.17 17.9 17.0 15
60 Antelope 6.4 37.5 13 0.13 14.4 14.5 15
61 Inyokern, 1946 Jawbone 6.3 26.0 15 0.16 16.8 15.7
62 Jawbone 6.3 28.0 15 0.16 16.0 15.2

63 Jawbone 6.3 31.0 15 0.14 15.0 . 14.4

64 Freeman 6.3 22.0 15 0.18 18.5 16.9
65 Arvin Saugus 7.7 90.0 20 0.14 23.0 31.0
Tehachapi. 1952

66 San F r a n c i s q u i t o 7.7 75.0 20 0.17 27.2 35.0

67 Elizabeth 7.7 70.0 20 0.18 29.0 36.7

68 Antelope 7.7 48.0 20 0.25 39.7 46.3
69 Jawbone 7.7 90.0 20 0.14 23.0 31.0
70 Chalone, 1922 Jawbone 6.1 52.0 20 0.08 8.5 8.9
71 Freeman 6.1 52.0 20 0.08 8.5 8.9

- 67 -
APPENDIX B - EFFECTS OF THE MARCH 1964 EARTHQUAKE
ON WELLS OF THE ALASKA AREA
(Data Summarized from Reference 46)

Water kveZ, meters

Depth, Diameter, (belo# tmtd surface I
No.a meters meters Before After Earthquake Effects
1 19.8 0.1524 Water l e v e l dropped 7.6 m. Fissure
nearby; pumped sand.
2 13.7 0.1524 Well went dry; d r i l l e d another well
t o 49 m.
3 19.5 0.1524 9.5 10.8 Water level probably f e l l a t l e a s t
1.5 m.
4 45.7 0.2032 Flowing Flowing Unaffected.
5 22.2 0.1524 Unaffected.
6 14.9 0.1524 10.4 Reportedly went dry; was r e d r i l l e d .
7 17.1 0.1524 2.6 2.3 Unaffected.
8 17.2 0.1524 Muddy f o r 1 day.
9 15.8 0.1524 Went d r y and d r i l l e d t o 37.5 m
i n 4-64 water l e v e l now 9.1 m.
10 37.2 0.1524 21.9 Unaffected.
11 41.4 0.1524 39.0 Went d r y 3 weeks a f t e r quake.
Deepened 4 m.
12 40.8 0.1524 13.6 17.6 Water l e v e l dropped a t least 4 m.
13 138.1 0.2032 14.2 21.7 Water l e v e l dropped a t l e a s t 7.6 m.
14 18.9 0.1524 7.6 Muddy f o r 1 day.
15 65.2 0.1524 Went d r y about 1 month a f t e r quake.
Deepened 3 m with less production
than before quake.
16 64.9 0.1524 62.8 Went dry; recovery unknown. .
17 30.5 0.1524 25.1 Muddy f o r about 1 week.
18 39.3 0.1524 25.9 Muddy f o r 2 days.
19 78.6 0.2032 1.5 7.0 Water l e v e l dropped about 5.8 in;
s t i l l recovering (10-64).
20 Flowing Lost a r t e s i a n flow; has n o t returned.
21 106.4 0.1524 34.1 28.9 Water level r o s e and f e l l ; now a t
40 m (9-64).
22 41.1 0.0762 18.0 Muddy f o r 2 days.
23 97.5 0.1524 12.4 22.7 Water level r o s e and f e l l ; s t i l l
recovering a t 16.4 m (9-64).
24 82.3 0.254 26.4 26.9 Unaffected.
25 54.9 0.254 Unaffected.

a. Well numbers r e f e r to those on map in U. S. G. S. Professional Paper 544B.46

- 69 -
 Water Level, meters
Depth, Dime t e r , j’beZow land surface)
No. meters meters Before After Earthquake Effects
26 50.3 0.1524 Pumped sand f o r 2 days. Water
levelunchanged.
27 50.3 0.1524 47.8 Went dry, p o s s i b l y s t i l l dry.
28 59.4 0.1524 7.0 Muddy about 1 day.
29 87.2 0.1524 12.8 Went dry; came back about 1 month
later.
30 62.8 0.1524 1 Pumped sand f o r 1 day o r so.
31 21.4 0.1524 7.6 Muddy f o r undeterminable length of
time.
32 19.2 0.1524 Unaffected.
33 148.1 Flowing 7.6 Water l e v e l dropped about 7.6 in.
Completely recovered.
34 35.0 0.1524 1.2 3.6 Muddy f o r 2 days; water l e v e l
dropped about 2.4 m.
35 14.0 0.1524 4.3 Pumped sand; s t r o n g odor f o r 1/2
day.
36 40.8 0.1524 4.1 4.6 Water l e v e l dropped a t l e a s t 0 . 3 m .
37 30.5 0.1524 8.2 11.5 Water l e v e l dropped about 3 m;
recovered 1.8 m.
38 69.5 0.2032 46.9 Unaffected.
39 61.0 0.1524 Flowing Unaffected.
’ 40 112.8 0.2032 37.4 36.9 Water l e v e l probably dropped; f a s t
recovery.
41 14. a 0.1524 11.6 Muddy f o r 4 days.
42 16.8 12.2 11.5 May have d r o p p d before recovering.
43 11.3 0.1524 9.1 Unaffected.
44 42.3 0.2032 5.6 7.7 May have dropped more than 2.1 m .
45 48.5 0.254 9. a Unaffected.
46 68.6 0.2032 7.8 9.0 Dropped a t l e a s t 1 . 2 m.
47 6.1 0.1524 2.4 2.8 P o s s i b l y dropped 0.46 m.
48 32.0 0.1524 7.1 Muddy f o r about 2 weeks; water
l e v e l dropped s l i g h t l y .
49 29.9 0.1524 7.1 Unaffected.
50 37.5 0.1524 5.8 Unaffected.
51 6.7 0.1524 1.5 Muddy f o r 2 days.
52 143.2 0.2032 23.0 Casing bent and broken.
53 45.4 0.1524 7.1 Unaffected.
54 64.0 0.2032 16.0 20.5 Dropped a t l e a s t 4.6 m; maybe
p a r t l y due t o pumpage.

- 70 -
 Water Level, meters
Depth, Dime t e r , (bel& land surj%ce)
No. meters meters Before After Earthquake Effects
55 69.2 0.1524 Unaffected.
56 95.4 0.1524 0.61 Muddy 2 days; production poor a t
low t i d e s now.
57 32.3 0.1524 9.1 Muddy f o r 1 day.
58 47.8 0.2032 Flowing Flowing Muddy f o r 3 days.
59 39.6 0.1524 Flowing Flowing Unaffected.
60 30.2 0.1524 10.0 Muddiness c l e a r e d with pumping.
61 34.1 0.1524 4.6 Muddy f o r 2 days.
62 41.8 0.1524 39.9 Quite muddy f o r s e v e r a l days.
63 23.5 0.1524 Flowing Reported t o have been p o l l u t e d by
quake. Damaged casing (7).
64 9.4 8.5 Unaffected.
65 34.7 0.1524 18.1 19.9 May have dropped 1.5 m or more.
66 45.4 0.1524 6.0 7.2 Dropped a t l e a s t 0.9 m.
67 36.6 0.1524 Flowing 7.1: Flow l o s t and had t o i n s t a l l pump.
68 16.2 0.1524 4.3 Muddy f o r about 1 week.
69 42.7 0.1524 24.4f 6.1 m o f mud i n casino. Pumped a t
3.8 L/sec f o r 30 hour t o c l e a r .
70 26.8 0.1524 6.4 Water l e v e l f e l l (pump damaged).
71 32.0 0.1524 25.9(?) Unaffected.
72 27.1 0.1524 7.9 Unaffected.
73 42.4 0.1524 21.4 26.0 Water l e v e l f e l l a t l e a s t 3.0 m
and perhaps 6.1 m.
74 11.0 0.1524 4.6 2.0 Muddy f o r unknown length of time.
75 53.6 0.1524 Unaffected.
76 32.9 0.1524 2.1 Unaffected.
77 10.0 0.1524 3.0 Had t o r e d r i l l ; now h a s " a r t e s i a n "
a t 13.7 m.
78 14.6 0.1524 1.4 Unaffected.
79 15.5 0.1524 4.1 8.2 Minimum drop about 4 . 3 m.
80 30.5 0.1524 10.7 Unaffected.
81 54.2 0.1524 6.1 Unaffected.
82 14.6 0.1524 5.5 Muddy for 5 days.
83 64.3 0.2032 17.1 18.2 P o s s i b l e drop of 1.2 m or more.
84 151.5 0.2032 13.2 19.1 Presumablv f e l l minimum of 5.8 m;
c a s i n g s e v e r e l y damaged. In t h e
Turnagain Heights area.
85 31.1 0.1524 18.3 Water l e v e l f e l l and ?%sing destroyed,
n e a r Turnagain Heights.

- 71 -
 Water Level, meters
Depth, Diameter, (below land surface)
No. meters meters Before After Earthquake Effects
86 24.1 0.1524 19.2 19.7 Probably unaffected.
87 31.7 0.1524 Flowing Flowing Unaffected.
88 16.4 0.1524 4.9 Very muddy f o r 3 days; r e p o r t 1 odor.
89 24.7 0.1524 6.1 Muddy f o r many weeks; water l e v e l
may have dropped.
90 4.9 4.9 2.4 2.3 Water l e v e l rose s l i g h t l y ; normal
i n one day.
91 70.7 0.1524 15.2 Unaffected.
92 123.7 0.2032 16.3 17.4 Probably dropped a t l e a s t 0.91 m ,
p o s s i b l y more.
93 92.9 0.1524 15.2 Unaffected.
94 112.8 4.9 18.6 21.3 Unaffected ( 7 ) . Heavily pumped,
water l e v e l down 2.7 m .
95 97.2 0.1524 17.0 Unaffected.
96 71.0 0.1524 18.3 Muddy f o r 1 day.
97 84.7 0.2032 12.2 Muddy f o r 1 day.
98 35.7 0.1016 3.0 3.8 Water l e v e l dropped about 0.91 m.
99 70.4 0.1524 2.4 8.3 Water l e v e l r e p o r t e d t o have dropped
12.2 m.
100 164.6 0.254 47.2 50.3 Water l e v e l dropped about 3.0 m.
Valdez 7.3 Bent seaward by land movement; casing
sheared 4 . 7 m below rne s u r f a c e .
Valdez Damaged, p o s s i b l y by e l e c t r i c
failure.
Valdez Unaffected
Seward 4 Q30.5 Damaged; c a s i n g bent by e a r t h
movement.
Seward 5 Q30.5 Damaged; casing bent by movement
of p a r t of a l l u v i a l fan.
Seward 6 Q30.5 Survived quake; about 1 month l a t e r
pump t u r b i n e jammed because of
ground movement o r s e t t l e m e n t .

- 72 -
 REFERENCES
Grs
1. C . M. Duke and D. J. Leeds. "Effects o f Earthquakes on
Tunnels. I ) Protective Construction i n a NueZear Age,
Proc. 2nd Protective Construction Symposiwn.
J . J . O ' S u l l i v a n , Rand Corporation (March 1959).
2. A. Rozen. Response of Rock lZlnne2.s i n Earthquake Shaking.
M.S. T h e s i s , Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology,
Cambridge, MA (1976).
3. C. H. Dowding. "Seismic S t a b i l i t y o f Underground Openings."
Proceedings F i r s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium Storage i n Exea-
vated Rock Caverns, Rockstore 77. Stockholm, Sweden,
Pergamon Press, Vol. 2 , pp. 231-38 (1978).
4. T. A. J a g g e r . "The Yokohama-Tokyo Earthquake o f September 1,
1923." BUZZ. Seism. Soc. Am. 2 3 ( 4 ) , 1 2 4 (1923).
5. H. Kawasumi. General Report on the Niigata Earthquake o f
1964. Tokyo E l e c t r i c a l Engineering College Press, Tokyo,
Japan (1964).
6. N a t i o n a l Research Council. The Great AZaskan Earthquake o f
2964, Engineering Committee of t h e Alaskan Earthquake o r
t h e D i v i s i o n of E a r t h S c i e n c e s , Washington, DC. "The Alaskan
R a i l r o a d , " pp. 958-186; '!Damage t o U t i l i t i e s , " pp. 1034-1073.
7. B. Bolt, e t a l . GeoZogieaZ Hazards. Springer-Verlag, New
York (1975), 328 pp.
8. K. V. S t e i n b r u g g e and D. F. Moran. "An Engineering Study o f
t h e Southern C a l i f o r n i a Earthquake of J u l y 21, 1952, and
I t s Aftershocks." BUZZ. Seism. Soc. Am. 44, 201 (1954).
9. W. R. P e r r e t . "Close-in Ground Motion from t h e MILROW and
C A N N I K I N Events." BUZZ. Seism. Soe. Am. 6 2 ( 6 ) , 1459 (1972).
10. H . F. Cooper, Jr. krpiricaZ Studies of Ground Shock and Strong
Motions i n Rock. Report RDA-TR-3601-002, RED A s s o c i a t e s ,
S a n t a Monica, CA (October 1973).
11. H . C . Rodean. f'Explosion-Produced Ground Motion: Technical
Summary with Respect t o Seismic Hazards." Symposiwn on
Engineering with NucZear ExpZosives. USAEC Report CONF-700101
(Vol. 2) (1970), pp. 1024-1050.
12. C . F . R i c h t e r . Elementary SeismoZogy. W. H. Freeman and
Company, San F r a n c i s c o , CA (1958), pp. 578-582.
13. B. Gutenberg and C . F. R i c h t e r . "Earthquake Magnitude, In-
t e n s i t y , Energy, and A c c e l e r a t i o n . " BUZZ. Seism. Soc. Am. 32,
163 (1942).

6J - 73 -
14. F. Neumann. Earthquake I n t e n s i t y and Related Ground Motion.
U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press, S e a t t l e , WA (1954).
15. C . F . R i c h t e r . "Earthquakes." Natural History 78, 36
(December 1969).
16. F . Press. "Earthquake P r e d i c t i o n . " S c i e n t i f i c American 232
(5), 15 (1975).
17. S. T. Algermissen. "Seismic R i s k S t u d i e s i n t h e United S t a t e s . "
Fourth World Conference Earthquake Engineering, C h i l e (1969) .
18. J . L. Coffman and C . A . Von Hake ( E d i t o r s ) . Earthquake History
of t h e United S t a t e s : National Oceanic .and Atmospheric A h i n -
i s t r a t i o n . Revised E d i t i o n (through 1970), P u b l i c a t i o n 41-1.
Nut. Oceanic and Atmos. Admin. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 208 pp.
19. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Procedures f o r Evaluation of
Vibratory Ground Motions of S o i l Deposits a t Nuclear Power
Plant S i t e s . Report NUREG-75/072, Shannon and Wilson, I n c . ,
S e a t t l e , WA; agbabian A s s o c i a t e s , E l Segundo, CA (1975),
197 pp.
20. N. N . Ambraseys. "Dynamics and Response of Foundation M a t e r i a l s
i n E p i c e n t r a l Regions of Strong Earthquakes . I f Proc. 5th VorZd
Conference Earthquake Eng., Rome (1973).

21. R . K . McGuire. Seismic Structural Response Risk AnaZysis,

Incorporating Peak Response Regression on Earthquake Magni-
tude and Distance. Ph.D. T h e s i s , Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e
of Technology, Cambridge, MA (1974).

22. H. B. Seed e t a l . Relationships Between Maximum Acceleration,

M a x i m Velocity, Distance from Source and Mea2 S i t e Condi-
t i o n s for Moderately Strong Earthquakes. Report EERC-75-7,
U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a (1975).

23. K . Kanai. "Improved Empirical Formula f o r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of S t r o n g Earthquake Motions." Proc. Japan Earthquake Sym-
posium. (1966).
24. G . K . G i l b e r t , R . L . Humphrey, J . S . Sewell, and F . S o u l e .
"The San F r a n c i s c o Earthquake and F i r e of A p r i l 18, 1906,
and T h e i r E f f e c t s on S t r u c t u r e s and S t r u c t u r a l Materials.'7
BUZZ. 324, U.S. Geol. Survey, pp. 170, 54 pl. (1907).
25. S t a t e Earthquake I n v e s t i g a t i o n Commission. The CaZifornia
Earthquake of A p r i Z 28, 2906. Carnegie I n s t i t u t e of Washing-
t o n , PubZ. 87 (1908).
26. J . P . Buwalda and P . S t . h a n d . IfGeological Effects of t h e
Arvin-Tehachapi Earthquake. ' I Parts I - V , CaZifornia Division
Mines BUZZ. 171, 4 1 (1955).

- 74 -
27. D . H. Kupfer, S. Muessig, G . L. Smith, and G . N . White.
"Arvin-Tehachapi Earthquake Damage Along t h e Southern Pacific
R a i l r o a d Near B e a l v i l l e , C a l i f o r n i a . " Part I , Paper No. 7,
CaZifornia Division Mines BUZZ. 171, 67 (1955).
28. Southern P a c i f i c Company. "Earthquake Damage t o R a i l r o a d s i n
Tehachapi Pass." Part 111, Paper No. 6 , California Division
Mines BUZZ. 171, 241-248 (1955).
29. F. B. Blanchard and G . L. Laverty. "Displacements i n t h e
Claremont Water Tunnel a t t h e I n t e r s e c t i o n w i t h t h e Hayward
F a u l t . " BuZZ. Seism. SOC. Am. 56, 291 (1966).
30. Y . Nishimatsu ( F a c u l t y o f Engineering, U n i v e r s i t y o f Tokyo,
Tokyo, J a p a n ) . L e t t e r t o P r o f . W. F. Brace (Department o f
E a r t h and P l a n e t a r y S c i e n c e s , Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e o f
Technology, Cambridge, MA) (September 2 , 1977).
31. N. Nasu. "Comparative S t u d i e s of Earthquake Motion Above
Ground and i n a Tunnel." Part I , BUZZ. Earthq. Res. Inst. 9,
454 (1931).
32. N . Nasu, F . Kishinouye, and T. Kodaira. "Recent Seismic
A c t i v i t i e s i n t h e Idu Peninsula." Part I , BuZZ. Earthq. Res.
I n s t . 9, 22 (1931).
33. K. Kanai and T. Tanaka. "Observations o f t h e Earthquake
Motion a t t h e D i f f e r e n t Depths o f t h e E a r t h . " Part I , BUZZ.
Earthq. Res. Inst. 29, p . 107 (1951).
34. K. Kanai, K . Osada, and S. Yoshizawa. "Observational Study
o f Earthquake Motion i n t h e Depth of t h e Ground. I V ( R e l a t i o n
Between t h e Amplitude a t Ground S u r f a c e and t h e P e r i o d ) . "
BuZZ. Earthq. Res. I n s t . 31, 228 (1953).
35. S. Okamoto. Introduction t o Earthquake Engineering. U n i v e r s i t y
o f Tokyo Press o r John Wiley & Sons, New York (1973).
36. D. S . Carder. "Seismic I n v e s t i g a t i o n s on t h e 500-Foot Level,
Homestake Mine, Lead, South Dakota." Earthquake Notes 21,
1 3 (1950).
37. B. T. Brady. "Theory of Earthquakes, I V , General I m p l i c a t i o n s
f o r Earthquake P r e d i c t i o n s . " Pure AppZ. Geophys. 114, 1031 (1976).

38. A . McGarr. U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo P a r k , CA 94025

( P r i v a t e communication, 1977) .
39. E . B. Eckel.The March 1964 Alaska Earthquake - Lessons and
ConcZusions. U.S.G.S. P r o f e s s i o n a l Paper 546, U.S. Govern-
ment P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington, DC (1970).

40. P. R. Stevens. A Review of the E f f e c t s of Earthquakes on

Underground Mines. Open-File Report 77-313, U.S. Geological
Survey, N a t i o n a l C e n t e r , Reston, VA (1977) 43 pp.

- 75 -
41. J . B. Cooke. Peru Earthquake of 31 May 1970, E f f e c t on
Tunnels. Supplementary Notes t o E E R I Report, Appendix I V .
Earthquake Engineering I n s t i t u t e (September 1970) .
42. S. M u e l l e r , P r o f e s s o r o f Geophysics, ETH, Zurich, S w i t z e r -
land ( P r i v a t e Communication, 1977) .
43. K. Mogi, Japanese Earthquake I n s t i t u t e ( P r i v a t e Communica-
t i o n , 1977).
44. K . Aki, Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e o f Technology ( P r i v a t e Com-
munication, 1977).
45. T. Iwasaki, S. Wakabayashi, and F . Tatsuoka. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
o f Underground Seismic Motions a t Four S i t e s Around Tokyo
Bay." Wind and Seismic E f f e c t s , Proceedings of t h e Eighth
J o i n t Panel Conference o f t h e U.S.-Japan Cooperative Program
i n N a t u r a l Resources, NBS S p e c i a l B u l l e t i n 477, (1977), pp.
111-41-111-56.
46. R. M. Waller. E f f e c t s of t h e March 1964 Alaska Earthquake on
t h e Hydrology of t h e Anchorage Area. U.S.G.S. P r o f e s s i o n a l
Paper 544B, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g Office, Washington, DC
(1966) .
47. R . M. Waller. E f f e c t s of t h e March 1964 Alaska Earthquake on
t h e Hydrology of South-Central Alaska. U.S.G.S. P r o f e s s i o n a l
Paper 544A, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g Office, Washington, DC
(1966).
48. P . C . Heigold. Notes on t h e Earthquake of November 9 , 1968, i n
Southern IZZinois. I l l i n o i s S t a t e Geological Survey Environ-
mental Geology Notes, Number 2 4 , Urbana, I L (1968).
49. Department of I n t e r i o r - Department of Commerce, "The San
Fernando, C a l i f o r n i a , Earthquake o f February 9 , 1971." U.S.G.S.
P r o f e s s i o n a l Paper 733, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g Office,
Washington, DC (1971).
50. H. S. Lew, E . V . Leyendecker, and R. D . Dikkers. Engineering
Aspects of t h e 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. U . S . Department
o f Commerce, N a t i o n a l Bureau of S t a n d a r d s Building Science S e r i e s
40, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington, DC (1971).

51. B. A. B o l t . "Earthquake Hazards . I f E@S, Trans. American

Geophysical Union 59, 946 (1978).
52. C . Archambeau and C . Sammis. "Seismic R a d i a t i o n from Explosions
i n P r e s t r e s s e d Media and t h e Measurement o f T e c t o n i c S t r e s s i n
t h e E a r t h . " Revieus of Geophysics and Space Physics 8 , 473 (1970).
53. T. C . Bache and D . G . Lambert. The Seismological Evidence for
t h e Triggering of Block Motion by Large Explosions. Systems,
S c i e n c e , and Software, La J o l l a , CA (1976) 4 2 pp.

- 76 -
54. J . A. Blume. "On t h e P r e d i c t i o n o f Building Damage from
Ground Motion." Symposium on Engineering with Nuclear
Explosives, USAEC Report CONF-700101 (Vol. 2) , (1970)
pp. 1103-1109.
55. H. F . Cooper. "A Review o f Ground Shock Environments
P e r t i n e n t t o Deep-Underground Systems." Strategic Struc-
tures Review Meeting at Stanford Research Institute,
Menlo Park, CA (February 1977).
56. H. A . N i c h o l 1 s . A Case Study of the Validity of Scaling Laws
f o r Report Explosion-Generated Motion." U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Report RI 6472 (1964).
57. R . D. Munson. Vibration Response and Evaluation of OiZ
Shale Mine Openings to the Rio Blanco Event. USBM Report
10013, Denver Mining Research C e n t e r , Bureau of Mines,
Denver, CO, p . 2 1 (1975).
58. P . C . Loux. "Seismic Mot i o n s from Pro j e c t Rul i s o n . Symposium
on Engineering with Nuclear Explosives. USAEC Report CONF-700101
(Vol. 2 ) , (1970) pp 1070-1082.
59. L . A . Lee and R . E . S k j e i . "The Effects of t h e Rulison Event
on B u i l d i n g s and Other S u r f a c e S t r u c t u r e s . " Symposium on
Engineering with Nuclear ExpZosives. USAEC Report CONF-700101
(Vol. 2 ) (1970), pp. 1083-1091.
60. F. W. Osterwald e t a l . " I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n S t u d i e s of E a r t h
Tremors Related t o Geology and t o Mining a t t h e Somerset
Coal Mine, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 762 (1972) 27 pp.
61. D. Burgess. "Deep Basing - The Mighty Epic Experiment."
Jefense NucZear Agency Strategic Division Biennial Review
Conference (February 1977).

- 77 -
CIS
SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION

F. R. Standerfer R. M. Nelson
U. S . Department o f Energy U. S . Department of Energy
Richland Operations O f f i c e Nevada Operations O f f i c e
P . 0. Box 550 P . 0. Box 14100
Richland, WA 99352 Las Vegas, NV 89114

D. E . Large D. S c h u e l e r
U . S . Department o f Energy U . S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge Operations O f f i c e Albuquerque Operations O f f i c e
P . 0. Box E P . 0. Box 5400
Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Albuquerque, NM 87115

J . M. Batch (30 c o p i e s ) C . R. Cooley

Battel l e C . H. George
P r o j e c t Management D i v i s i o n
O f f i c e of Nuclear Waste I n s t a l l a t i o n C. A. Heath
505 King Avenue R. S t e i n
Columbus, OH 43201
D. L. Vieth
Department of Energy
D i v i s i o n of Waste Management,
J . 0. Neff Production, and Reprocessing
Washington, DC 20545
U. S . Department o f Energy
Richland-Columbus
Battelle
505 King Avenue H. R. P l a t t (20 c o p i e s )
Columbus, OH 43201 T e r r a Tek, Univ. Research Park
420 Wakara Way
S a l t Lake C i t y , UT 84108

F . Gera
OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency
38 Boulevard Suchet
F15016
Paris, France

- 79 -
T. F. Lomenick Earl Titcomb
Savannah District
W. C. McClain (3 copies) U. S. Corps of Engineers
Union Carbide Corporation P. 0. Box 889
Nuclear Division Savannah, GA 31402
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Bruce A. Bolt
N. R. Tilford Seismographic Station
Ebasco Services, Inc. University of California
2211 W. Meadowview Berkeley, CA 94720
Greensboro, NC 27407
A. C. Tarr
D. Richards
W. W. Dudley, Jr.
J. R. Swaisgood
Dames E Moore Robin McGuire
605 Parfet St. W. S. Twenhofel
Denver, CO 80215
John D. Bredehoeft
A. J. Eggenberger Robert M. Hamilton
D'Appolonia ConsuIting Engineers, Inc. U. S. Geological Survey
10 Duff Road Denver Federal Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15235 Denver, CO 80225
W. G. Smith
Dames & Moore John Briedis
455 E. Paces Ferry Rd. Stone and Webster Engr. Co.
Atlanta, GA 30305 P. 0. Box 2325
Boston, MA 02107
J. S . Ritchie
Kaiser Engineers G. A. Young
Kaiser Center Agbabian Associates
300 Lakeside Drive 250 North Nash Street
Oakland, CA 94604 El Segundo, CA 90245

D. W. Lamb L. W. Lough
Acres American, Inc. State Geologist
Liberty Bank Bldg. Louisiana Geological Survey
Main at Court St. University Station, Box G
Buffalo, NY 14202 Baton Rouge, LA 70803

S. L. Crouch D. T. McMillan
State Geologist
C. Fairhurst Utah Geological and Mineral Survey
T. C. Atchison 103 Utah Geological Survey Bldg.
Civil 6 Mineral Engineering Dept. University of Utah
University of Minnesota Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Minneapolis, MN 55455
W. H. Moore
Otto Bront zen State Geologist
Geological Survey of Sweden Mississippi Geological, Economic,
Svenska Geologiska Undersokning and Topographical Survey
Frescati S-104-105 P.O. Box 4915
Stockholm, Sweden Jackson, MI 39216

- 80 -
 R. A. Deju Stephen G. Conrad
D. A. Turner State Geologist
Department o f Natural and
R. E. Smith Economic Resources
Rockwell International P.O. Box 27687
Atomics International Division Raleigh, NC 27611
Rockwell Hanford Operations
P.O. Box 800 Pradeep Talwani
Richland, WA 99352 Geology Department
University of South Carolina
L. w. Scully Columbia, SC 29208
R. W. Lynch
B. 7’. Brady
R. Lincoln U. S. Bureau o f Mines
Leslie R. Hill Building 20
Denver Federal Center
W. D. Weart Denver, CO 80225
Sandia Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800 David A. Gray
Albuquerque, NM 87115 Assistant Director
Special Services Division
C. S. Groat Institute of Geophysical Sciences
W. L. Fisher, Director Exhibition Road
Texas Bureau of Economic Geology London, W.W.7, England
University Station, Box X
Austin, TX 78712 William W. Hambleton
State Geological Survey of
P. Stevens Kansas
Raymond C. Moore Hall
G. D. DeBuchananne 1930 Avenue A, Campus West
U . S. Geological Survey Lawrence, KS 66044
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 22092 J. E. Russell
J. Handin
J. Gale Department of Geology
Un ivers ity of Wat er1oo Texas AGM University
286 Lincoln Road College Station, TX 77843
Waterloo, N2J2P5
Ontario, Canada W. F. Brace
Department of Earth and
Planetary Sciences
Massachusetts Inst. o f Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139

- 81 -
Klaus KGhn J. F. Davis
Gese11schaft fGr Strah 1en-und - New York State Geological Survey
Umweltforschung m.b.H. Munchen New York State Education Bldg.
Institut far Tieflagerung Albany, NY 12229
Wissenschaftliche Abteilung
3392 Clausthal-ZellerfeId J. B. Kemp
Berliner Str. 2 N. A. Norman
Federal Republic of Germany Bechtel Corporation
50 Beale Street
Daniel N. Miller, Jr. P.O. Box 3965
State Geologist San Francisco, CA 94 19
Geological Survey of Wyoming
P.O. Box 3008, University Station V. E. Livingston, Jr.
Laramie, WY 82071 State Geologist, Dept. of
Natural Resources
Lars B. Nilsson Geology and Earth Resources
KDB Project (Kknbranslesakerhet) Division
FACK 120 40 Olympia, WA 98504
Stockholm 5, Sweden
C. A. Ratte
G . E. Pinddr State Geologist, Office of the
Deparitment of Geology Secretary
Princeton University Agency of Environmental Conservation
Princeton, NJ 08540 Montpelier, VT 05602
John Pomeroy Technical Secretary J. W. Rold
National Academy of Sciences State Geologist, Colorado Geological
Committee of Radioactive Waste Survey, Room 254
Management 1845 Whernan Street
National Research Council Denver, CO 80203
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20418 A. E. Slaughter
State Geologist, Michigan Dept. of
J. K. Costain Conservation
Lynn Glover Geological Survey Division
Stevens T. Mason Building
Gilbert Bollinger Lansing, MI 48926
Department o f Geology and
Geophysics H. R. Collins
Virginia Polytechnic Institute State Geologist, Ohio Division of
and State University Geological Survey
Blacksburg, VA 24061 Fountain Square, Building 6
Columbus, OH 43225
H. Y. Tammemangi
N. J. Hawley (2 copies) I?. A. Abramovitch
Technical Information Services Department of Chemistry and
Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment Geology
Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited Clemson University
Pinawa, Manitoba, ROE 1LO Clemson, SC 29631
Canada

- 82 -
 R. K. Dodds John C. Fry.e, Executive Director
Foundation Sciences, Inc. Geological Society of America, Inc.
520 S.W. Sixth Ave. 3300 Penrose Place
Portland, OR 97204 Boulder, CO 80301

Hans M. Ewoldsen Earnest F. Gloyna

Woodward-Clyde Consultants College of Engineering
Three Embarcadero Center University of Texas at Austin
Suite 700 Austin, TX 78712
San Francisco, CA 94111
Konrad B. Krauskopf
Serge Gonzales Department of Geology
Department of Geology Stanford University
University of Georgia Stanford, CA 94305
Athens, GA 30602
M. Steindler
Kenneth S. Johnson Argonne National Laboratory
Department of Geology 9700 South Cass Avenue
University of Oklahoma Argonne, IL 60439
Norman, OK 73069
A. Brandstetter
Truman Stauffer A. M. Platt
Department of Geosciences Battelle Pacific Northwest
University of Missouri Laboratories
Kansas City, MO 64110 P.O. Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
L. T. Long
School of Geophysical Sciences J. A. Apps
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30322 N. G. W. Cook
P. A. Witherspoon
James H. Crawford University of California
Department of Physics Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of North Carolina East End of Hearst Avenue
at Chapel Hill Berkeley, CA 94720
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
H. C. Heard
Stanley N. Davis
Department of Hydrology and Water L. D. Ramspott
Resour ces University of California
University of Arizona Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Tucson, AZ 85712 P.O. Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550
Fred A. Donath
Sandia Laboratories K. E. Apt
Division 5413 G . A . Cowan
Fuel Cycle Risk AnalysZs University of California
Albuquerque, NM 87115
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
P.O. Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM 87545

br3 - 83 -
Richard Goodman J. D. Martinez
Dept. of Civil Engineering Robert L. Thoms
University of California Institute for Environmental Studies
Berkeley, CA 94720 Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Norman Owen
URS/Blume 6 Associates M. I. Goldman
130 Jessie St. (at New Montgomery)
San Francisco, CA 94105 J. J. DiNunno
NUS Corporation
J. D. Scott 4 Research Place
Fugro, Inc. Rockville, MD 20850
3777 Long Beach Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90807 T. R. Kuesel
Parsons-Brinckerhoff Quade E
N. K. Olsen Douglas, Inc.
State Geologist One Penn Plaza
Division of Geology 250 West 34th Street
State Development Board New York, NY 10001
Harbison F o r e s t Dr.
Columbia, SC 29210 Paul F. Gnirk
RE/SPEC Inc.
K. Weaver, Director P.O. Box 725
Maryland Geological Survey Rapid City, SD 57701
Merryman Hall
Johns Hopkins University D. M. Ross-Brown
Baltimore, MD 21218 C. Young
Science Applications, Inc.
S. Pickering, Jr. 202 W. Magnolia St.
Director, Earth and Water Resources Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dept. of Natural Resources
19 Hunter St., S.W. Ronald Hofmann
Atlanta, GA 30334 Science Applications, Inc.
2450 Washington Avenue
J. L. Calver Suite 120
State Geologist San Leandro, CA 94577
Div. of Mineral Resources
Dept. of Conservation and Economic J. H. Jones
Development Steams-Roger Engineering Co.
P.O. Box 3667 700 South Ash
Charlottesville, VA 22903 P.O. Box 5888
Denver, CO 80217
G. H. Fogle
Law Engineering Testing Company R. B. Mathiesen
2749 Delk Road, S.E.
Marietta, GA 30067 C. Barry Raleigh
Robert Pyke Art McGarr
Civil/Nuclear Co. U. S. Geological Survey
2430 Broadway 345 Pliddlefield Road
San Francisco, CA 94115 rlenlo Park, CA 94025

- 84 -