Database of rocking shallow foundation performance: Dynamic shaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several experimental studies have shown that rocking shallow foundations have beneficial seismic performance features: recentering and energy dissipation with little damage. A new publicly available database, “FoRDy” (Foundation Rocking—Dynamic), summarizes the results of dynamic physical model tests of single‐degree‐of‐freedom‐like structures supported on rocking foundations. It contains data from five centrifuge and three 1‐ g shaking table test series that were conducted at experimental facilities in the United States, Greece, and Japan. The database includes 200 model “case histories” that span a wide range of model sizes, soil and structure properties, and seismic excitations. It is compiled as the first step toward building a comprehensive dynamic rocking foundation database, and it has the potential to grow in the future. To illustrate its usefulness, the data are used to show example correlations between the peak drift ratio demand and selected ground motion intensity measures. The results suggest that peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground displacement (PGD), and the geometric mean of the linear spectral displacement over the period range of 0.2–3 times the initial natural period predict the peak drift ratio response reliably.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".