Dynamics of a sliding‐rocking block considering impact with an adjacent wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A freestanding rigid block subjected to base excitation can exhibit complicated motion described by five response modes: rest, pure rocking, pure sliding, combined sliding‐rocking, and free flight. Previous studies on the dynamics of a rocking block have assumed that the block does not interact with neighboring objects. However, there are many applications in which the block may start or come in contact with an adjacent boundary during its motion, for example, a bookcase or cabinet colliding with a partition wall in an earthquake. This paper investigates the dynamics of a sliding‐rocking block considering impact with an adjacent wall. A model is developed in which the base and wall are assumed rigid, and impact is treated using the classical impulse and momentum principle. The model is verified by comparing its predictions in numerical simulations against those of an existing general‐purpose rigid‐body model in which impact is treated using a viscoelastic impact model. The developed model is used to investigate the effects of different parameters on the stability of a block subjected to analytical pulse excitations. It is found that wall placement (left or right) has a dominant effect on the shape of the overturning acceleration spectra for pulse excitations. In general, decreasing the gap distance, base friction coefficient, and wall coefficient of restitution enhance the stability of the block. Similar observations are made when evaluating the overturning probability of a block using earthquake floor motions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".