Seismic response of rocking frames with top support eccentricity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The seismic response of rocking frames that consist of a rigid beam freely supported on rigid freestanding rectangular piers has received recent attention in the literature. Past studies have investigated the special case where, upon planar rocking motion, the beam maintains contact with the piers at their extreme edges. However, in many real scenarios, the beam‐to‐pier contact lies closer to the center of the pier, affecting the overall stability of the system. This paper investigates the seismic response of rocking frames under the more general case which allows the contact edge to reside anywhere in‐between the center of the pier and its extreme edge. The study introduces a rocking block model that is dynamically equivalent to a rocking frame with vertically symmetric piers of any geometry. The impact of top eccentricity (ie, the distance of the contact edge from the pier's vertical axis of symmetry) on the seismic response of rocking frames is investigated under pulse excitations and earthquake records. It is concluded that the stability of a top‐heavy rocking frame is highly influenced by the top eccentricity. For instance, a rocking frame with contacts at the extreme edges of the piers can be more seismically stable than a solitary block that is identical to one of the frame's piers, while a rocking frame with contacts closer to the centers of the piers can be less stable. The concept of critical eccentricity is introduced, beyond which the coefficient of restitution contributes to a greater reduction in the response of a frame than of a solitary pier.
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) | 0.001 | 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".