Finite element analysis of the seismic shake‐table response of a rocking podium structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rocking podium structures consist of rocking columns supporting a platform to achieve kinematic seismic isolation of the superstructure above. This article presents detailed finite element (FE) analysis modeling and results of the benchmark rocking podium structure that was tested as part of a blind prediction contest organized by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center (PEER) at UC Berkeley, the University of Bristol, and ETH Zurich in 2019. Details of the FE modeling approach, as well as a discussion on key results and findings of this study are outlined herein. It was found that the FE model of the rocking podium structure was not sensitive to the element type, mesh layout or maximum time step, while the choice of contact algorithm influences the stability of the predicted rocking behavior. Modeling of the friction interactions between the rocking interfaces also had a nontrivial influence on the dynamic rocking response as it represented the main source of energy dissipation in the system. Further, instead of assuming an arbitrary value for inherent damping which was deemed to be very low for such a structure, explicit modeling of the frictional dissipation mechanism at the column‐to‐podium interface was preferred in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 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".