Earthquake soil‐structure interaction of nuclear power plants, differences in response to 3‐D, 3 × 1‐D, and 1‐D excitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In soil‐structure interaction modeling of systems subjected to earthquake motions, it is classically assumed that the incoming wave field, produced by an earthquake, is unidimensional and vertically propagating. This work explores the validity of this assumption by performing earthquake soil‐structure interaction modeling, including explicit modeling of sources, seismic wave propagation, site, and structure. The domain reduction method is used to couple seismic (near‐field) simulations with local soil‐structure interaction response. The response of a generic nuclear power plant model computed using full earthquake soil‐structure interaction simulations is compared with the current state‐of‐the‐art method of deconvolving in depth the (simulated) free‐field motions, recorded at the site of interest, and assuming that the earthquake wave field is spatially unidimensional. Results show that the 1‐D wave‐field assumption does not hold in general. It is shown that the way in which full 3‐D analysis results differ from those which assume a 1‐D wave field is dependent on fault‐to‐site geometry and motion frequency content. It is argued that this is especially important for certain classes of soil‐structure systems of which nuclear power plants subjected to near‐field earthquakes are an example.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".