Performance evaluation of vibration-sensitive equipment foundations under ground-transmitted excitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The planning of foundations for equipment that is sensitive to vibrations requires a thorough dynamic investigation of the proposed location of the foundation with regard to the effect of already existing or additional vibration sources. This paper discusses the analyses performed for a number of foundations supporting vibration-sensitive equipment that has been subjected to ground-transmitted excitations. These analyses considered the dynamic response of the foundations resulting from the normal operation of the supported equipment or the ground-transmitted excitations. In one case, the foundation of the Canadian Light Source, a third generation synchrotron that will be capable of generating electromagnetic radiation used in the study of the atomic and subatomic structure of materials, is examined. Another case involves the vibration analysis of a magnetic resonance imaging unit affected by traffic excitation. In the third case, a power plant facility that is subjected to blast-induced vibration from an adjacent quarry is investigated. The last case involves the response analysis of a compressor foundation affected by the ground-transmitted vibration from another compressor situated on a different foundation within the same facility. To assess the level of seismic excitation at the site due to traffic on an adjacent roadway in the first two cases and to blasting activity in the third case, extensive "green field" ground vibration-monitoring programs were carried out. The ground accelerations due to traffic and blasting were measured and recorded for three directions simultaneously: a vertical and two orthogonal horizontal directions. The measurements with the most intense ground accelerations taken at the ground surface in the location of the future equipment foundation were selected as the final design acceleration time-history. A Fourier analysis approach was used to predict the response of the foundation to the ground-induced vibrations in the first three cases, and a frequency domain analysis was used in the last case.Key words: machine foundations, vibration, blasting, kinematic, soil-structure interaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".