STR-922: IMPACT OF SLENDERNESS ON THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF ROCKING FRAMES IN ONTARIO NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) are located on the eastern side of the North American continent, with the majority of them in Ontario. The Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), based on West Coast records, is prescribed in the Canadian nuclear standards. Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment studies of the existing plants consider time histories obtained from the latest research on the East Coast earthquakes as seismic input to the analysis. Although Canadian standards are silent about rocking response of unanchored objects, various industry guidelines and the standard ASCE 43-05 prescribe methodologies in this regard. Applications of a rocking frame in a NPP may vary from squat piers supporting a heavy rigid object to a slender masonry frame consisting of two concrete block walls and a rigid diaphragm on top. The methods of analysis prevalent in the nuclear industry recommend obtaining the response of an individual pier of a rocking frame, rather than an equivalent pier representing the rocking frame. Methods of obtaining an equivalent pier, whose response is the same as that of a rocking frame, have been detailed in the literature where it has been emphasized that rocking frames are more stable than an individual rocking pier. However, it is noticed that the response of rocking frames is influenced by their slenderness and also by the boundary condition at the contact between the piers and the top mass. The support boundary conditions are bounded by two extremes: the full top width of a pier, or a point support at its top center. This paper compares the equivalent block parameters of rocking frames for these two extreme boundary conditions. Also, it presents the seismic response of a slender rocking frame subjected to earthquake records compatible with the DBE spectra of Ontario NPPs, as well as spectra used in risk analysis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".