Evaluation and assessment of nuclear power plant seismic methodology

Abstract

IMi newt wu prtptrtd u n Ktoiirit of work. K ; '•; *owiin<lbytMUiilMSUIHG<>vmiMiit.Ntlit<ill»' ' J) >" Unrrtd *«IB nor la* (MM Sum Eiwny Muntori ' V* * Dmbpflmt Adminhlnttoit, nor any of BtMi "tmploytc^nof any oftMtconbiotori.Nbcontriiclori,ot ifctlr mpkiym, nut* any wtrrmty, Ntprm or InflM, or muypci any lapl UabUMy ct rlipoMfcaity for ll» acairecy, complattMit or UMMMM of any,', WormMton, ippititui, product or preom dur.k>wl or , ttpmnti that lu \m wouKf i not Infanta ^ printaly-owMd'ilthti,. ^'"

Seismic safety margins research program. Phase I. Project VII: systems analysis specifications of computational approach. [PWR; BWR]

“…For example, it may not be possible to accurately define the statistical distribution on the attenuation laws in the eastern United States where strong motion data records are at a premium. This will make it necessary to extrapolate western data for use in the east, assuming that corrections can be made for the different attenuation properties of the two regions[3].Many assumptions will also have to be made in defining other geo-seismic models. Specification of source zones, upper and lower bound magnitudes, the location of the source relative to the site, and so on, are all fraught with uncertainty and bias.…”