Requirement of Rocking Spectrum in Canadian Nuclear Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Nuclear Standards CSA N289. 1 (2008) and CSA N289.3 (2010) define the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) for a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and also provide a generic response spectrum in this regard which can be scaled to suit a particular site.In NPPs on several occasions the analysis of a rocking object is required.In such situations, a designer has to go through the literature containing rocking theories by many authors.Rocking has not been discussed in the Canadian standards.In the absence of any guideline from the Canadian standards and in order to simplify the analysis a designer tends to rely on the reserve energy method equating the rocking object to a single degree of freedom (SDOF) oscillator with an equivalent frequency.The seismic acceleration pertaining to that frequency is obtained from an applicable response spectrum and is compared to the overturning acceleration.However, a rocking object is not a SDOF oscillator and its behavior cannot be predicted by a typical response spectrum representing the peak response of a family of SDOF oscillators to an earthquake.This paper compares the results obtained from the reserve energy method and from the rocking equation of motion and concludes that the simplification of rocking analysis can be achieved by establishing a rocking spectrum.Inclusion of guidelines in the Canadian standards with regard to rocking is warranted.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".