ita. J. Engng sci. Vol. II, Ko. 2, pp, 93402, 1983 OoZa-7?251831020093-10$03.

0010
Printed in Great Britain @ 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd

STOCHASTIC EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF

STRUCTURES ON SLIDING FOUNDATION

GOODARZ AHMADI
Department of Mechanical and Industri~ En~neering, Clarkson College, Potsdam, NY 13676,U.S.A.

Ah&a&-Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding foundation is studied. The structure is

modeled by a rigid mass and Coulomb friction is considered between the structure and its foundation. A
nonstationary white noise model of earthquake ground motion is employed and the response of the system
is investigated by the generalized method of equivalent linearization. The results are compared with those
of the stationary analysis and some estimates for the maximum slipareobtainedanddiscussed.

INTRODUCTION
USEOF special nonlinear foundations for highrise structures, nuclear power plants, suspension
bridges, etc. are among some of the important techniques for their earthquake resisting design.
Knowledge of the response of these nonlinear foundations to earthquake ground motion is one
of the basic requirements for their aseismic design. There are two possible methods of analysis,
the deterministic approach and the stochastic method. In the former method the time history of
the response is calculated by the numerous existing approximate analytical or numerical
techniques[l-51 and several available strong motion records are considered as the input
earthqu~e ground acceleration. Analysis of the response to only one actual earthquake ground
motion record which has occured in a past earthquake at a certain location, is certainly not
sufficient, since the future earthquake strong motion at the site of interest could have
completely different characteristics. To improve the confidence in the deterministic approach,
usually several available earthquake records are employed in order to include various
frequency contents as well as the effects of other parameters. However, there is always
uncertainties about the time history of the ground acceleration of the future earthquakes.
The alternative method is a purely probabilistic approach. In the recent years several
contributions in that direction have appeared in the literature [l-5]. In this apprbach, the
earthquake ground motion is modeled by a random process and the response of the structure is
analyzed as a problem in random vibration.
A number of stochastic models of earthquake ground motion were proposed in the past as
summarized by Clough and Penzien[l] and Ahmadi[6]. Among the most well known models are
the white noise representation of Housner[7] and Bycroft[8], finite duration white noise model
of Rosenblueth et a!.[$ 9, lo], filtered white noise representation of Kanai[ll] and Tajimi[12]
and nonstationary models of Amin and Ang[ 131among others [ 1, 21.
Responses of lumped mass systems to stationary excitations were considered by several
investigators (see for instance [ l-51, [M-17]). Recently, the mean-square response of structures
to random excitation was studied by Gersch[l8], Zeman and Bogdanoff[i9] and Ahmadi[20],
The response of single degree of freedom linear systems to nonstationary random excitation
was investigated by Barnoski and Maurer[21,22], Bucciarelli and Kuo[23], Caughey and
Stumpf[24], Corotis et a1.[25,26] and Bogdanoff et al.[27]. Response of beams and plates to
nonstationary random loads were studied.by Ahmadi and Satter [28-301. Response of structures
to nonstationary random excitation was considered by Holman and Hart [31] and earthquake
response of linear continuous systems was studied by Ahmadi[32].
The response of nonlinear systems to stationary random excitation were considered by
Caugfiey[33,34], Ariaratnam~351, Crandall[34] and Lyon[37,38], among others as summarized
by Caughey[39-41] and Crandall[42]. Recently, Ahmadi, Tadjbakhsh and Farshad [43] studied
the stationary stochastic response of a nonlinear plate.
Nonstationary response of nonlinear systems was investigated by Caughey and Dienes [44],
Bodganoti, Goldberg and Sharpe [45] and Ahmadi[46,47]. Slipping of a rigid mass on a
randomly moving foundation was investigated by Crandall, Lee and Williams, Jr. (481.
In the present study earthquake response of a structure on a sliding foundation is con-
sidered. The structure is modeled by a rigid mass attached to its foundation only through the

l3ES
Voi!I.Nit.?-_A 93
94 G. ANMADI

Coulomb friction force. Earthquake ground acceleration is modeled by a nonstationary white

noise stochastic process as discussed in[5, S-101. The method of equivalent linearization for
nonstationary systems as developed in1471 is employed and the response of the structure is
analyzed. The general expression for the standard deviation of the slip displacement is obtained
and compared with that of the stationary response analysis. It is shown that for the limit of very
small as well as large time the predictions of the stationary analysis becomes identical to those
of the present nonstationary analysis. However, for moderate values of time, the deviations up
to 1.5% are observed. Some estimates for the maximum slip displacements for a few past
earthquakes and different values of Coulomb friction coefficient are obtained and discussed.

2. BASIC EQUATIONS
In the present simple model as shown in Fig. 1, the structure is treated as a rigid mass which
can slide on its foundation due to the earthquake ground motion. The force between the
foundation and the structure is assumed to have the ideal friction characteristic indicated in Fig.
2 where cr,is the coeficient of friction, g is the acceleration of gravity, and i is the slip velocity.
The equation of motion of the rigid structure in terms of the slip displacement is given by

$ + pg sign 1 = -.$,, (1)

where $ is the ground acceleration. Equation (1) is valid when the structure is sliding with
respect to its foundation. If the structure is sticking to its foundation, it will remain attached as
long as the ground acceleration I.$,]remains less than pg. As soon as I.$] becomes greater than
pg, slip will occur and eqn (1) applies. When the earthquake ground acceleration is modeled by

Strut ture

Foundation

Fig. 1. Model of the structure with a sliding foundation.

Fig.2. Frictionforceas functionof the slip velocity.

 Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding ~ouRdation 95

a nonstationary shaped white noise process, the slip veIocity and the slip displacement become
nonstationary random processes with zero mean which also satisfy zero initial conditions. For
the case where the envelope function is a unit step function and when the auto-correlation of
the white noise part of ground motion is given by

R(7) = 27&S(T), (2)

the Fokker-Planck equation for the probability density function becomes

af
z = 1.18 $ R&n YVI + TSR3, (3)

where ffy, t) is the transition probability density for the slip velocity y = 1.
The exact solution for f as found by Caughey and Dienes[44] is given by

(4)

where

t-9

Equation (4) satisfies the initial condition

fty, t) = S(y) at t =O. (6)

Although expression (4) gives the exact soiution for the probability density of the slip velocity,
evaluations of statistical moments such as variance needs extensive numerical calculation and
furthermore for calculation of the variance of slip displacement second order statistics of the
slip velocity is required which is not available. An alternative approximate technique of analysis
is the method of equivalent linearizatjon[40]. Accordingly, the nonlinear system (1) is replaced
by an equivalent linear system

The error in replacing eqn (1) by (7) is given by

e=pi-pgsigni, (8)

where p is the equivalent damping coefhcient.

minimizing the mean square error with respect to p it follows that

k $$ = jS(-lr*)
- Bg(i sign .I!}= 0, (9)

where angular brackets ( ) stands for the expected value or ensemble average. From eqn
(9), the value of p becomes

(10)
96 G. AHMADI

When the ground motion is modeled by a nonstationary random process, the slip velocity also
becomes nonstationary and hence eqn (10) predicts a time dependent equivalent damping p(t)
(in [48] a stationary method is employed by taking a constant /3 as given by eqn (IO) for large
time limit).
The Fokker-P~anck equation for the probability density function of slip velocity in according
to the equivalent linear system (7) becomes

The exact solution to (11) satisfying the initial condition (6) becomes

f(tA t) = .L/(iT)o exp (--y/2J), (12)

where a* is the variance of .f. In[44], treating /3 as a constant it was found that

cr = T [ 1 - exp( - apt)]. (13)

For a Gaussian probability density function as given by eqn (12), the expression for the
equivalent damping from eqn (10) becomes

Due to the time dependence of u, eqn (14) clearly shows that p is also time dependent. It is possible
to take the time dependence of p into account and hence find a more accurate estimate for u(t).
Multiplying (11) by yz and integrating over y, it follows that

For a constant @, it is easily observed that expression (13) is the solution of the linear
differential eqn (IS) satisfying the initial condition

u(0) = 0. (16)

However, when P(t) is given by (14), eqn (15) becomes a nonlinear differential equation, i.e.

c+= -pg~(217rlu+ r&Q. (17)

Before attempting to solve eqn (17), it is advantageous to introduce the following dimensionless
variables, which are designated by a bar on top of the symbols

i_ 2Y5gzi -
7r s, u=*. (18)

Equation (17) thus becomes

(19)
 Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding foundation 97

The solution of eqn (19) satisfying the initial condition (16) becomes

I= -G-ln(1 -a), (20)

or

(+ = I_ e-i-e.
(21)

In Fig. 3 the variation of CTwith t is shown and is compared with the corresponding results
from the stationary analysis of [48] as given by equation (13) which in our nondimensional form
becomes

It is observed that for moderate values of < the stationary analysis of [48] over-estimates the
actual nonstationary response for c? up to about 15%.

3. STATISTICS OF SLIP DISPLACEMENT

The variance of the slip displacement of the structure with respect to its foundation is given
by

(x*(O)= l dt, cd4 Mt,) i(G). (23)

Therefore, knowledge of auto-correlation of slip velocity is necessary for calculation of the slip
displacement variance. The general solution of eqh (7) is given by

(24)

The auto-correlation of the slip velocity then becomes

0 < t, < tz. (25)

1.0. 1 I _-+-
_---
_---
-

0.8 -

Eq. (22) ,STATIONARY [48 3

Eq. (201, NONSTATIONARY

I 1 1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

DIMENSIONLESS TIME, ?

Fig. 3. Variations of the nondimensional standard deviation of the slip velocity with time.
92; G. AHMADI
In [48], it was assumed that p is a constant given by the stationary limit of (14), the auto-corretation
of the slip velocity and the standard deviation of the slip displacement thus becomes

R&t,, f2) = zns,

P
sin h&r,
e-@~ 0 < t, < tz,

a,(t) = (I*)* = (~)I*[2/3t - (1 - e-@)(3- emi)], (27)

respectively. Equations (26) and (27) are approximate results which are only accurate for large
time.
For the general nonstationary analysis when p is time-dependent, eqn (25) must be
considered. We now show it is possible to find closed form solutions for the slip statistics even
when the time variation of /3(t) is taken into consideration. Nondimensional form of eqn (25)
becomes

where the dimensionless auto-correlation is defined by

(2%

From eqn (19), it follows that

(30)

Employing the change of variables from 7 to CT(f)and eqn (30) into eqn (28) the result becomes

(31)

Direct substitution of eqn (31) into the dimensionless form of eqn (23) and use of eqn (30) in
change of variables after rather lengthy algebra, we find

at(F) = jj (3$ - 5) ln (1 - 3) + a (--loci: - 50 t 8e3/3 + 5/2), (32)

where

(33)

Equation (32) together with eqn (20) given the time variation of the slip variance according to
the general nonstationary analysis. The corresponding results of the stationary analysis
obtained in [48] as given by eqn (27) in our nondimensional form becomes

In the limit of large time, eqns (32) and (34) given the same time variations, i.e.

(35)
 Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding foundation 99

The accuracy of the stationary analysis for large time is of course, expected, since the
stationary (large-time) estimate for p is employed in these calculations. However, it is quite
interesting to note that in the limit of small time, both solutions given by eqns (32) and (34) also
give a similar result, i.e.

eX =t/(t?l3 for r-,0. (36)

The reason for the stationary analysis to give quite an accurate result for very small values of ?
is perhaps due to the use of initial condition (16) and treating u as function of time in 1481even
though p was taken to be a constant.
Comparisons of the predictions of the present nonstationary analysis with the stationary
analysis of [48] are made in Figs. 4 and 5. From Fig. 4 where a log-log scale is used, it is
observed that for large values of t (greater than 5) the results of the stationary analysis become
quite accurate. For tz 30, predictions of both stationary and nonstationary analysis converge
to the large tlimit as given by eqn (35). For moderate values of < the error in the results of the
stationary approximation increases as is observed from Fig. 4. Figure 5 which is on a regular
scale, more clearly shows the deviation between the stationary and nonstationary predictions.
The error appears to reach about 15%. For small time, IS 0.15, the prediction of the stationary
analysis becomes quite close to that of the nonstationary one and for very small time, both
solutions converge to the small time limit as given by eqn (36).
From Figs. 4 and 5, it is also observed that the limiting expressions for large and small time
as given by eqns (35) and (36), not only provide accurate estimates for the slip variance for
large and small times, respectively, but also provide upper bounds on the response at all the
time. These equations in dimensional form read

u (t) = (?TsS;tli* as t+m,

x , (37)
I**g2

&)ty *
G(t)=2
( ) 3
, as t-+0. (38)

IO -

F -
x -

- Eq. (34) STATI~ARY [48-j

0.1. 1 / I!,?,II I I 111111l 1 I ,,!,,C

0.1 I IO 100 1000
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, 5

Fig. 4. Comparisons of the time variations of the standard deviation of the siip-displacer as predicted by
stationary and nonstationary analysis.
loo G. AHMADI

0.E
l-

0.e i-

zX 0.4

Eq. (341,
STATIONARY [48-j
0.2

NONSTATIONARY

0.0 0.5 I .o 1.5 2.0

DIMENSIONLESS TIME, 7

Fig. 5. Variations of the standard deviation of the slip-displacement with time according to stationary and
nonstationary arialysis.

Equations (37) and (38) may then be used for finding rough engineering estimates of the
standard deviation of the slip-displacement.

4. MAXIMUM SLIP ESTIMATES

Some examples of evaluation of the maximum slip of structure subjected to some well
known past earthquakes is now considered.
For the range of values of parameters of interest to earthquake engineering, it is observed
that the large time asymptotic result as given by eqn (37) is applicable. Furthermore, it is well
known[l, 5, 61 that three times standard deviation is a reasonable estimate for the maximum
value of the response. Therefore, an approximate estimate for the maximum slip displacement
xM becomes

XH= 3(?75S$)2
2 2
I.Lg .

For the El Centro 1940earthquake the value for S0as estimated by Bycroft [8] is 55.44 cm/sec3 for
a time duration of 25 sec. The maximum slip then is given by

xM= 0.1126/~* cm. (401

The estimated maximum slip for some friction coefficients are given in Table 1. For Taft 1952
earthquake the value for S, is estimated to be 19.22cm2/sec3. The corresponding maximum slip
then is given by

xM= 0.023/~2 cm. (41)

It is observed from Table 1 that large slip displacements are expected for small friction
factors.
 Stochastic earthquake response of structures on sliding foundation 101

Table I. Estimated maximum slip displacement

Maximum slip cm
Friction factor El Centro Taft
CL 1940 1952

0.02 281.5 57.5

0.05 45.0 9.2
0.08 17.6 3.6
0.10 11.3 2.3
0.20 2.8 0.6
0.30 1.3 0.3
0.40 0.7 0. IS

However, for friction coefficient greater than 0.1, the maximum displacement are of the
order of a few centimeters.

5. FURTHER REMARKS
Stochastic earthquake response of simpiified model of a structure with a sliding foundation
is investigated in the present work. The method of equivalent linearization is employed and the
time dependence of the equivalent damping is considered. It is shown that for this problem the
stationary equivaIent system analysis is only accurate for very small or large times and for
moderate values of t, errors up to 1.5%may be generated.
The variance of the relative displacement is calculated and is used to estimate the maximum
slip of the structure with respect to its foundation. Some examples are solved and it is shown
that such foundation may be of practical use for Iilteration of the earthquake ground ac-
celeration. However, a more realistic model of the structure and the foundation must be
analyzed before a definite conclusion could be drawn.

Ac~~o~ledge~@~fs-The author would like to thank the reviewer for his helpful suggestions. The early stages of this work
was carried out at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran, and at the University of
Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

REFERENCES
[l] R. W. CLOUGH and J. PENZIEN, Dynamics of Structures. McGraw-Hill, New York (1975).
[2] S. OKAMOTO. J~t~~uc~;o~ to Eurfhquake Engineering. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (1973).
[3] L. MEIROVITCH, An~lyfjc~~ ~ethads in Vibrutions. Macmillan, New York (1967).
[4] W. C. HURTY and M. F. RUBINSTEIN, Dynamics of Structures. Prentice-Hail, (1964).
[5] N. M. NEWMARK and E. ROSENBLUETH, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey (1971).
[6] G. AHMADI, SM Arch. 4.207-239 (1979).
[7] G. W. HOUSNER, Bull. Seismol. Sot. Am. 45, 197-218(1955).
[8] G. N. BYCROFT, J. ErzgngMech. Div. ASCE 86, EM2, I-16 (1960).
[9] E. ROSENBLUETH and J. BUSTAMANTE, .I. Engng Mech. Div. AXE 88, EM3,75-1% (1960).
[IO] E. ROSENBLUETH, J. Engng Mech. Diu. ASCE 40, EMS, 189-220(1964).
[I I] K. KANAI, Univ. Tokyo Bull. Earthquake Rex Int. 35, 309-325 (1957).
[12] H. TAJIMI, Proc. 2nd World Conf. Earthquake Engng Tokyo and Kyoto II, 781-198 (1960).
1131 M. AMIN and A. H. S. ANG, J; Engng Mech. Div. ASCII 94, EM2,559-683 (1968).
[14] S. H. CRANDALL and W. D. MARK, Random Vibrution in Mechanical Sysfems. Academic Press, New York (1963).
[15] H. PARKUS, Random Processes in Mechanical Systems. UDINE Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1969).
1161J. ROBSON, C. J. DODDS, D. B. MACVEAN and V. R. PALING, Random Vibration. UDINE Springer-Verlag,
Berlin (1971).
[17] Y. K. LIN, Probabilistic Theory of Structural Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967).
[18] W. GERSCH, J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 48,403-413 (1970).
1191I. L. ZEMAN and J. L. BOGDANOFF, AIAA 7, 1225-1231(1969).
1201G. AHMADI, ~a~h~~uke Response of multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems. Shiraz University, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Research Report (1977).
[21] R. L. BARNOSKI and J. R. MAURER, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 36, 221-227 (1969).
1221 R. L. BARNOSKI and J. R. MAURER, J. Appl, Mech. Trans. ASME 40.73-77 (1973).
1231 L. L. BUCCIARELLI, Jr. and C. KUO, f, Appl. Mech. Trans. AS~E 37,612-616 (1970).
1241 T. K. CAUGHEY and H. J. STUMPF, .I. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 28,.563-566 (1961).
[25] R. B. COROTIS, E. H. VANMARCKE and C. A. CORNELL, J. Engng Mech. Div. ASCE 98, EM2,401-414 (1972).
I261 R. COROTIS and T. A. MARSHALL., 1. Engng Mech. Diw. ASCE 103,5Of-513 (1977).
[27] J. L. BODGANOFF, J. E. GOLDBERG and M. C. BERNARD, Bull. Seismol. Sot. Am. 54,292-310 (1961).
[28] G. AHMADI and M. A. SATIER, AIAA 13, 1097-1100 (1975).
(291 M. A. SATTER and G. AHMADI, L Sound Vib. 51, 577-581(1977).
102 G. AHMADI

[30] G. AHMADI and M. A. SATTER, L Acousticoi Sot. Am. 65,926-930 (1979).

[31] R. HOLMAN and C. C. HART, J. Engng Mech. Div. ASCE 100, EM2, 415431 (1974).
[32] G. AHMADI, J. Nuclear Engng Design 50, 327-345 (1978).
[33] T. K. CAUGHEY, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 26, 341-344 (1959).
[34] T. K. CAUGHEY, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 27, 575-578 (1960).
[35) S. T. ARIARATNAM, J. Mech. Engng Sci. 2, 195-201 (1960).
[36] S. H. CRANDALL, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 29,477-482 (1962).
[37] R. H. LYON, J: Acoust.~~oc. Am. 32, 716-719 (1960).
1381R. H. LYON. J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 35. 1395-1405(1961).
[39j T. K. CAUGHEY, J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 35, 1683-1692(1963).
[40] T. K. CAUGHEY, L Acoust. Sot. Am. 35, 17061711 (1963).
[41] T. K. CAUGHEY. Advances in Applied Mechanics (Edited by C. H. Yih), Vol. Il. Academic Press, New York,
(1971).
[42] S. H. CRANDALL, J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 35, 177-1705 (1963).
I431 G. AHMADI. I. TADJBAKHSH and M. FARSHAD. Acoustica 40. 316322 (1978).
i44j T. CAUGHEY and J. K. DIENES, J. Appl. Phy-. 32, 2476-2479 (1961).
[45] J. L. BOGDANOFF, J. E. GOLDBERG and D. R. SHARPE, Bid/. Seismol. Sot. Am. 54, 263-276 (1964).
[46] G. AHMADI, J. Nuclear Engng Design 54,407-417 (1979).
[47] G. AHMADI, .I. Sound Vibrurion71, 9-15 (1980).
[48] S. H. CRANDALL, S. S. LEE and J. H. WILLIAMS, J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 41, 10961098 (1974).

(Received 22 January 1982)