Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32 (2012) 152158

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Technical Note

Linearization of rigid body dynamics on frictional interfaces under


harmonic loading
Bogart C. Mendez n, Miguel P. Romo, Eduardo Botero
Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM. Ciudad Universitaria, CP 04510, Mexico D.F.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 17 March 2011
Received in revised form
3 July 2011
Accepted 27 August 2011
Available online 21 September 2011

The non-linear dynamic response of the rigid block is linearized by means of a friction model that implicitly
considers block response through an experimental parameter obtained from shaking table experiments. In
view of the great difculty in carrying out shaking table experiments, in this technical note some
recommendations to estimate friction model parameters are given. The selection of parameters considers
the sliding response mode of the blockplane-excitation system: stickslip or continuous sliding. Once all
the friction parameters and block response mode were estimated, a methodology was proposed to compute
rigid block dynamic response. The numerical results were then compared to actual experimental data for a
rigid block sliding on a geotextilewood interface, along an inclined plane subjected to base harmonic
acceleration. Experiments were carried out for both the stickslip and the continuous sliding modes.
Computed and measured responses for both cases showed good agreement, thus indicating that the
methodology developed in this research is adequate to capture the physics (of non-linear nature) of rigid
blocks sliding on frictional interfaces subjected to complex harmonic loading. The ndings encourage the
extension of the linearization technique to the more general seismic loading case.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The analysis of rigid bodies under dynamic actions is important in
a great number of engineering applications. Many structures can be
regarded as a rigid block, if certain conditions are met [1], thus
simplifying the dynamic analyses. However, rigid block dynamics are
non-linear due to the non-conservative nature of the friction phenomenon, which develops within the interface. Traditionally, Coulombs friction law has been used in such analyses, thus assuming a
constant friction coefcient. Even though friction is the only physical
characteristic dominating the rigid block problem for a given input
motion and plane inclination, a great number of rigid block methods
of analysis, based on Coulombs friction law, have been developed for
engineering practice over the past decades [e.g., 29]. Furthermore,
other friction laws have been proposed, commonly in terms of
interface relative velocity [e.g., 10,11], in an attempt to model the
variation of friction coefcient during sliding. Regardless as to
whether the friction coefcient is considered constant or variable
during rigid block response analyses, the problem remains non-linear.
Most of the existing methods for rigid block dynamic analysis
readily assume a stickslip sliding response. However, a continuous

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bmendezu@iingen.unam.mx (B.C. Mendez).

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.08.007

sliding mode (i.e., no stick phase) can also develop. Accordingly, some
sliding criteria have been proposed to distinguish between stickslip
and continuous sliding, like that proposed by Younis and Tadjbakhsh
[12], which focuses on cosine velocity ground motions. Another
sliding criterion is that developed by Mendez et al. [13] for arbitrary
harmonic excitations. These harmonic excitations can be either plain,
i.e., square wave, triangular wave, sine, cosine, etc., or complex, i.e., the
superposition of several harmonic waves with different frequencies.
The problem dealt within this technical note is that of computing
rigid block dynamic response considering friction between the block
and its sliding plane. Not only a variable friction law that linearizes
sliding block dynamics is used, but also a practical guideline is given
to select the friction model parameters in the absence of shaking
table experiments. The models parameter selection is ruled by
blocks sliding response, either continuous or stickslip mode,
amplitude of harmonic acceleration and interface static friction
coefcient. The friction model used in the linearization is expressed
in terms of rate ground velocity [14], rather than in term of
instantaneous ground velocity, as has been traditionally proposed
when trying to account for velocity effects in dynamic friction.
The linearization technique proposed herein simplies the
computations, thus enhancing the rigid block approach, widely
used in seismic engineering practice. The simplied method for
rigid block dynamics presented herein was assessed through
shaking table experiments, for a geotextilewood interface and
inclined plane condition.

ndez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32 (2012) 152158


B.C. Me

2. Sliding rigid block theoretical response


The rigid block response acceleration was obtained from
interface friction variation between the block and the sliding
plane. Mendez et al. [14] and Mendez [15] presented a theoretical
analysis that yielded an expression for the instantaneous friction
coefcient, m(t), during stick or sliding conditions for the inclined
case is given by

mt tan fs tan y

9U g t99U t9g tan y


N=mcos y

where fs is the interface static friction angle, y is the planes

g(t) are rigid


inclination angle, m is the block mass, U(t)
and U
block response and ground acceleration, respectively, N is the
interface normal force varying with the input acceleration as
given as follows:
N mg cos y 9U g t9msin y sgn U g t

Where sgn is the signum function. Solving Eq. (2) for the term
N=m cos y, Eq. (3) is obtained
N
g 9U g t9tan y sgn U g t
m cos y

To obtain the rigid block acceleration as a function of plane


inclination, input excitation and friction coefcient, Eq. (1) was
solved for U t



N 
U t 9U g t9
tan fs tan ymt g tan y sgn U g t
m cos y
4
Eq. (4) is non-linear, because the friction coefcient m(t) depends
on block^s response acceleration U t, as stated by Eq. (1). To
linearize Eq. (4), a friction model was used where m(t) is approximated using input acceleration and an experimental rate parameter.

3. Variable friction model


The friction model advanced by Mendez et al. [14] was used in
Eq. (4), to compute rigid block response acceleration. This model is
based on previous models that use an exponential function to
smoothen the transition between static, ms, and dynamic, md,
conditions [e.g., 10], where ms 4 md was assumed. The model of
Mendez et al. [14] also considers the possibility of ms o md, and thus
it is also based on models with the ms o md assumption, such as that
from Constantinou et al. [11]. Based on experimental evidence
obtained by the authors [e.g., 14,15], they advanced the model
given by Eq. (5) that includes both ms 4 md and ms o md possibilities:

1


ld
mt ms exp   U_ g t
5
g dt
|{z}
static term |{z}
dynamic term

where U_ g t is the excitation velocity and l is an experimental


parameter that accounts for friction decay rate with loading,
obtained for a particular interface and input acceleration.
Due to the exponential nature of Eq. (5), it has to be modied
in order to predict friction coefcients larger than the static value.
Accordingly, Mendez et al. [14] proposed the following equation,
where Dm is an experimental parameter used to accomplish the
following:

1


ld
mt ms Dmexp   U_ g t
6
g dt
Parameters l and Dm are estimated from shaking table tests.
However, shaking table facilities are not readily available for
every possible application of the model proposed. Therefore, in

153

this technical note the authors propose a methodology to estimate the value of these constants, without the need for carrying
out shaking table experiments.
3.1. Modied friction model
The problem dealt within this research is depicted in Fig. 1,
where a rigid block sliding down an inclined plane under the
action of a horizontal acceleration is considered.
The block can respond either in continuous or stickslip
sliding, depending on interface friction characteristics and input
acceleration. To estimate the type of block sliding mode, the
sliding type criterion developed by Mendez et al. [13] was used.
The criterion is based on the concept of a limiting acceleration,
given by
U g lim

U y g ms
1tan yms tan y

Under harmonic excitation, continuous sliding will occur if the


input acceleration exceeds the value of the limiting acceleration
that can be transmitted through the sliding interface: U g lim ,
given by Eq. (7). If that value is not exceeded, stickslip motion
will happen [13].
The sliding criterion presented in Eq. (7) was used to estimate
the value of the parameter l from shaking table results, as
proposed by Mendez et al. [14], who stated that continuous sliding
occurs when the dynamic friction coefcient drops to zero (or close
to zero) values, i.e., the sliding plane moves too fast for the block to
follow it, thus not giving enough time for the friction force to
develop. On the other hand, stickslip motion develops when the
input velocity rate is not high enough to inhibit the friction
phenomenon. In this case, the minimum friction coefcient during
sliding was obtained under the hypothesis that it is a fraction of
the static value, and depends on how close the maximum input
acceleration is to the limiting acceleration. Mathematically, the
latter hypothesis implies a proportionality relation between the
minimum friction coefcient and the ratio between maximum and
limiting ground acceleration, x U g max =U g lim , hence

mmin px

In accordance to experimental evidence achieved by the


authors [15], for the interface tested in this research (wood
geotextile), and for other materials tested by Mendez [15], the
proportionality constant in Eq. (8) can be assumed equal to (ms)2.
Accordingly, Eq. (8) can be rewritten as

mmin  ms 2 x

Therefore, to have an approximation of the l parameter for a


particular blockplane system subjected to a given excitation, its
sliding response should be estimated rst according to the
criterion expressed by Eq. (7), and then l should be forced to
satisfy the minimum friction coefcient, mmin , during sliding, i.e.,
either zero (continuous sliding) or the value given by Eq. (9)
(stickslip response).
Regarding the approximate value of the Dm parameter, a good
estimate of it is achieved by using the x ratio, under the

< s

FF = N

g (t)
Fig. 1. Rigid block sliding down an inclined plane.

ndez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32 (2012) 152158


B.C. Me

154

hypothesis that it gives the percentage of friction greater than ms,


as follows:
In the continuous sliding mode we have U g max 4 U g lim , thus

x 41.
In the stickslip sliding mode we have U g max o U g lim , thus

x  1 41.

Therefore, the maximum value of the friction coefcient


during sliding is approximately given by mmax ms x in the con1
tinuous response, or by mmax ms x
in the stickslip mode.
Accordingly, it is possible to obtain the value of Dm by subtracting
ms from mmax : Dm mmax ms . But mmax ms x or mmax ms x1 for
continuous or stickslip response, respectively. Therefore, Dm is
nally given by
For continuous sliding : Dm ms x1
1

For stick2slipmode : Dm ms x

1

10
11

The values given by Eqs. (10) and (11) are approximate, but
they have proved to yield good estimates for Dm, for the interface
tested in this research, as presented in a later section of this
technical note.

4. Procedure for computing dynamically induced rigid block


displacements
Once an appropriate friction model was selected and modied
to t the needs of the rigid block sliding problem, Eq. (4) was used
to compute blocks response accelerations, conforming to the
steps listed below.
4.1. Applicability of rigid block assumption
The experiments used in this technical note were carried out
with a rigid block. However, the rigid block response mode is not
applicable for all kinds of structures. Accordingly, other authors
have performed research to study the applicability of the rigid
block response hypothesis. For example, Wartman et al. [1] found
that if the ratio between the dominant frequency of excitation, fg,
to the natural frequency of the sliding structure, fs, lies in the
range 0.21.3, then the structure cannot be assumed to respond
as a rigid block. Accordingly, the methodology described in this
technical note should be applied only outside the mentioned
range, i.e., 0.20 4(fg/fs)41.30.
4.2. Estimating rigid block response mode

practice, the sliding mode governing rigid block response will


depend on the specic application analyzed. For example, continuous sliding is prone to occur in seismically friction-isolated
structures, while stickslip response behavior develops in larger
friction interfaces, like retaining gravity walls, unattached
equipment, etc.
Once Dm is selected, the l parameter can be estimated: For
continuous sliding, the value of l should be such that the friction
coefcient (given by Eq. (6)) for harmonic loading yields a zero
value, or very close to it (e.g., 0.01), of the friction coefcient
(given by Eq. (6)) in harmonic loading. If the response is of the
stickslip mode, then the value of l should satisfy Eq. (9).
4.4. Computing rigid block displacements
Block displacements are computed according to sliding
response mode. For the continuous sliding case, Eq. (4) is used
to compute rigid block time response accelerations, and by
numerical integration its corresponding velocities and displacements are calculated.
Due to its strong dependence on friction variation, the stick
slip case is more difcult to analyze as compared to continuous
sliding. To successfully use Eq. (4) to compute the complete block
response time series, the exact laboratory variation of the friction
coefcient should be used. As this is impractical to do, additional
considerations have to be made. These rely on the experimental
fact that during sliding, rigid block response acceleration remains
virtually constant once it has acquired its maximum value. This
value is usually higher than the yield acceleration, as documented
in laboratory by several authors [e.g., 1,14,16,17]. Accordingly, Eq.
(4) is used to compute block response accelerations from the
beginning of the sliding phase to the maximum value of response
acceleration, i.e., from t1 to t2 in Fig. 2. This is done using the
friction variation obtained considering the estimates of l and Dm
used in Eq. (6). Fig. 2 presents a typical sliding phase in a sliding
rigid block experiment, where ve points of the sliding event are
highlighted. Sliding starts at t1 when the yield acceleration value
is reached. From t1 to t2, block response acceleration increases
over the yield value, due to the gradual decrease of the friction
coefcient. From t2 to t4, block acceleration remains constant, at
point t3 block and sliding plane accelerations are equal. Before
time t3, sliding plane acceleration is higher than blocks response
(zone A in Fig. 2), and the opposite response evolves after t3. This
behavior is due to the effect of sliding under dynamic loading (see
[18] for more details). Blocks acceleration starts decreasing from
time t4 to t5 where block and sliding plane couple again. At this
point, the block velocity relative to the sliding plane is zero.
However, if the computed relative velocity does not equal zero at

Once the applicability of the rigid block method has been


assessed, its response mode can be estimated. In this technical
note, the criterion proposed by Mendez et al. [13] was used for
this purpose:

Input accel. (g) Constant


.
Rising U

If U g lim 4U g max , then the block will respond in stickslip


mode.
If U g lim o U g max , then the block will respond in continuous
sliding.

Experimentally observed
response acceleration,

A
B
max

Sliding phase
y

4.3. Dening friction model parameters

t (s)
t1

In this stage, the friction model proposed by Mendez et al. [14]


is used to approximate the blockplane interface variable friction.
The rst parameter to be determined is Dm. For continuous or
stickslip response it is given by Eq. (10) or (11), respectively. In

t2

t3

t4

t5

Fig. 2. Stickslip response cycle.

ndez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32 (2012) 152158


B.C. Me

point t5, then it should be attenuated according to the following


recurrent equation [19]:
U_ rel i U_ rel i1 gKd Dt

12

where U_ rel i is the blockplane relative velocity at step i, Dt is the


time step and the attenuation coefcient is given by Kd U max =g,
instead of Kd U y =g, which is the value normally used in practice
[19]. The Kd U max =g condition is used to account for the
experimental evidence that has shown that block response acceleration reaches values higher than the yield acceleration [e.g.,
1,14,16,17], thus the value of the attenuation coefcient must be
adjusted in accordance with this experimental observation [15].

5. Experimental program and apparatus used


In this section the experimental program carried out to assess
the proposed simplied model is described. Shaking table tests
were performed to analyze rigid block dynamic responses for a
geotextilewood interface.
Experiments were performed with an instrumented 15  25 
3.5 cm3 aluminum rigid block sliding on a wooden inclined plane.
The material used was polished plywood. To avoid tearing of the
geotextile during sliding the plywood used was very smooth and

Rigid block
Accelerometers
Sliding
plane
ending

LVDT
Sliding
plane
0 < < 30

Sliding
interface

155

also the geotextile. The block had a geotextile sliding surface, and
the geotextile on wood interface had a static friction angle (fs) of
211 (ms 0.38). This value was measured in a number of tilt tests
performed by increasing the sliding pad inclination always at the
same rate to ensure equal shear stress increase at the blockpad
interface each time block-sliding was set forth.
The block mass was 6.5 kg. The shake table has a pad that can
be set at inclinations between 01 and 301. A detailed description of
the table and supporting equipment is given elsewhere [18,20].
Fig. 3(a) depicts the general arrangement of the instruments set
on the rigid block used in the experimental investigation.
During the tests, an accelerometer recorded the blocks time
history response. A comparison between motions imposed by the
actuator and those recorded on the sliding plane is presented in
Fig. 3(b), which shows that no strenuous noise contaminated
recorded time histories on the block and the sliding plane [15]. It
is seen in Fig. 3(b) that planes measured acceleration is about 12%
larger than that imposed by the actuator. However, this is not an
issue that matters because shake table pad accelerations were
used for all the computations. Displacements were computed by
integrating twice these accelerograms using the rectangular
integration technique and then compared to measured relative
displacements using a linear variable displacement transducer
(LVDT), which provided redundant information that conrmed
the reliability of the monitoring systems. All dynamic tests were
performed on rigid blocks settled on the shaking pad inclined at
different angles. Two inclinations (y) were considered: 61 for the
continuous response mode and 51 for the stickslip case. The
input motion was recorded directly on the sliding plane, to have a
precise knowledge of the actual block excitation. All the input
motions used were harmonic with an amplitude of 6 cm. However, two frequencies were considered: 3.5 Hz for the 61 inclination test and 1.8 Hz for the 51 case.
5.1. Experimental results

Attached to actuator

(m/s2)

Fig. 3. General outline of the experimental setup (a) and acceleration comparison
between actuator and accelerometer (b).

7.00
3.50
0.00
-3.50
-7.00
6.40

Block

Recorded accelerations for continuous and stickslip response


modes are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. It is observed in
Fig. 4 that block and sliding plane accelerations are not equal
during the test, i.e., no stick phase was present in that experiment.
In Fig. 5 a stickslip mode is observed. Accordingly, both phases
are clearly distinguished by the coupling and uncoupling of table
block accelerations.
It is also seen in Fig. 5 that the yield acceleration and the timeacceleration block response during the stickslip experiment
varied slightly from cycle to cycle. This was most likely due to a
spatial wood roughness distribution. The variation of yield acceleration with every sliding cycle was measured directly from the
accelerometers, and two average values were used: 0.59 m/s2 for
cycles 13, and 0.16 m/s2 for cycles four and ve. These values are
indicated by the broken lines in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 contains measured displacements for both cases, where
small upslope movements are barely noticeable. For the stickslip
response mode, these displacements are present, but in practice
they can be neglected.

Table

6.60

6.80

7.00

7.20

t (s)
Fig. 4. Recorded block and table accelerations for continuous mode.

7.40

ndez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32 (2012) 152158


B.C. Me

156

(m/s2)

4.00
2.00
0.00
-2.00
-4.000.00

0.50

1.00

1.50
t (s)
Block

2.00

2.50

3.00

Table

Fig. 5. Recorded block and table accelerations for stickslip mode. Average yield acceleration shown in broken line (see Table 3).

150

150

U (mm)

U (mm)

200

100
50
0
6.40

6.90

7.40

100
50
0
0.00

7.90

1.00

t (s)

2.00

3.00

t (s)

Fig. 6. Recorded relative displacements for (a) continuous and (b) stickslip modes.

6. Numerical response of the sliding rigid block


To investigate its predicting capabilities, the proposed methodology was applied to the rigid blocks sliding on the GW
interface for both stickslip and continuous sliding modes. The
rst step is to estimate blocks response mode using Eq. (7) to
compute U g lim , the resulting values are shown in Table 1. The
value of yield acceleration presented in Table 1 for the stickslip
case corresponds only to the rst cycle, but the rest of the cycles
also responded in stickslip mode. For the continuous sliding
mode, the yield acceleration value shown in Table 1 corresponds
to the beginning of sliding only, as the block did not couple again
to the plane during the test.
Once the sliding response was estimated, Eqs. (9)(11) were
used to calculate the friction model parameters l and Dm, the
computed values are shown in Table 2. Table 3 contains the
values of l (computed) and U y (measured), along with the values
of the attenuation coefcient, Kd, used for each cycle of the stick
slip response. A single value of U y , l and Dm, presented in Table 1,
was used for the analysis of the continuous sliding mode.
A comparison between the friction coefcients computed with Eq.
(6) and those calculated from experimental measurements Eq. (1) is
presented in Fig. 7 for both sliding modes. It is seen that the proposed
friction model ts better the laboratory results for the continuous
sliding case as compared to those of the stickslip response. However,
for application purposes, the friction coefcients estimated with the
model proposed herein are sufciently approximated to experimental
values. The peaks observed in Fig. 7(b) for the stickslip case are
caused by parameter Dm because it raises the value of the friction
coefcient over the static one, thus causing these peaks right when
sliding starts. Nonetheless, the duration of those peak values is too
small to inuence the overall rigid block response, as seen in the
computed relative displacements presented next.
Once all the parameters involved in Eq. (4) are computed, it is
used to calculate the blocks response acceleration. Block acceleration is computed for each time step throughout the input
motion duration. Afterwards, rigid block displacements are computed by numerically integrating twice blocks response acceleration (computed with Eq. (4)). Common integration techniques
can be used for this purpose, e.g., rectangular rule, trapezoidal
rule, Simpsons rule, etc. The former was used in the worked
example presented in this technical note.

Table 1
Parameters used to compute U g lim and the sliding response mode for each
interface.
Parameter

Stickslip

Continuous

5.00
0.38
0.59

6.00
0.38
0.08

ls
y (m/s2)
U
g)max (m/s2)
(U

3.55

5.10

g)lim (m/s2)
(U

4.43

3.92

0.80

1.30

Table 2
Estimated parameters to use in the friction model.
Parameter

Stickslip

Continuous

0.80
0.38
0.12
2.70
0.09

1.30
0.38
Around zero
2.30
0.11

ls
lmin
k
Dl

Table 3
Average friction parameters for every cycle of the stickslip response.
Cycle

y (m/s2)
U

Dl

Kd

1
2
3
4
5

0.59
0.59
0.59
0.16
0.16

2.70
2.70
2.70
2.45
2.45

0.09
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.06

0.17
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15

The procedure developed in this research was implemented in a


computer code that estimates all the friction parameters and then
uses Eq. (4) to compute the blocks dynamic response. Figs. 8 and 9
show measured and computed relative velocities and displacements, respectively, between the table and the block, for the sliding
cases considered. It is seen in Fig. 8 that computed relative
velocities are very close to experimental values for both sliding
modes. However, Fig. 8(a) shows that for the continuous sliding

ndez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32 (2012) 152158


B.C. Me

Computed

1.50

Laboratory

Computed

157

Laboratory

1.50

0.50

/s

/s

1.00

0.00

1.00
0.50

-0.50
-1.00
6.40

6.90

7.40

0.00
0.00

7.90

1.00

2.00

3.00

t (s)

t (s)

Fig. 7. Computed and measured normalized m for (a) continuous and (b) stickslip cases.

Computed

Laboratory

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
6.40

0.20
Vrel (m/s)

Vrel (m/s)

0.40

6.90

7.40

Computed

0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
0.00

7.90

Laboratory

0.15

1.00

t (s)

2.00
t (s)

3.00

4.00

Fig. 8. Relative velocity for (a) continuous and (b) stickslip cases.

150

Computed
Laboratory

150
U (mm)

U (mm)

200

100
50
0
6.40

6.90

7.40

7.90

Computed
Laboratory

100
50
0
0.00

t (s)

1.00

2.00

3.00

t (s)

Fig. 9. Relative displacements for (a) continuous and (b) stickslip cases.

response, computed velocities are slightly different from laboratory


values. This small difference has a negligible impact on computed
displacements, as observed in Fig. 9(a), where the displacement at
the end of every cycle matches closely the measured values. For the
stickslip case, computed velocities agree very well with experimental values, except for sliding cycle number 3, where the
computed value is lower than the experimental one. This difference
could be attributed to a number of factors, including the approximation of the friction model parameters proposed in this technical
note or to variations in woods surface roughness, which is not
accounted for in the proposed model.

7. Concluding remarks
The linearization technique proposed in this technical note
proved to be effective in modeling rigid block motion considering
interface variable friction. The model modied according to the
recommendations given to estimate the parameters of the friction
model adequately captured the physical behavior of the block
plane system under the excitation considered, as shown by the
comparison between computed and experimental blocks
response under harmonic loading. It was observed that the best
match between computed and measured responses was in terms
of relative displacements, although it was also very good in terms
of relative velocity. The computations considered a constant static
friction angle. However, a variable fs can be included if needed;

in which case, the parameters of the proposed friction model have


to be computed for every value of fs, as recommended in this
technical note.
The results that obtained with the linearization technique
presented here are good enough to encourage further research
to investigate the more general case of seismic loading, where
rigid block sliding response can alternate between stickslip and
continuous modes, depending on the input motion characteristics.

References
[1] Wartman J, Bray JD, Seed RB. Inclined plane studies of the Newmark sliding
block procedure. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
2003;129:67384.
[2] Newmark NM. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 1965;15(2):13960.
[3] Sarma SK. Seismic stability of earth dams and embankments. Geotechnique
1975;25(4):74361.
[4] Makdisi FI, Seed HB. Simplied procedure for estimating dam and embankment
earthquake-induced deformations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
ASCE 1978;104(7):84967.
[5] Chang Ch, Chen WF, Yao JTP. Seismic displacements in slopes by limit
analysis. Journal of Geotechnical EngineeringASCE 1984;110(7):86074.
[6] Lin JS, Whitman RV. Earthquake induced displacements of sliding blocks.
Journal of Geotechnical EngineeringASCE 1986;112(1):4459.
[7] Elms DG. Renements to the Newmark sliding block model. In: Proceedings
of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, 2000.
[8] Chaudhuri R, Hutchinson TC. Characterizing frictional behavior for use in
predicting the seismic response of unattached equipment. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 2005;25:591604.

158

ndez et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 32 (2012) 152158


B.C. Me

[9] Kafali C, Fathali S, Grigoriu M, Whittaker AS. Static and kinetic coefcients of
friction for rigid blocks. MCEER Technical Report MCEER-07-0001, 2007.
[10] Andreaus U, Casini P. Dynamics of friction oscillators excited by a moving
base and/or driving force. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2001;245(4):
68599.
[11] Constantinou MC, Mokha A, Reinhorn A. Teon bearings in base isolation. II:
modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering 1990;116(2):45574.
[12] Younis CJ, Tadjbakhsh IG. Response of sliding rigid structure to base
excitation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1984;110(3):41732.
[13] Mendez BC, Botero E, Romo MP. A criterion for predicting rigid block stick
slip or continuous response in variable friction interfaces. ASCE Journal of
Engineering MechanicsASCE 2010. submitted for publication.
[14] Mendez BC, Botero E, Romo MP. A new friction law for sliding rigid blocks
under cyclic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2009;29(5):
87482.
[15] Mendez BC. A new kinetic friction law for rigid bodies and its application to
geo-seismic problems, Doctoral thesis, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Mexico, 2009 [in Spanish].

[16] Yegian MK, Lahlaf AM. Dynamic interface shear strength properties of
geomembranes and geotextiles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1992;
118(5):76079.
[17] Yegian MK, Kadakal AM. Foundation isolation for seismic protection using a
smooth synthetic liner. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 2004;130(11):112130.
[18] Botero E. Nonlinear bi-dimensional model for the dynamic behavior analysis
of earth structures. Doctoral thesis, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Mexico, Mexico, DF, 2004 [in Spanish].
[19] Kramer SL. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall;
1996.
[20] Botero E, Romo MP. Earthquake energy transmission at interfaces. In:
Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the international association of computer methods and advances in geomechanics, Turin, Italy,
June 2005. p. 217224.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai