MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212911253 · doi:10.1785/0220210325

Ambient Vibration Modal Analysis of Natural Rock Towers and Fins

2022· article· en· W4212911253 on OpenAlexaff
Riley Finnegan, Jeffrey R. Moore, Paul R. Geimer, Alex Dzubay, Erin K. Bessette‐Kirton, Jackson Bodtker, Kathryn Vollinger

Bibliographic record

VenueSeismological Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophoneVibrationGeologyStructural engineeringTowerSeismometerModal analysisModalNormal modeCantileverNatural frequencyMode (computer interface)Modal testingSeismologyAcousticsEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The dynamic properties of freestanding rock towers are important inputs for seismic stability and vibration hazard assessments, however data describing the natural frequencies, mode shapes, and damping ratios of these landforms remain rare. We measured the ambient vibration of 14 sandstone and conglomerate rock towers and fins in Utah, United States, using broadband seismometers and nodal geophones. Fundamental frequencies vary between 0.8 and 15 Hz—inversely with tower height—and generally exhibit subhorizontal modal vectors oriented parallel to the minimum tower width. Modal damping ratios are low across all features, between 0.6% and 2.2%. We reproduced measured modal attributes in 3D numerical eigenfrequency models for 10 of the 14 landforms, showing that the fundamental mode of these features is full-height bending akin to a cantilever. Fin-like landforms commonly have a torsional second mode whereas tower-like features have a second full-height bending mode subperpendicular to the fundamental. In line with beam theory predictions, our data confirm that fundamental frequencies scale with the ratio of a tower’s width to its squared height. Compiled data from 18 other sites support our results, and taken together, provide guidance for estimating the modal properties of rock towers required for vibration risk assessment and paleoseismic shaking intensity analysis in different settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeismological Research LettersSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207