EDAC-258-010.01

SEiSMIC AND LAVA FLOW RISK ANALYSIS

"FOR GEOTHERMAL WELL SITE, HGP-A,

ISLAND OF HAWAII

",.------_DISCLAIMER ----,

This book was prepared as an account of work IPOrtsored by an agency of the United States Government.Neither the United States GovernfTlllflt nor any agency thereof. nor any of their employees, makes anywarranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the ac:euracy,completeness, or u!l8fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, orrepresents that itl UIB would not infringe privetely owned rights. Reference herein to any Specificcommercial product, process, or terYice by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, doesnot necessarily oonstltute or Imply Its endorsement. recommendation, or favoring by the UnitedSt.tes Government or any agency thereof, The vie'NS and opinions of authors expressed herein do notnecess.ily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

prepared for

ROGERS'ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.San Francisco, California

11111': 24 October 1978

ENGINEERING DECISION ANALYSIS COMPANY, INC.

480 CALIFORNIA AVE., SUITE 301 2400 MICHELSON DRIVE

. PALO ALTO, CALIF. 94306 IRVINE, OALIF. 92715

BURNITZSTRASSE 34

6 FRANKFURT 70, W. GERMANY .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYNOPSIS- iii

1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2. SEISMIC RISK" ANAtYSIS"~ • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

3. LAVA FLOW RISK" ANALYSr-S~ • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

4. CONCLUSiONS~

REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . 4-1

APPENDICESA-- The Modified Mercalli Intensity ScaleB -- Response Spectra

ii EII.lt:

SYNOPSIS

The two dominant natural hazards at the HGP-A site are earthquake andlava flow. Between 1834 and 1978, 93 earthquak~s likely produced signif­icant ground shaking at the site. A seismic risk assessment of thesedata was made for the site. The design peak ground acceleration for pri­mary components of the plant is 0.41g- based on a 10 percent probabilityof exceedancein the projected 30-year 1ife of the faci 1ity.

C~iteria response spectra were derived based primarily on the propertiesof records obtained on the Island of Hawaii during the earthquakes of1973 and 1975. Response spectrum techniques should be used in the designadequacy evaluation of primary components of the plant.

Components of the plant whose loss will not result in major damage to thefacility or endanger human life c~uld be designed by an equivalent staticforce method in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Zone 3 or byATC-3 (Ref. 2). .

The study of the historical data on the occurrence of lava flows in theNorth Rift Zone which contains the HGP-A site showed that two cycles oflava flow activity can be identified. Lava flows covered most of therift zone in the period 1700 to 1840. There are no identified importantlava flows between 1840 and 1955. The second cycle of lava .flows beganin 1955 and continued in 1960, 1961 to 1969, 1969 to 1974, and 1977. The

. .second cycle of lava flow has its source apparently in a similar locationto those in the earlier identified cycle up to a distance of about 15 kmwest 0t the site. Since 1955, the origin of the lava flows for a dis-

iii HIIIII:

SYNOPSIS, continued

tance of about 15 km west of the site lies on a line south of the earlierflows and the axis of the origin of these flows more or less passesdirectly through the site.

The primary hazard to the plant from lava flow is associated with a floworiginating either very close to the site or the adjacent rift zone,which is approximately 5 km southwest of the site.

The lava flow hazard is difficult to mitigate, particularly if the sourceis clo~e to the site. If the flow comes from the area that is higher andwest of the site, it is possible that the essential equipment at the sitecould be removed or the hazard could be mitigated by providing a channelto divert the flow before it can reach the site.

iv EIII":

•

. .

1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report is submitted in accprdance with the letter of·24 April 1978to· Rogers Engineering Co., Inc. defining the scope of the work to be per­fonmed by Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc. (EDAC) as a part ofthe Rogers Engineering Proposal to the Research Corporation of the Uni-versity of Hawaii for Geothenmal Wellhead Generator Proof-of-FeasibilityProject. The above mentioned letter of 24 April was amplified in theletter of 10 July 1978 to Rogers Engineering so that the final scope ofwork perfonmed 5y EDAC was to conduct an assessment of seismic and lavaflow risk for the HGP-Asite including:

Seismic Risk Analysis

Analyze historic data on seismic events and forecast ground motionsat the site. These ground motions will be given in terms of levelsof peak ground acceleration on rock with return periods of 100, 500,and 1,000 years. .

Develop criteria for the site in tenms of response spectra.

Recommend measures to minimize the seismic hazard to the facility.

Lava Flow Risk Analysis

Make an engineering study of the likelihood of future lava flowsendangering the site.

• Site Visit

Make a trip to the site to examine the surface geology, obtain dataon seismic and lava flow events, and examine the data on perfonmance

'of engineered structures responding to these hazards.

151111':

1-2A,visit to the site was made in·the period 18 through 22 July 1978 duringwhich basic data on the earthquake and lava flow hazards were obtainedfrom the United States Geological 'Survey (USGS), the. study of reports ofprior events in conjunction with visits to the localities involved, andthrough discussions with engineers and scientists in the area withrespect to the two hazards. Considerable data were obtained in discus­sions with USGS"scientists stationed at Kiluaea Crater.

Basic data on the response of structures to strong earthquake motion inhistoric earthquakes were obtained from reports of the USGS" listed in thereferences and from the Seismic Engineering Branch, USGS. Strong motiondata tapes were also obtained from USGS', Denver, Colorado•

. This report consists of the following chapters.

• Seismic Risk Analysis• Lava Flow Risk Analysis• Conclusions

EIIIII:

2-12. SEISMIC RISK ANALYSIS

Aprobabilistic seismic risk analysis was performed for the Hawaii Geo­thenmal Research Station (HGP-A Well Head Generator) site in accord withestablished principles. The basic methodology used was the same as thatemployed by Algermissin and Perkins, USGS~in the seismic risk mapping ofthe contiguous United States (Ref. 1) and used by the Applied TechnologyCouncil (ATC-3) to develop seismic coefficient maps. The ATC-3 study(Ref. 2) was conducted by the Applied Technology Council (associated withthe 'Structural Engineers Association of California) and was sponsored bythe National Science Foundation and the National Bureau of Standards.The ATC-3 report contains tentative provisions for new seismic regula­tions for buildings for all parts of the United States including theIsland of Hawaii.

The basic technique employed in ~he seismic risk analysis was that ofdetermining the likelihood of different levels of grbund shaking inten­sity at the site based on the historical record of earthquakes. Thefuture occurrence of different levels of ground shaking was then forcastfran the properties of the historical record. It has been shown that thebasic methodology is reliable and engineering procedures exist to trans­late such forecasts into economical design of engineered structures toresis~ the forecasted loads. The recommendations of this report for theHGP-A site are in accordance with the current state of the art. The'design procedures for primary components of the facility require the useof the concepts of structural dynamics while those components and struc­tures of less critical importance can be designed using the conventionalstructural engineering procedures of the Uniform Building Code (USC) orthe greatly superior provisions of the ATC-3 report.

15111":

2-2Inspection of the historical record (Ref. 3 through Ref. S) showed thatbetween 1834 and 1978, 93 earthquakes occurred on or near the Island ofHawaii which were associated with significant levels of ground shaking atthe site. Table 1 contains a list of :these earthquakes along with theintensity level associated with the epicenter and the estimated intensitylevel at the site. It was possible to directly estimate the intensity atthe site with these earthquakes either directly from the written reportsfor the area around the site or by comparison with other sites on rock atthe same epicentral distance. The intensity levels are given in terms ofthe Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale which is defined inAppendix A. Magnitude data on these earthquakes are generally scarce.Such magnitude data as are available are also given in Table 1. Figure 1contains a plot of epicenters of earthquakes that are associated withsignificant ground shaking at the site.

The historical record of the intensity levels at the site was analyzedstatistically and the results are shown in Figure 2.

The data for the plot of Figure 2 are given Table 2. The forecast futureevents ,for the site are given in Table 3 in tenns of return period. The .forecast for up to about 200 years is believed to be reliable while theSOO-year event is an estimate based on extrapolation considerably beyondthe available data. The 1,000 year event is uncertain. The conversionof MMI intensity to peak ground acceleration was based on the Trifunacand Brady (Ref. 6) study of available data for the United ·States.

Figure 3 contains the basic infonnation for establishing the peak groundacceleration design criteria for the site.

The probabilities of nonexceedance of Figure 3 were calculated from theline fitted to the data in Figure 2. For example, the record covers a

EIII":

2-3period of 144 years. Two earthquakes are estimated to have had producedan intensity of between MMI VII and MMI VIII at the site in 144 years.For convenience, these events are listed as 7.5 although MMI values areexpressed in Roman numerals to be strictly correct. Thus, from the his­torical record, the return period for this intensity is estimated to beabout 72 years or 1/72 =0.014 events per year.

It is then assumed that the likelihood of such an event in any year is0.014 and of nonoccurrence is unity minus this value or 0.986. With a50-year lifetime, there are 50 time intervals in which such an event canoccur. The probability of nO events in 50 years of this size is equal tothe probability of nonoccurrence raised to the 50th power or about' 0.5.Thus the probability of nonoccurrence of one or more MMI 7.5 events in 50years is about 0.5. The lines of Figure 3 are the result of a large num­ber of such calculations. It is seen that the 50-year lifetime(abscissa) intersects the 0.50 nonoccurrence line at an MMI value ofabout 7.5. The· figure was calculated using occurrence values from the

. fitted line of Figure 2, which shows an annual occurrence rate of about0.01 for intensity 7.5 which corresponds to a 0.59 probability of non­occurrence in 50 years. As previously stated, the Trifunac and Bradyrelationship between intensity and. peak ground acceleration was used inFigure 3.

The USGS and ATC-3 seismic risk studies are based on a ten percentexceedance probability in 50 years. That is, it is assumed that the use­ful life of the building is 50 years and it is acceptable that the peakground acceleration can be exceeded with a probability of ten percent inthat fifty year life. For the site, a 50-year life and 90 percent chanceof nonexceedance is associated with a peak ground acceleration of about0.6g. With the assigned thirty year life of the facility, 90 percentnonexceedance is assocfated with a peak ground acceleration ofO.41g.·

IE11111:

- 2~

The recommended criteria are then 0.41g for primary components of thefacility. Aprimary component is one whose failure either involvessevere economic loss and/or possible loss of life or severe injury.

Only a very few components in the system need to be designed for thislevel of ground shaking. Ordinary timber and steel buildings designed inaccordance with the USC have proven to be able to sustain a peak groundacceleration of 0.2g to 0.3g more or less without $ignificant damage. Iflosses associated with structural damage are acceptable from rare severeearthquakes, it appears reasonable to design these buildings in accord­ance with either the USC or the new ATC-3 tentative recommendations.

The instrumental records obtained in the 1973 and 1975 earthquakes asprocessed by USGS have been analyzed by EDAC to relate the instrumentalpeak ground acceleration to the response spectrum criteria for whichimportant facilities should be designed. The results of these studiesare given in the normalized criteria response spectra of Figure 4.

~ppendix S contains response spectra for the 1973 and 1975 earthquakesbased on the published data of the USGS~

It is recommended that the design of primary components be analyzed foradequacy using response spectrum procedures (Ref. 7 through 11). A peakground acceleration of 0.41g is recommended. The response spectra ofFigure 4 should be used in conjunction with this peak ground acceleration.

The criteria response spectrum was derived from the response spectra forthe strong·ground motion records obtained on the Island of Hawaii. SeeAppendix B for plots of response spectra from these records.

1511111:

2-5Table 4 gives suggested damping and ductility factors for building con­struction and light equipment. A damping of 2 percent is appropriate forthe turbine generator and associated critical equipment. A ductility of1.0 to 1.5 appears reasonable for this equipment.

1511111:

TABLE 1

EARTHQUAKES

Epicenter SiteTime N. w. Intensity Intensity

Year Date (HST) Locality Lat. Long. (MMI) Magnitude MMI

1834 Feb 19 Island of Hawaii 4-61838 Dec 12 Island of Hawaii 4-61868 Apr 2 about 'South Coast of the 19.0 155.5 10 7-8

16:00 Isl and of Hawaii1909 Mar 13 Isl and of Hawai i 2-41912 Oct 13 Hawaii 2-41913 Sept 8 12:08 Kilauea 5 3-41913 Oct 25 01:08 Ki 1auea 5 3-41918 Nov 2 00:03 Mauna loa 7 4-51919 Jan 28 17:53 Hawaii 5 2-41919 Aug 26 02:34 Island of Hawaii 5 3-41919 Sept 14 17:50 Kilauea 7 5-6

1ft 1923 Jan'14 02:58 Island of Hawaii 2-4-= 1923 Feb 9 21 :11 Island of Hawaii 2-4 N

f:,m

~.

Year DateTimelHST)

TABLE 1

EARTHQUAKES continued

Epicenter

Locality

SiteIntensity

MMI

1923 Dec 14 06:04 Island of Hawaii 2-41924 Aug 20 06:50 Island of Hawaii 2-41925 Ju1 8 06:15 Island of Hawaii 2-41926 Feb 28 07:11 Island of Hawaii 3-51926 Mar 19 23:03 Island of Hawaii 2-41926 Apr 22 05:02 Mauna Loa 2-41926 June 9 10:05 Island of Hawaii 2-41927 Mar 20 . 05:22 Island of Hawaii 4-61927 Aug 3 10:12 Island Hawaii 4-61929 Sept 25 18:51 Kona 19.75 156.0 7 5.5 2-51929 Sept 28 07:40 Hi10 7 5-61929 Oct 5 21:52 Holualoa 19.75 156.0 7 6.5 2-5

III 1930 May 20 19:22 Hualalai Region 5 3-5- 1930 May 25 20:47 Kilauea 5 3-5= N

-= 1931 Jan 30 00:08 Waiohi nu 5 2-4I.....

••

TABLE 1

EARTHQUAKES continued'

Epicenter SiteTime N. w. Intensity Intensity

Year Date (HST). Locality Lat. Long. (MMI) Magnitude MMI

1933 Dec 2 06:30 Hi10 6 4-61934 May 10 10:39 Near Hakalau . 19.6 155.4 5 2-41935 Jan 2 07:17 Ki 1auea 19.4 155.3 5 3-41935 June 28 09:30 Mauna Loa 19.6 155.2 5 4-51935 Sept 30 23:06 Mauna Loa 19.4 155.7 . 5 2-41935 Oct 1 00:28 Mauna Loa 19.6 155.4 5 2-41935 Nov 21 01:41 Mauna Loa 19.5 155.5 5 2-41936 Apr 15 08:57 Kilauea 19.4 155.2 5 2-41938 Jan 22 22:33 North of the Island 19.5 156.8 8 6.75 3-5

of Maui1938 Feb 17 02:48 Mauna Loa 19.6 155.4 5 2-41939 May 15 10:58 Kilauea 19.4 155.1 5 4-51939 May 23 14:44 Kilauea 19.5 155.4 5 2-4

I'll 1939 May 24 13:29 Kilauea 19.4 155.2 5 2-4-== 1939 May 31 21:21 Kilauea 19.6 155.2 5 2-4 N

s: I00

~.

TABLE 1

EARTHQUAKES continued

Epicenter 'SiteTime N. W. Intensity Intensity

Year Date (HST). Locality Lat. Long. (MMI)_ Magnitude MMI

1939 June 12 01:41. Kau Desert 5 2-41939 July 14 04:21 Kilauea 19.3 155.1 5 51940 June 17 00:27 North of the Island 20.5 155.3 6 6.0 3-5

of Hawaii1940 July 15 17 :18 North of the Island 20.9 155.1 2-4

of Hawaii1941 Sept 25 07:48 Mauna Loa 19.2 155.5 7 6.0 4-61941 Noy 18 03:26 Near Waimea 5 2-41944 Noy 12 05:26 Southwest of 5 2-4

Halemaumau1944 Dec 27 04:12 Mokuaweoweo 19.5 155.5 6 3-51945 Mar 4 00:00 Mauna Loa 5 2-41945 May 19 01:48 Mauna 'Loa 5 2-4

III 1945 Sept 19 05:33 Saddle area 5 2-4..==

1947 Sept 30 04:04 Island of Hawaii 5 2-4N

I: I'!)".

TABLE 1EARTHQUAKES continued

Epicenter SiteTime N. w. Intensity Intensity

Year Date (HST) Locality Lat. Long. (MMIL· Magnitude MMI

'--

1949 Feb 26 13:54 Mauna Loa 5 2-41949 May 2 05:02 Mauna Loa 5 2-41950 Mar 25 05:43 Mauna Loa 5 2-41950 May ~9 15:16 Mauna Loa 19.5 156.0 6 6.25 3-5

I

1951 Apr 22 14:52 Kilauea 19.0 155.5 7 6.5 5-61951 Aug 21 00:57 Kona 19.75 156.0 9 6.9 4-61951 Sept 16 01:43 Kaoiki Fault 19.2 155.5 5 4-5.

1951 Nov 8 09:34 Mauna Loa 19.2 155.5 6 3-51952 Feb 2 01:16 Near Kaumana 5 2-41952 Mar 17 17 :58 Off coast of the 19.1 155.0 5 2-4

Island of Hawaii1952 May 23 12:12 Kona 19.5 155.5 6 6.0 2-4

III 1952 July 12 13:53 Kona 5 2-4 N_.I

= 1953 Jan 9 21:1Q Mauna Loa 19.4 155.5 5 2-4 -'0

t: 1953 Jan 15 02:05 Mauna Loa 19.3 155.4 5 2-4~.

2-41953 Aug 21 19:47 Island of Hawaii 5

TABLE 1

EARTHQUAKES continued

Epicenter SiteTime N. w. Intensity Intensity

Year Date (HST). Locality Lat. Long. (MMI) Magnitude MMI

I" 1954 Mar 30 06:40 Near Kalopana 20.0 155.0 5 6.0 5-61954 ' Mar 30 . 08:42 Near Kalopana 20.0 155.0 7 6.5 6-71954 July 3 11:53 Kilauea 20.5 155.5 6 4-51955 Mar 27 16:02 Kilauea 7 4-51955 Apr 1 04:24 Kilauea 19.5 155.0 5 2-41955 Aug 7 07:18 Off north coast of 20.5 155.5 5 2-4

Island of Hawaii1955 Aug 14 02:27 Kilauea 19.5 155.5 2-41955 Oct 26 16:56 Near Mokuaweoweo 19.5 155.5 5 2-41956 Oct 16 00:45 West of the Island 20.0 157.0 5 2-4

of Hawaii1957 Aug 18 00:42 Near Hono, Maui 21.0 156.0 5 2-41961 July 23 05:24 Off coast of the 5 5.1 3-4

11'1 Island of Hawaii- 1961 Sept 22 17 :02 Kilauea 19.4 155.1 5 5

==N

t: I-'-'".

./

TABLE 1

EARTHQUAKES continued

TABLE 2

ESTIMATED SITE INTENSITIES SINCE 1834

Intensity Number of Cumulative No.MMI Occurrences! of Occurrences

7.5 2 26.5 1 36.0 1 45.5 4 85.0 11 194.5 6 254.0 11 363.5 9 453.0 48 93

2-13

151,.":

ReturnPeriod

102050

100200

285

5001,000

TABLE 3

FORECAST DATA

Site IntensityMMI

V (5.0)VI (5.8)

VII (6.8)

VIII (7.6)

VI II (8.3)

IX (9.4)uncertain'

2-14

Peak Ground Accelerationg-Levels

0. 0490.0690. 1290.20g0.339

0.41g0.70guncertain

IEIII":

TABLE 4

DAMPING AND DUCTILITY FACTORS

2-15

ConstructionDamping

. Percent of Critical

Welded SteelReinforced ConcreteBolted Steel

DuctilityItem

L1ght EquipmentConcrete in Shear or CompressionConcrete in FlexureSteel in Tension' or FlexureSteel in Compression

5-77-1010-15

Factor

1.0 to 1.5

1.5 to 2.52 to 52.5 to 101.5 to 3

1511"':

r- --~---------__,2-16

.. "

i-.

•

1t8 La

.....

o

..

,!

~T_...,_-_+----_H ...

~ +--~It:;.:c:+:l,.C"::·:_--_H..1t8 La

,..

~--"-_+---......,r_---t1 ..

---. ----.-- ....-......._-.: .....-.a__• ~=.__.... .-.:.-_. HONOLULU====--====",,____' MtLO . _._.JOt.... .._... ...__::.:.: ..=.--- -.... ••~~e ••==;====-.....Jtt1f=-=~OO·-==:-_._=-_-a!=.=~- ~.~--._. -..._. '--_._-- . I-------....._-t::::l---._-- .=-:-=-.:=.~c:c--......

If

"

II..

G

f:+\\\

. \I

.. .

..-

G

" .l'

I"· ­.-'. ....

FIGURE 1 EPICENTERS AND ESTIMATED ASSOCIATED GROUND MOTION AT HGP~A'SITE

FOR LARGE EVENTS (SEE TABLE 1 FOR DATA ON EVENTS.)HIII.I:

,..- ------------__2-17

.......

" ,

~ .•.

, I

I

, !

, ;

I I I Ig:--~

i I t

~.

.....--

.,

._"".-:-- - --=--

; .

, rI.

I

1"

-~.=

I I "

"

I I "" I I

_-.oj lI;l

J:.~:-," It

, I

..-.=.=.........-._~-

, ' I

, !

I'

! , , ;

I j I I' t,6 7 t>

Intensity at the Site in MMI

=

-.m::-- -..: ....:_.::==P::-~ ;

I I

Ii! • lttrrr.._~ .. -:t=- .•

• I

I I i

I, I

====- -

, , !

I I I I • . I

~I!!f(~~-'¥~'

'~"gF-: -- ~ -- jo~-e.",,"~

======-=-. = = '=F.:-:

2.

,~o__~!" ·---=--:..~·c ~~-+ ~;:.,,:.~.;_l,'_~"~.:~_j"-~>:~_=_: .:-:--~-~::;:::.::~ <F'=~ _:._c~=:~ =:;;~:-_Jk-::'"_-:.-:_:_·!*.-:;;=-_·:-f#l-.·-~;a--- € --- -.- §:§- - '.:::1:"~:". ~~; :::~::;;. :.:.::..::. -.:.- =.= =, - :r- ~

..... ---~7 I-~ '. - .: E-:~·~:·-:..···-~£E-· ,E~~'~ =:..-~..:o.:~~.'--=,.. ----:.::~~~-.:

~6___ =:=g .-'".~=-=~:~?-~--'="~ ==.~

o!i 4 ~':---__.:-- ...."= ._- L·.·:-··-c~::.~~~::,E~ -.:.-:-_ - .ff~~~c·-,c.r.=_ -f--'~ -:':.~:'"_. --- :..... -.~..:-::;.:. :F- --_;[-~ -- .. ·:::T-- ---'-._ --~. -"F-'=:==J.icu · . ~"--- -- - - ....-.- -_.-_.:~= y--. ..;.-:..-..:.r·-··~: r::=f =.:::::-:+;:---'-= -':-~#' .4J 3 _~_ ~___ t- ._ --=::"-.,... .==1==

ljJ.i 2••_

o

B.-l.td6010__~ 9 __

;: 7__

ID'e::' 6.:..cu4J 5__

e::.... 4 __

eu4J....CI) 3 __

'Ceu4JJ 2__

...,ID~

g

:; 8.7.6.

FIGURE 2 PLOT OF HISTORIC RECURRENCE DATA

Hllllt:

Design Life. N (Years)

FIGURE 3 PROBABILITY OF NONEXCEEDENCE

1.00.9.8-

~-~u,".fIJc::Q1Uc:: .3I-l

.2

.1

Itit

iI

IJI

iI~

J!

El,.":

465490

FIGURE 4 CRITERIA RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR 0.02,0.05,0.10

PERCENT OF CRITICAL DAMPING

NI....\0

3-13. LAVA FLOW RISK ANALYSIS

The lava flow risk analysis is based on the USGS publication by D. R.Mullineaux and D. W. Peterson (Ref. 12), USGS'INF-75-18 (Ref. 13), theStearns report (Ref. 14), reports listed in the references, discussionswith engineers and scientists including those stationed at Kiluaea, and astudy of the local site conditions.

"Lava flows originate in mild welling or fountaining eruptions from apipelike vent or from long linear cracks. From the point of eruption,the molten lava moves generally down the steepest gradient available, butit does not necessarily flow in the manner of water. Instead, it maybuild ridges along its sides and front that locally cause it to crossslopes diagonally, or to pond and flow over obstacles. Natural and arti­ficial obstacles may cause flows to change direction; the diversion maybe permanent if the course the lava is diverted into remains clear, or if

\

little or no additional lava is erupted. But if the new course becomesfilled or clogged, the obstacle that caused the diversion can be over­ri dden. II (Mu 11 ineaux and Peterson, Ref. 12, p. 28) •

The East Rift Zone of Kiluaea is defined by Mullineaux and Peterson(Ref. 12) and in USGS INF-75-18 as that of highest hazard for lavaflows. The same authors state that the historical frequency of suchevents can be used to estimate the likelihood of future events. Riskzones may be physical or judgmental. Those called "physical" are definedby topographic features that would control the extent of future lavaflows as with the site of interest relative to the origination of a flow

HII"':

3-2either to the west or at the site. Those called "judgmental" refle~t theestimates of probable frequency as well as extent of future lava flowssuch as the gap interpretation for the area to the west of the site.liThe risk is highes~ in rift zones next to repeatedly active vents whichare scattered, and is sanewhat less between those vents." (Ref. 12).

The_following material is excerpted fran USGS INF-75-18 as a summary ofvolcanic hazards on the Island of Hawaii. Figure 5 is taken fran thatreport and the explanation of the hazard map of Figure 5 with Table 5fran the same reference follows.

"How are volcanic hazard areas designated?Volcanic hazard areas are designated principally by the location and thefrequency of past eruptions."

"Area F, the area of highest risk, includes the sumnit areas and majorrift zones of Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Most of the land labeled F has a~istoric and recent prehistoric record of active volcanic vents, cones,and craters; ground cracking and subsidence; and burial by laval flows.Narrow coastal regions on parts of Kilauea and Mauna Loa are also labeledF because they lie within belts of frequently active faults in which theland is subject to cracking, abrupt subsidence, and possible flooding bylocally generated tsunamis.

Area E includes the flanks of Kilauea and Mauna Loa that lie directlydownslope fran the summit areas and rift zones where lava flows origi­nate. Land labeled E is susceptible to burial by lava flows eruptedwithin the summit and rift areas labeled F. In addition, vents alongminor rift zones on Mauna Loa have erupted a few times within area E.Degree of risk within this area varies widely, but in general, it becanesless with increasing distance from the sumnits and major rift zones.

15111":

3-3Area DE. Hualalai Volcano. Lava flows have buried land in this area morerecently that in area D. Yet the frequency of eruptions of Hualalai ismuch less than Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Moreover. vents are not confinedto rift zones. Risk on Hualalai is rather poorly defined bec~use of thesparse historic record. but it probably spans a range equivalent to thosein area D and the low risk parts of area E.

Area D includes selected areas on the flanks of Kilauea and Mauna Loathat are somewhat protected by topography fran burial by lava. No his­toric or recent prehistoric flows have invaded these areas.

Area C is the summit region and upper flanks of Mauna Kea. The latesteruptions within this area took place betwen 3.000 and 5.000 years ago.They consisted of small lava flows and moderately explosive emissions ofspatter and particles that built cinder cones. Volcanic ash was spreadwidely by air currents. Future eruptions will probably be similar.although the eruptive frequency is now so low that the hazard must beregarded as very small.

Area B consists of the lower flanks of Mauna Kea. No ~ruptions haveoccurred in this area during the last 10.000 years. This land could beburied only by relatively long lava flows issuing from vents in area C.

Area A. Kohala Volcano. No volcanic activity has occurred in this areafor about 60.000 years. II

"How dangerous are the areas of high hazards?A careful study of figure 5 and table 5 (Figure 2 and Table 2 of Ref. 13)

. and their implications is perhaps the best way to answer this qt.estionFor example. since about 1800 A.D•• lava flows fran 35 different erup­tions· have covered parts of area E; only one eruption on the north flank

151111.:

3-4

of Mauna Loa, in 1859, originated within area E; only one eruption on thenorth flank of Mauna Loa, in 1859, originated within area E. About 15percent of area E has been covered by lava during this 175-year period.In contrast, during the same period approximately 80 eruptions originatedwithin area F, and some land within the area was buried by lava duringeach eruption. Lava has covered about half of area F during this period.

Records show that during each 20-year period from 1830 to the present,between 25 and 75 square miles (65 and 195 square kilometres) of landhave been covered by lava. This is approximately 1 to 3 percent of theregion occupied by Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Area F occupies about onesixth of the area of Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Yet nearly 40 percent of all

- land covered by lava that erupted during historic time has been in areasdesignated F. This indicates that roughly 3 to 8 percent of the land inarea F has been buried during any given 20-year period. In this area of. .highest hazard, roughly 92 to 97 percent of the land remained free fromlava burial during any specific 20-year period. Similarly, from about0.5 to 3 percent of the land in area E'has been buried during various20-year intervals, leaving 97 to 99.5 percent unaffected. Although it isnot certain that this pattern will be maintained, past behavior stillprovides the best clue to future behavior. II

"0nce an area has been covered by lava, is it safe from future burial?No, although many people mistakenly think so. The entire island is madeup of a succession of lava flows, attesting to repeated stacking of oneflow over another throughout the volcanic history of the island. Someareas near Kilauea's summit and along the upper east rift zone have beencovered repeatedly during the past few years. Recent flows across anarea are no guarantee against future burial."

El,.": '

3-5

The risk analysis for lava flow conducted by EDAC is based on the histor­ical occurrence of lava flows in the North Rift Zone of Kiluaea and onreferenced material. The rift zone is identified by a series of lavaflow sources and associated geologic features. The rift zone lies on agradually curving, generally east-west line as shown in Figure 6. Thebas·ic mechanism by which lava flows occur appears to first involve thepenetration of lava from Kiluaea at depths more or less below the riftzone. The lava is then pushed through zones of weakness in the rift zoneto the surface as a result of hydrostatic pressure.

Th~ early historically recorded flows took place between 1700 and 1840and have vented along a narrow line source in the rift zone, indicatingthat succeeding eruptions of lava take place along a developed common.line of weakness.

Examination of the 1700 to 1840 flows also shows that the source line is,relatively continuous. That is, over a period of time, gaps in the·source line become filled by succeeding events.

The second cycle of eruptions began in 1955 with successive flows in1955, 1961 to 1969, 1969 to 1974, and 1977. The flows from near Kilaueato about 15 km west of the site all originate along the same generalline, as do the earlier cycle of flows, 1700 to 1840.

Beginning about 15 km west of the site to 15 km east of the site, a dif­ferent line source of 1ava flow has developed which is roughly parallelto that of the earlier source. This line source runs more or lessthrough the>HGP-Asite, which is on the edge of one of the 1955 lavaflows and close to the source of that flow (Fig. 7.) A5-km gap in therecent occurrence of flows exists just to the west and south of the site(Fig. 8). If a lava flow originates in this gap, the lava could flow bygravity downhill either toward the site or to the north of the site.This is dictated by the area topography.

1511,.1:

3-6

While successive eruptions may not originate on exactly the same vent,the 1977 source (Fig. 8) is very close to that of the 1961 to 1969 flow,so that it is not possible to sqy that multiple events cannot take placefrom the same basic source. Therefore it is also possible that a repiti­tion of the 1955 flow could take place from a vent close to the site.

A study of the topography adjacent to the site and of the lava flows inthe vicinity was made. It appears that existing lava flows have the flowcharacteristics of a viscous liquid, so that while flow is generallydowngrade, the internal pressure gradients in the fluid and progressivechange in viscosity with the loss of gas also influence the flow patterntoa marked degree. The site is generally lower than the rift zone tothe west which is a possible source of a future lava flow. The gradefrom this higher elevation to the vicinity of the site is gradual, sothat high velocities of flow are unlikely. If a flow should originate inthis elevated area relative to the site, it is possible that the flowwould either pass by the site to the north or use the road and adjacentarea including the HGP-A site as a flow path to the south.

The lava flow hazard is difficult to mitigate, particularly if the ventis close to the site. If the future vent proves to be in the weakenedarea defined by the lava flow gap to the west of the site and some dis­tanceaway from the site, it is possible that the flow could be divertedby providing a dike or channel to control the flow aw~ from the site.

HII"':

Recent Prehistoric Time(5,OOO-lear interval prior to 1800)

Num er of Times Percentagelava Flows Have of landCovered land CoveredWithin Area* Within Area*

Historic Time. (Since Approximately 1800~Number of Number of Timesercentage

Times Vents lava Flows Have of LandHave Erupted Covered land Covered

Area Within Area Within Area Within Area

** Most lava flows that entered Areas Dand E erupted from vents inArea F.

* Estimated

AB

C

D

DEE

F

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 01 2 6

1 35** 1580 More than 80 50

oo

less than 5o

More than 10About 10

About 2,000

oless than 5less than 5

More than 10*More than 10

More than 100*More than 2,000

WI

"

,.- ....3-8

~XPLANATI()N

Physical boundary between volcanoc:>

Approltimate jlJugemental boundarybetween areas of relative risk

----_.. -- ---

FIGURE 5 AREAS OF RELATIVE RISK FROM VOLCANIC HAZARDS. RISK INCREASES FROM

"A" THROUGH "F". MAP SHOWS LAVA FLOWS ERUPTED BETWEEN THE'YEARS 1800~. "

HISTORIC l(ILAUEAEAS·C RIFT LAVA FLO\IIJS

SITE OF KAPOHO

...o 5 10 15 KM...1 __--J1 .l1__-.!1 '

'"

FIGURE 6 EAST RIFT ZONEW1\0

, SITE OF KAPOHO

IKAPOHQ, BEACH LOTS i

HISTORIC 'I(ILAUEAEAS-" RIFT LAVA FLO\"JS

1961

.HEIHEIAHULU19G8

'-

, ~.

o 5 10 15 KM...1 __--I.' &...I__-.II I

,·1

I'! .

IIII

I

, i,

I---------------------------------------.......wt.....o

FIGURE 7 APPROXIMATE CENTER lINES OF RIFT ZONES

' ..

o 5' 10 15 KM'~-_ .....I __--L'__--J,. ,

~"-'-' -._ •• _~ ••••••••• _-,._~.,~ ••••~ __.... _ •• -. •• __ •••••'_. 0 •• ,-,-.-••.• _ •• ••••__.••••••• _ ••••••

HISTORIC '.' 1(ILAUEAEAS"- RtFT LAVA FLO~"JS

..... . ,,'..,' ' ,

.' SITE OF KAPOHO

KAPOHO BEACH LOTS

. , .,

.', ..

"

J

FIGURE 8 RECENT LAVA FLOWS COMPARED TO AN EARLIER CYCLE .

. GAP TO WEST OF SITE IS INDICATED

WI..........

4-1. 4. CONCLUSIONS

The natural hazards of earthquake and lava flow present important risksat the HGP-A site. It is possible to mitigate the seismic hazard bydesigning the primary plant components in accordance with the principlesof stru~tural dynamics and the design criteria provided in this report.Other components can be designed using either the newly developed proce­dures of structural engineering in accordance with the ATC-3 report orthe older but less adequate provisions of the USC.

The lava flow risk can likely best be mitigated by providing means forremoving essential plant components" in the event of the occurrence of anew flow in the vicinity of the site.

El,.":

REFERENCES

\

151"1':

R-1

REFERENCES

1. Algennissen, S. T., and D. M. Perkins, "A Probabalistic Estimate ofMaximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States," USGS'Open File Report 76-416, 1976.

,

2. Applied Technology Council, "Tentative Provisions for the Developmentof Seismic Regulations for Buildings,1I U.S. Department of Commerce,National Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 510, National Science Founda­tion PUblication 78-8, ATC 3-06, June 1978.

3. IIEarthquake History of the United States", Publication 41-1, RevisedEdition (through 1970), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, Boulder,Colorado, 1973.

4. IIUnited States Earthquakes,1I Annual publication of the U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey from 1928 through 1968, theNOAA National Ocean Survey for 1969, and the NOAA Environmental DataService, 1970 through 1975.

5. "Preliminary Detennination of 'Epicenters, " USGS, January 1976.

6. Trifunac, M. D., and A'~ G. Brady, "On the correl ation of SeismicIntensity Scales with the Peaks of Recorded Strong Ground Motion,"Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp.139-162, February, 1975.

7. Newmark. N. M., "Inelastic Design of Nuclear Reactor Structures andIts Implications on Design of Critical Eq'uipment,1I Transactions,Fourth International Conference on Stf'uctural Mechanics in ReactorTechnology (SMiRT), 1977, Paper K4/1.

8. Newmark, N. M. ,"A Response Spectrum Approach for Inelastic Seismic.Design of Nuclear Reactor Facilities," Transactions, ThirdInternational Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology(SMiRT), 1975, Paper K5/1, Vol. 4, Part K.

9. Newmark, N. M., and W. J. Hall, "Procedures and Criteria for Earth­quake Resistant Design,1I BUildin~Pract1ces for Disaster Mitigation,National bureau of Standards, Bu Idlng $Clence Series 46, Vol. 1, pp.209 - 236, Washington O. C., February 1975. .

11"1':

Ellllt:

APPENDIX A

THE MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE

1511.1.:

A-IAPPENDIX A

THE MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE*

Mercalli's (1902) improved intensity scale served as a basis for thescale advanced by Wood and Neumann (1931), known as the modified Mercalliscale and commonly abbreviated MM. The modified version is describedbelow with some improvements by Richter (1958). The following remarksare taken almost verbatim from Elementary Seismology, Charles F. Richter(W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, copyright 1958).

To eliminate many verbal repetitions in the original scale, the followinginvention has been adopted. Each effect is named at that level of inten­sity at which it first appears frequently and characteristically. Eacheffect m~ be found less st~ongly, or in fewer instances, at the nextlower grade of intensity; more strongly or more often at the next highergrade. Afew effects are named at two successive levels to indicate amore gradual increase.

MASONRY A, B, C, D.To avoid ambiguity of language, the quality of masonry, brick, or other­wise, is specified by the following lettering (which has no connectionwith the conventional Class A, B,C construction).

Masonry A. Good workmanship, mortar and design; reinforced, espe­cially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc.,designed to resist lateral forces.

* From Newmark and Rosenbleuth, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering,Prentice Hall, 1971 (Ref. 7)

Ellll':

A-2Masonry B. Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but not designed

in detail to resist lateral forces.

Masonry C. Ordinary workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but notdesigned in detail to resist lateral forces.

Masonry D. Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar, low standardsof workmanship; weak horizontally.

Modified Mercal1i Intensity Scale of 1931 (Abridged and Rewritten byC. F. Richter

1. Not felt. Marginal and long-period of large earthquake.

2. "Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed.

3. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing oflight trucks. Duration estimated. May not be recognized as anearthquake.

4. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks;or sensation of a jolt like a heavy ball striking the walls.Standing motor cars rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle.Glasses clink. Crockery clashes. In the upper range of 4,wooden walls and frames crack.

5. Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquidsdisturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced orupset. Doors swing, close, open. Shutters, pictures move. Pen­dulum clocks stop, start, change rate.

6. " Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walkunsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knicknacks,books, and so on, off shelves. Pictures off walls •. Furnituremoved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry Dcracked. Smallbells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken visibly, orheard to rustle.

151111':

A-3

7. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hangingobjects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry Dincludingcracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line•. Fall of plaster,loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices, unbraced parapets, andarchitectural ornaments. Some cracks in masonry C. Waves onponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in alongsand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigationditches damaged.

8. Steering of motor cars affected. Damage to masonry C; partialcollapse. Some damage to masonry B; none to masonry A. Fall ofstucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, fac­tory stacks, monuments, towers, elevated tanks. Frame housesmoved on foundations if not bolted down; loose panel walls thrownout. Decayed piling broken off. Branches broken from trees.Changes in flow or temperature of springs and walls. Cracks inwet ground and on steep slopes.

9. General panic. Masonry Ddestroyed; masonry C heavily damaged,sometimes with complete collapse; masonry B seriously damaged.General damage to foundations. Frame structures, if not bolted,shifted off foundations. Frames racked. Conspicuous cracks inground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected, earthquakefountains, sand craters.

10. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their founda­tions. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed.Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides.Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand andmud shifted horizonally on beaches and flat land. Rails bentslightly.

11. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of ser­vice.

12. Damage nearly total •. Large rock masses displaced. Lines ofsight and level distorted. Objects thrown into the air.

, .

EIIIII:

APPENDIX B

RESPONSE SPECTRA -- HAWAII EARTHQUAKES

EIIII.:

APPENDIX B

RESPONSE SPECTRA -- HAWAII EARTHQUAKES

HII•••:

10/20/78

10.01.0

AJI. ,.- t-.

''l IP"" l\

\"i\

V Ix ....'I

~-1\

1I

V/

II ~

V lJII-

r\

- i\

~

0.0 0.1

0.30

0.10

0.20

-0.00

...Ja:0::t­UUJa..en

"z·o.....t­a:a:::UJ....JUJUUa:

. .. .. . :

PERI~D ~SEC~NDS

RESP~NSE SPECTRA

HILO HAWAIIUNIV OF HAWAII CRND ELEV11/29175,lqq7CMT,N~qE .p2

10/20/78

10.01.0

~ IA_

t\\VI /

!) \j :\

11I U K1I

/,

~~

l/ / f,/ /

JI,....- \

~

" i'

\

.0.0 0.1

-0.00

0.30

"ZlD-t-o:a:::lLJ 0.20...JlLJUU0:

...J0:a:::t­u~ 0.10U)

.. .".

PERIOD ,SECONDS

RESPCJNSE SPECTRA

HILO'HAlJAIIUNIV Of HAWAII CRND ELEV11/29/75,lQQ7CMT,N7QE .OS

10/20/78

10.01.0O. I

f'\>r-i\' -

I~'/ \ ~

,/J v

~,/

,/V I

/ \1/ ~ '"/

.....

\".....

\'\

0.0-0.00

0.25

0.05

'\Zco 0.20....t­a:0:::LLI..J~ 0.15ua:..Ja:0:::t- 0.10uLLIa..en

. ... .. ..:

PERI~D ~SEC~NDS

RESPeJNSE SPECTRA

HILO HAWAIIUNIV OF HAWAII CRND ELEV11/29/75,lijij7CMT,N7ijE .JO

10/20/78

10.01.01

~ 1/\

. ~~v

~IJ/J~ '\~/ JV ~

/'./ 1\

I ....-, '\ \/\

\' .....

0.0 D."

0.1.10

0.20

-0.00

0.80

0.60

"Z10­t-a:0::w..JWUUa:..Ja:0::t­UWa..CI'>

. .. . .

PERICJD .SECCJNDS

RESPONSE· SPECTRA

HILO HAWAIIUNIV Of HAWAII eRND ELEV11 /29/75", Hlll7eMT'" N16W •.05

10/20/78

-

1/

j~f\.

V\

II

\\Ij

/\/ 1\V I V\V

/ ~ ~V ~l

\~~ ~ \

~ ~~t-...

0.1 1.0

PERIOD ,SECONDS10.0

~ILAUEA HAWAIINAMAKANI PAlO CAMPCROUND't/26/73, 1026HS r, 'S30tJ • 02

RESPCJNSE SPECTRA

,

~ 1\,v

(/\~i\1I 't

~1I11VII

\~V 1IV l/

~

:"~.,r\~ I- "",f\....

'" ~"""1-0

'--

KILAUEA HAWAIINAMAKANI rAIO CAMrCROUND1l126173,1026HST,S30U .• 05

1ft-==C.."

0.80

""'"Z

0- 0.60t-a:0:UJ.JUJUUa:

0.110.Ja:0::t-UUJa..en

0.20

-0.000.0

.. .. '. . .

0.1

PERtCJD ~SECCJNDS

RESPCJNSE SPECTRA

lO/QO/78

1.0 10.0

10/20/78

10.00.1 1.0

PERIOD ~SECONDS

fJ 1\/K

~ ~

I~

~IVV ~

V" v

'\V

~r\1\I'~~

~~~0.00

0.0

0.50

to:)

"z 0.11010....f-a:~lU-JLU 0.30uua:-Ja:~ 0.20f-ulUa..(I)

0.10

...

KILAUEA HAtalAI!NAMAKANJ PAlO CAMPC~OUND

11/26n3,.1026HST,S30tal .10RESP~NSE SPECTRA

10/20/78

10.01.01

VI, ,

I~l/l.---\\

. V ~/

~VIrIj lI\

~ J \

~!( '"'~v~r--. r--. .I--.r--f."

0.0

~ r=--f-o.

O.tlO

0.10

0.20

0.30

-0.00

"zot-tI­a:Q:UJ...JUJUUa:..Ja:Q:I­UUJa..en

PERIOD ~SECONDS

RESPCJNSE SPECTRA

KILAUEA HAtJAIINAMAKANI PAlO CAMPCROUNDijI26173#1026HST#S60E .05

10/20/78

10.01.0

J

~~

1I \ II 'J.

~1\

(Y. If[)

i

lAI( v

~

~.

L .'

"""""",,

P"

\

L-

0.0 0.10.00

0.50

0.10

"zco 0.110.-.f­a:0::LU-' .~ 0.30ua:

-'a:0::f- 0.20uLLIa..en

. .. .. . , .

PERICJD ,SECCJNDS

RESP~NSE SPECTRA

PANALUU HAlaIAIIVILLACE RESTAURANT CRNO11/29n5 111lJ7CMT S37la1 .02

10/20/78

-,

~

V~~lIj i\

If<11 ,,~

~~"

fi ~

\

~~ I'V' \l-

I=""'"

PANALUU HAtdAIIVILLACE RESTAURANT CRNOU129nS 111lJ 7CHT S37td .05. .

' ...

0.1

PERIOD ~SECONDS

RESpoNsE SPECTRA

1.0 10.0

A

......~

..

(- rJ. u~

1/ \~

~ \~:- 11'~

~I-"'"

\\

.

0.25

t:)

•z: 0.20(0-t-a:0::IJJ....IJJ 0.15uua:....a:0::

0~10t-uLLI0..(f)

0.05

0.000.0 0.1

10/20/78

1.0 10.0

III­w..C

. : .... '. . .'. . .

PERIOD ~SECONDS

RESPONSE SPECTRA'

PANALUU HAlJAIJVILLACE RESTAURANT CRNO11129/75 1ijij7CMT S37lJ •10

I ~I~ V-\

/ \ \

IlIJ\ ~ ~

v

JY ~~~

if/-- ,r--

0.30

u

"zco.....t-a:a:: 0.20IJJ-'IJJUUa:..Ja:a::t-uUJ 0.100-en

-0.000.0 0.1

· 10/20/78

1.0

PERIOD ~SEC6NDS

10.0

PANALUU HAIdAItVILLACE RESTAURANT CRNDUV29/75 lQQ7CMT N63E .05

RESPONSE SPECTRA

10/20/78

10.01.0

r..

~

\

~~~ \~1.;0 '\

1/I; t..

~.1/ "'~

V IJV I~ ~V I- ,11/

~~

I\~

~~'--

-

0.0 0.1

0.05

0.10

0.15

-0.00

. 0.20

"ZEJ-I-a:0::UJ...JUJUUa:...Ja:0::I­UUJa..(/)

PER I CJO .~ SECCJNOS .

RESP~NSE SPECTRA

HONOKAA HAtdAIICOUNTY SERV SHOPIV29/75 1335CMT NISY Q• 5

10/20/78 '

10.01.0

'/rJr/~I ~ ~

II~ \lL

'II~,.J

.J

-- l?

~k~~~I'-o lI'\

i"-~

0.0 0.1

0.20

0.10

-0.00

"zc.....to- 0.30a:a:::LU.JLUUUa:.Ja:0:to­ULU0..<n

.. . .

PERIDD .SECDNDS

RESPCJNSE SPECTRA

HONOKAA HAldAIICOUNTY SERV SHOP11129/75 lijQ7CMT N15lJ .05

10/20/78

o~ 80 r-l-TJ~l'Tmr--~-TI,'l'-Tmr'....:·~.---,r-,-r-r---

o. 60 r-1-t1itttIt1lft-f-t-H+~f--";"-4~-tjllJLLU"z

(0....~a:a::w..JWU(.J

a:...Ja:a:t­(..)

IJJ0­en

'. .

,

PERIOD ,SECONDS

RESPONSE SPECTRA

10.0

HONOKAA HAIJAIICOUNTY SERV SHOP11129175 lq~7CMT S751J .05..