Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Technical Note
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.
mt tan fs tan y
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
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
mmin px
mmin ms 2 x
< s
FF = N
g (t)
Fig. 1. Rigid block sliding down an inclined plane.
154
x 41.
In the stickslip sliding mode we have U g max o U g lim , thus
x 1 41.
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.
Experimentally observed
response acceleration,
A
B
max
Sliding phase
y
t (s)
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
12
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
Table
6.60
6.80
7.00
7.20
t (s)
Fig. 4. Recorded block and table accelerations for continuous mode.
7.40
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.
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
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.
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;
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
[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.