EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL.

11, 729-748 (1983)

RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES TO EARTHQUAKE

SUPPORT MOTION

N. MOSTAMEL*
AND J. TANBAKUCHI~
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Utah, U.S.A.

SUMMARY
To study the effectiveness of sliding supports in isolating structures from damaging earthquake ground motions, a
mathematical model of a single degree of freedom structure supported on a sliding foundation and subjected to the N-S
component of the El Centro 1940 earthquake is considered. Spectra for absolute accelerations, relative displacements,
relative-to-ground displacements, sliding displacements and residual sliding displacements are evaluated for three mass
ratios, four coefficients of friction and a damping of 5 per cent critical. It is observed that, for structures with periods less
than 1.8 s, for the coefficients of friction considered, the suprema of relative-to-ground displacements, sliding
displacements and residual sliding displacements are only of the order of 1.25 times the peak ground displacement. To
study the response sensitivities, the spectra for absolute acceleration and sliding displacement of the 1949 Olympia
earthquake (S86E component) are also presented. It is concluded that sliding supports can be quite effective in isolating
structures from support excitations.

INTRODUCTION
A promising scheme of protecting structures against damaging earthquake ground motion is base isolation.
Base isolators are devices which are incorporated in the structural support and essentially control the level of
excitations which are transmitted to the superstructure. Besides the classical method,' there are many
proposed isolation schemes such as the flexible first storey the soft storey conceptss6and
specially shaped rollers.7* Considerable work has been done to show the effectiveness of 'steel plate
laminated rubber bearings and their variants,'-' and there are several structures which have been isolated
using this scheme."
Sliding structures, whose response to earthquake base excitations is the topic of this paper, are structures
which can slide on their supports. The maximum ground accelerations that can be transmitted to the
superstructures are controlled by the coefficient of sliding friction at their supports. Although, due to rigid
plastic behaviour of the sliding support, the system is non-linear, in each sliding and non-sliding phase the
system's behaviour is linear. The conditions for the determination of the transition point between any two
phases are presented. These points are obtained as the solution process progresses. The responses at the end
of each phase are used as initial conditions for the next phase. Through this matching technique, the non-
linear problem is transformed to linear ones which are solved analytically for each phase.
The above solution scheme has been verified by the use of harmonic excitations for which closed-form
solutions for sliding and non-sliding phases are available."
A single degree of freedom system on top of a foundation raft is supported on the sliding element (see
Figure 1). The base of the structure is subjected to the (N-S) component of the El Centro 1940 earthquake.
Considering a damping o f t = 5 per cent of critical, normalized response spectra (normalized with respect to
the corresponding peaks of the input excitations) are calculated and plotted for absolute accelerations,
relative displacements, sliding displacements relative to ground displacements and cumulative sliding
displacements for coefficients of friction p = 0~05,0~10,0~15,0~20 for three mass ratios ct = m/(m+ M ) = 0.75,

* Professor of Civil Engineering.

t Research Assistant.
0098-8847/83/060729-20$02.00 Received 21 October 1982
@ 1983 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 14 February 1983
730 N. MOSTAGHEL AND J. TANBAKUCHI

Foundation Raft
I
I
t
-
Slidlng Element, p-\l H
I
XO

Figure 1. Singlz degree of freedom structure on sliding support

0.50, 025 (implying m / M = 3, 1 and +) where m is the mass of the structure and M is the mass of the
foundation raft. As expected, these plots show that both the absolute acceleration and the relative
displacement of the superstructure are smaller for smaller coefficients of friction, and the cumulative sliding
movement is larger for smaller coefficients of friction. The residual sliding displacement, that is, the
dislocation of the structure from its original position, due to sliding, when the ground motion stops, is also
plotted.
By comparing different plots, it is observed that the level of acceleration response of sliding structures,
especially for larger mass ratios, is almost independent of the period of the input excitations and depends only
on the base’s coefficient of friction. It can be reduced considerably by reducing the base’s coefficient of
friction. Also, the maximum (supremum) sliding displacement, for all the structures and coefficients of friction
considered, is about 1.25 times the peak ground displacement. To further elucidate the performance of sliding
systems, the spectra for the absolute acceleration and sliding displacement for the 1949 Olympia earthquake
(S86E component) are also presented. The effects of vertical ground motions are not considered in this study.
Generally, structures have much greater reserve capacity for vertical forces than for horizontal ones, but
vertical excitations may be consequential in design for overhangs and flexible girders. However, it is noted
that the horizontal isolation, by reducing the relative displacement, reduces the P-A effect and in this way
reduces the effects of vertical excitations significantly. The vertical ground motion can either be considered
directly or its effects may be taken into account by using an effective coefficient of friction.20*2 1 In the
following sections the details of formulations, solutions and results are presented.

FORMULATION
A single degree of freedom structure of mass m,damping c and stiffness k supported by a foundation raft that
can slide horizontally is shown in Figure 1. The coefficient of sliding friction is p. If the ground moves with an
acceleration Xo(t),the system moves, and applications of Newton’s second law yield the equations of dynamic
equilibrium, which are
mji+ci,+kXr =0

M X = F-m?
where x is the total displacement of mass m in absolute frame, xr is the displacement of the mass m relative to
the foundation raft, X is the total displacement of the foundation raft in absolute frame, and F is the interface
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 73 1

force between the foundation raft and its support. The maximum value of F which occurs when the system is
in a sliding phase is given by
F = pg(m M ) E + (3)
where p is the coefficient of sliding friction and

E =
uji, + x, (4)
/ajir+Xol
As is noted from the above expression, E can only be + 1 and - 1. Also from Figure 1,
x = Xr+Xs+Xo
x = x,+xo
Xr =x-X
Substitutions of the above relations into equilibrium equations (1) and (2) yield
ji, +2<okr+u 2Xr = -xs- xo
x, = Epg - a i r -xo
where 5 is the percentage of critical damping, o = ,,/(k/m)and
m
a=-
m+M
It should be noted that expression (9) is valid only in sliding phases.

Solution
In the interval ti < t < t i + the input ground acceleration X,(t) and its integrals, i.e. ground velocity Xo(t)
and ground displacement Xo(t),may be represented as follows (see Figure 2):
X0(t) = X o ( t i ) + u i ( t - t i ) (11)

X0@)= ; t Z + p i t + x o ( t i )

X,(t) = - t
6
Mi 3
+>P.2 t 2 + t X 0 ( t i )+ X0(ti)
where

Pi = X o ( t i ) - a i t i

ti %+I
Figure 2. Ground motion representation in ti< t < ti+
732 N. MOSTAGHEL AND J. TANBAKUCHI

and Xo(ti) is the value of ground acceleration at time ti. The solution of equations (8) and (9) involves two sets
of phases, non-sliding and sliding.
(i) Non-sliding phases, t j <t < I j + 1, j = 1,3,5, ...,TI = 0. In these phases xs
= X s = 0. Therefore, equation
(8) can be written as
j, + 25wk, + w 2 xr = - xo (16)
for the non-sliding time intervals

i ' j < t < t j + l , j = 1,3,5,...,t1 = O (17)

The t i s represent the starting times of non-sliding and sliding phases, while the ti's represent the times of
digitization. The solution of equation (16) may be represented by

w( 1 - 252)
ji,(t) = - X 0 ( t ) + JCl - t2) S(t) + 25wC(t)+ K(t)
where wd is the damped natural circular frequency, 5 is the percentage of critical damping and

S(t) = jfo(z)e-"('-')sino,(t-7)dz = e-~ot[A(t)sino,t-~(t)coso,t] (21)

J ti

c(t)= Jl:xo(z)e-to('.)cos w,(t--)dz = e-tm'CA(t)cosw, t+B(t)sincod t ] (22)

k(t), k(t) and k(t) represent the effects of initial conditions at the start of the non-sliding phases. They are
defined by

k(t) = - (wk(t) + ode -to(' [M j ) ~7 cos wd(t -t j )-x,(tj)sin wd(t -ti)

1
For at rest initial conditions, at t , = 0
xr(t1) = kr(tl) = 0

The quantities A ( t ) and B(t) are defined by

m- 1
A(t) = %o(7)eew'COSwd7d7= -An(tj)+ A,(t,+,)+A,(t)
Ji: n=l

m- 1
xo(z)eSWrsincod 7 dz = - Bn(tj)+ n = l Bn(t,+ + B,(t) 1)
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 733

where

&(z) etorcos adz dz, t,,2 ti

I
B,(tj), Bn(t,,+ and B,(t) are defined similarly except that cos a d T in expression (29) is replaced by sin w d T.
Utilizing the ground motion representation given by expressions (11) and (12), it can be shown that for
ti < t < ti+ 1

0
+
(ait + pi) (5 cos wd t J(1 - t2)sin adt )

+[(‘i
W
1 - 252) cos wd t - 25 J(1- 52) sin wd tl
i
-4+erati

w
(ai t i pi)(5 cos w,, t i + J(1 - 5’) sin a d ti)

+’0 [( 1 -2t2)CoS wd ti - 25 J(1 - r2)sin wd ti]

(ait+pi)(5sinwdt-J(1-52)COSOd t )

a.
+‘[(1-252) sin odt + 25 J(1- t2)cosa d t ]
0

-4eCoti

0
(ai t i +pi)(5 sin ti-J( 1 - t2)cos a d t i )

a.
[( 1 - 25*)sin wd ti
+-I
0
+ 25 J(1 - C2) cos u d t i ]
i (31)

(ii) Sliding phases, t j< t < t j +l , j = 2,4,6, ... . To obtain ~ , ( tand

) X,(t),equations (8) and (9) should be solved
simultaneously. To this end x,, as given by equation (9), is substituted into equation (8) to yield

where

The solution of equation (32) in each sliding phase for relative displacement, velocity and acceleration may be
represented by
x,(t) = uR,(t)+L(t), t j < t < t j + , , j = 2,4,6,... (34)
+
k,(t) = ufi,(t) at> (35)
ji,(t) = u#,(t)+Z(t) (36)
734 N. MOSTAGHEL AND J. TANBAKUCHI

where

R,(t) =
s:,
e e101(r-r)sinold(t-7)d7
-

It should be noted that xr(tj)and k,(tj) are the relative displacement and the relative velocity at the beginning
of sliding phase tj.
(iii) Sliding velocity and displacement, t j b t < f j +1, j = 2,4,6, .... Substituting for ji,(t) from expression (36)
into expression (9) yields the sliding acceleration
..
x, ..
= Epg - xo- a&( t) + d(t ) (45)
Integrating the sliding acceleration X , and noting that at the beginning of any sliding phase j, the sliding
velocity is
XS(tj)= 0
one obtains

The sliding displacement X,, which is obtained by integrating the sliding velocity, is given by

where
XS(t)= -[Xo(t)--Xo(tj)]-ff[Xr(t)-ttjl,(tj)] +Epg
(:--tttj
1+cj (48)

cj = XS(tj)+[ x o ( t j ) - t j x o ( t j ) ] + a [ ~ , ( t j ) - t j j l r ( t j )+-I;
]
2 (49)

(iv) The starting times ofsliding phases, t , j = 2,4,6, ... . Substituting for x and X from equations (5) and (6),
and for F from equation (3) into the equilibrium equation (2), it can be shown that during any sliding phase
pg-~aji,+Xo+XsI = o (50)
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 735

where 01 is defined by relation (10). In any non-sliding phase x, = 0, and the magnitude of the interface force
I F 1 <(m+ M ) p g . Considering these facts, it can be shown that, during any non-sliding phase, the equilibrium
equation (2) may be replaced by the following inequality:
pg-1 air+-& I > O (51)
If f j is the time of initiation of sliding phasej, then t i , which is infinitesimally less than fj, is the end time of the
preceding non-sliding phase. Therefore, according to expression (50), the end times of non-sliding phases are
the roots of
pg-lai,+Xol = 0 (52)
which are obtained as the solution process progresses.
(v) The end times of sliding phases, tj+l,j = 2,4,6,... . These times are the times for which the sliding
velocity X s becomes equal to zero. Considering relation (47), these times are the roots of

which are obtained as the solution process progresses.

EVALUATION OF RESPONSE
Considering the first 18.7 s of the (N-S) component of the El Centro 1940 earthquake as an input excitation22
and starting at t = f, = 0 with initial conditions x,(O) = k,(O) = 0, the non-sliding relative displacement 1,
and relative acceleration ji, are evaluated from expressions (18) and (20)for a damping ratio of 5 = 5 per cent,
a mass ratio 01 = 0.75 (which according to expression (10) implies m/M = 3.0) and four coefficients of friction
p = 0.05, 010, 0.15, 0.20. The quantity pg-1 t l j i r + & , ) , which is the left-hand side of inequality (51), is also
evaluated. As long as this quantity is positive, the system is responding in the non-sliding phase. Equation
(52) yields f2, the starting time of the first sliding phase. This time, t,, is substituted into expressions (18) and
(19) to obtain ~ ~ ( 1and, ) k,(tz). These initial values are substituted into relations (34) to (49), and the relative
displacement x,, relative acceleration ji,, the sliding acceleration Xs, sliding velocity X, and sliding
displacement X , are determined as functions of time. The relative velocity k, and the ground velocity &(t)
are substituted into equation (53), and time f,, the time of the start of the second non-sliding phase, is
calculated. In all cases the value of E is calculated from the right-hand side of equation (4) at the end times of
non-sliding phases. The process is continued over the total duration t, of ground acceleration, and the
maxima of x,, ji, X , and X,, and the quantities XI, and X,, are determined for structural periods T = 0.10,0.15,
020, ..., 1.00, 1.10, 1.20, 1.30,..., 1.60, 1.80 and 2.00 s. Here, XI, represents the relative-to-ground displacement.
XI, represents the residual sliding displacement when the earthquake stops and X,, represents the cumulative
sliding or total sliding movement during the entire duration of ground motion.
Normalized responses are defined by:
ji( T 5, .u)
Absolute acceleration =. (54)
U

Relative displacement = XI( T 5, PI (55)

D

Sliding displacement =
XS(T 5,a)
D
Relative to ground displacement =
XI&T ( 7 PI
D (57)
*
Residual sliding displacement = Xrs(T 5, PI
D

Cumulative sliding displacement = X C S ( T 5, PI (59)

D
736 N. MOSTAGHEL AND I. TANBAKUCHI

where

D is the peak ground displacement, A is the peak ground acceleration and td is the duration of ground motion.
To display the effectiveness of sliding supports in reducing the maximum levels of response acceleration
and relative displacement, and to show the variations of the maximum sliding displacements and other
response quantities with respect to coefficient of friction and mass ratio, the normalized responses are plotted
against period T in Figures 3 to 22 for four coefficients of friction p = 0.05,010,015 and 020, and for three
mass ratios u = 0.75 (meaning m/M = 3.0), u = 0.50 (meaning m/M = 1.0) and a = 0.25 (meaning m/M = 4).
It should be noted that Figures 6 and 13 are the normalized absolute acceleration spectra and the normalized
sliding displacement spectra for the S86E component of the 1949 Olympia earthquake. The absolute
acceleration response for rigid structures (zero period) as presented in Figures 3 to 6 is calculated by
considering the fact that for a rigid structure the maximum response acceleration is equal to p g ( p g < A in this
case), i.e. the base’s coefkient of friction times the gravitational acceleration. It should be noted that the
response quantities are very sensitive to the exact times of starts and ends of sliding phases defined by the

v)

cu.

-
c
‘
‘5 0
.
cu.

-
z
0
I-
<
a m
w .
-I c _
W
u
0
<
I., I u = 0.20 A
g?
-I-
0
v)
m
c
I / \

.00 .25 * 50 .75 1 .oo 1.25 1 .so 1.75

J
2.00

PERIOD (SEC)
Figure 3. Acceleration response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 737

(5 = 5%

-
z -
0 a = 0.50 +m

A = 0.349; Td = 18.7 sec.

= M

9 1.00 .2S * 50 .75 1 .oo 1 *25 1 .so 1.75

J
2 .oo
PER I OD (SECOND)
Figure 4. Acceleration response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)

cu
N
..

0
cu
- h
5 = 5%
5 :
t X a = 0.25; +rn = M/3

A = 0.349; Td = 1 8 . 7 sec.

0
* 00 * 25 - 50 .75 1 .oo 1 .25 1 .SO 1.75
I
2.00

P E R I O D (SECOND)
Figure 5. Acceleration response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
738 N. MOSTAGHEL AND J. TANBAKUCHI

c
5
0
0
N

0
Ip5 % :Td-27.2 8ec
0~10.75; M
A=. 28g
3
r

- -.
L
: x

z
W

0
0
I I
-30 * 25 .so .75 1 .aa 1.25 1 .so 1.75 2.30

PFRlnll ISFCnND)
Figure 6. Acceleration response spectrum for 1949 Olympia earthquake (S86E)

1 \ \ I
.oo * 25 .so .75 1 .oo 1..25 1 .50 1 .IS 2.00

PERIOD (SEC)
Figure 7. Sliding displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 739

( 5 = 5% u = 0.05

CI = 0.50 =>m = M
A = 0.34g; Td = 18.7 sec.

-
.oo
v \ \ '
.00
P E R I O D (SECOND)
Figure 8. Sliding displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)

5 = 5%
a = 0.25 =-\m = M/3

x u = 0.15
A u = 0.20

PER1 O D (SECOND)
Figure 9. Sliding displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
 N. MOSTAGHEL AND J. TANBAKUCHI

..
p-0.05
p o .10
c-5 x
:fd-27.2 B I C
iy4.75 : r 3 u
A=.28g : b i 0 . 3 ca

.00 .25 .75 1 .oo 1.25 1 .so 1.75 Loo

PERY OD (SECOND)
Figure 10. Sliding displacement response for 1949 Olympia earthquake (S86E)

5 = 5%
CL =0.75 + = 3M
A = 0.349; Td = 18.7 sec.

A u = 0.15 \

.00
I

* 25 .so .J5 1 .oo 1 a25 1 .50 1.75 2.00

PER1OD (SECOND)
Figure 1 1 . Cumulative sliding displacement spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 74 1

u = 0.05

As0 .349g ; D=IO . 9 cm

!J = 0.10

* 00 * 25 - 50 s 75 1 .oo 1.50 1.75

I
2 00.
PER1 00 (SECOND)
Figure 12. Cumulative sliding displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)

A=O .3499. ; D=lO .9 cm

0
0

.00 .75 1 .oo 1.25 1 .so 1.75 2.00

PERIOD (SECOND)
Figure 13. Cumulative sliding displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
 N. MOSTAGHEL AND J. TANBAKUCHI

/
a = 0.75 =+ rn = 3M
A = 0.349; Td = 18.7 sec.

.00
PERIOD (SEC)
Figure 14. Displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)

2.00

PER I OD (SECOND)
Figure 15. Displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 743

00 .oo
PERI OD (SECOND)
Figure 16. Displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)

r=5 x :Td-18.7 80C

A=.- : 5i0.8 ca

KP'O.20

.00 -25 - 50 .75 1 .oo 1 *25 1 .SO 1.75

I
2.00

PERI 00 (SECOND)
Figure 17. Relative-to-ground displacement response spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
 (s-N) ayenbq1Jea op61 o ~ l u a 3[a JOJ urnmads asuodsai iuauraqds!p p u n o J 8 - 0 l - a q e p ~'61 aJn8!j
((1N033S) a0 IU3d
00'2 SL' I 0s' I SZ' I 00' L SL' 0s. sz . 00'
I
00'2 SL' 1 0s. 1 SZ' I 00' i SL' 0s. SZ' 00'
n P
IH3nXVBNV1 'C a N V l 3 H 3 V l S O W 'N PPL
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 745

e 0 . 7 5 ;mm3M
A=.3489 ; 0=10.87 cm

.k=O.
i
.p=0.05
p o . 10
A 15

30 - 25 SO .75 1 .oo 1 *25 1 .so 1.75 2 .oo

PERIOD (SECOND)
Figure 20. Residual sliding displacement spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)

30 - 25 .50 * 75 1 .oo 1 *25 1 .so 1.75 2.00

PER1 OD (SECOND)
Figure 21. Residual sliding displacement spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)
746 N. MOSTAGHEL AND J. TANBAKUCHI

F5 : T d ~ 1 0 . 7see
R=0. 25 : m=M/3
A=.340g ; D = i 0 .07 cm

PER1 OD (SECOND)
Figure 22. Residual sliding displacement spectrum for El Centro 1940 earthquake (N-S)

roots of equations (52) and (53)respectively. It was found that the response quantities can be obtained with
sufficient accuracy if either the roots of these equations are evaluated with an accuracy of s or if the
absolute values of the left hand sides of these equations are less than

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Figure 3 represents the normalized acceleration spectrum for structures in which the mass of the structure is
three times the mass of the foundation raft. It is observed that:
(i) the spectral response of isolated structures appears to be almost independent of frequency of
excitations, especially for lower coefficients of friction;
(ii) the level of response depends on the base’s coefficient of friction. As expected the smaller the coefficient
of friction the lower the response;
(iii) the level of response of isolated structures is considerably lower than the level of response of
corresponding fixed base structures.
Figures 4 and 5 represent the normalized acceleration spectra for structures in which the mass of the
structure is the same as that of the foundation raft and is one-third of the mass of the foundation raft,
respectively. The observations made for Figure 3 hold, except that the response tends to be more frequency
dependent, especially for larger coefficients of friction. Comparing Figures 3, 4 and 5, it may be concluded
that the larger the mass of the structure as compared to the mass of the foundation raft, the lower the level of
acceleration response. Figure 6 represents the normalized absolute acceleration spectrum for the S86E
component of the 1949 Olympia earthquake for a mass ratio c( = 0.75 (meaning m / M = 3). The same
observations as those for Figure 3 apply. It is noted, as in the case of harmonic excitations,” that increase of
the levels of the input excitations increases the isolation effectiveness in cutting down the acceleration
response.
 RESPONSE OF SLIDING STRUCTURES 747

Figure 7 represents the normalized sliding displacement spectrum for structures in which the mass of the
structure is three times the mass of the foundation raft. Contrary to expectations which were substantiated by
harmonic excitations,’ for some structures the maximum sliding displacement is lower for lower coefficients
of friction. This is due to the disorderly arrangement of pulses in earthquake ground motion which controls
the direction of sliding. However, as may be noted from Figure 11, the cumulative sliding displacement,
which is the total sliding movement during earthquake, is higher for lower coefficients of friction. This, of
course, matches the expectation. To study the effects of mass ratio on sliding displacement, sliding
displacement spectra for mass ratios of a = 0 5 (rn = M ) and a = 0.25 (rn = M / 3 ) are presented in Figures 8
and 9 respectively. By comparing Figures 7, 8 and 9 it may be observed (as expected) that in general the
lighter the superstructure, as compared to the weight of the foundation raft, the less is the maximum sliding
amplitude. As may be noted from these figures, the maximum (supremum) sliding even for the lowest
coefficient of friction considered, i.e. ,u = 005, is of the order of 1.25 times the peak ground displacement. There
is a theoretical limit to the amount of sliding as the coefficient of friction is reduced to zero. For zero
coefficient of friction, theoretically, no acceleration is transferred to the superstructure. That is, the structure
remains stationary in the inertial frame, and the maximum sliding displacement is equal to the peak ground
displacement. In real cases, however, there is a momentum transfer before sliding, and the structure will not
remain stationary. To elucidate the sensitivity of the sliding displacement to the input excitations, the sliding
displacement spectrum for the S86E component of the 1949 Olympia earthquake for a mass ratio a = 0.75
(rn/M = 3) is presented in Figure 10. Comparing Figures 7 and 10, it is noted, similar to the case of harmonic
excitations,” that reduction of the levels of the input excitations, in general, reduces the sliding displacement
response.
The cumulative sliding displacement response spectra for mass ratios c( = 0.75,0.50 and 0.25 are given in
Figures 11, 12 and 13 respectively. Comparing these figures, it may be observed that in general, for the cases
considered, the level of cumulative sliding displacement response does not significantly vary with the mass
ratio. This implies that the higher the mass ratio (the heavier the structure as compared to the foundation
raft) the larger the amount of energy dissipated at the support level. This is consistent with the lower levels of
acceleration and relative displacement responses obtained for larger mass ratios.
The normalized relative displacement spectrum for the mass ratio a = 0 7 5 (m = 3 M ) is given in Figure 14.
As expected, the relative displacements, that is, the displacements of the mass relative to the foundation raft,
are much lower than the fixed base response. This is, of course, expected, because, according to Figure 3, the
mass is subjected to much lower accelerations than if the base of the structure were fixed. Of course, the lower
levels of relative displacements imply lower levels of deformations in the structures, i.e. deformations which
may be much lower than the structure’s damage threshold. The same conclusions may be drawn from Figures
15 and 16 which are for mass ratios a = 0.50 (rn = M ) and a = 0 2 5 (rn = M/3), except that because of the
increased levels of acceleration response, the level of relative displacement response is in general higher than
that for CI = 0.75.
Relative-to-ground displacement is of interest in structures which have elements such as pipings connected
to the ground. Normalized spectra for relative-to-ground displacements for three different mass ratios are
given in Figures 17, 18 and 19. These figures suggest that, in general, for the ground motion, the structures
and the coefficients of friction considered, the maximum (supremum) of the relative-to-ground displacement
is of the order of 1.25 times the peak ground displacement.
The residual sliding displacement, that is, the displacement due to sliding which remains when the ground
motion is over, is of practical interest for any later re-centring operation. The normalized residual sliding
displacement spectra for the three mass ratios are given in Figures 20,21 and 22. From these figures it may be
observed that for the ground motion, the structures and the coefficients of friction considered, the maximum
(supremum) residual displacement is of the order of 1.25 times the peak ground displacement.
The large reduction in the level of response acceleration and the relatively ‘small’ relative-to-ground
displacements, sliding displacements and residual sliding displacements suggest that sliding supports have
the potential of being a very effective and inexpensive isolation system. The above results which are based on
two ground excitations are also supported by the results from harmonic excitations.’
748 N. MOSTAGHEL AND J. TANBAKUCHI

CONCLUSIONS
Through the study of response of sliding structures to the N-S component of the El Centro 1940 earthquake,
and the S86E component of the 1949 Olympia earthquake, it has been established that sliding supports can
be quite effective in controlling the level of acceleration response of structures. Since, for the coefficients of
friction considered, the suprema of relative-to-ground displacements, sliding displacements and residual
sliding displacements are all only of the order of 1.25times the peak ground displacement, it is concluded that
sliding supports can effectively isolate structures from support excitations and are practical.
For low coefficients of friction, the acceleration response does not vary with the frequency content of the
ground motion. This implies that sliding supports can be effectively used for all kinds of sites, whether hard or
soft soil, whether close or far from causative faults. The above conclusions are also supported by the studies
of harmonic excitations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The support of the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grant No. CEE-8112580 is gratefully
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. R. W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics ofstructures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
2. R. R. Martel, ‘The effect of earthquake on buildings with a flexible first story’, Bull. seism. soc. Am. 19, 167-178 (1929).
3. N. B. Green, ‘Flexible first story construction for earthquake resistance’, Trans. A X E 100, 645-674 (1935).
4. L. S. Jacobsen, ‘Effect of flexible first story in a building located on vibrating ground‘, in S. Timoshenko 60th Anniversary Volume,
Macmillan, New York, 1938.
5. M. Fintel and R. R. Khan, ‘Shock-absorbing soft-story concept for multistory earthquake structures’, J . Am. concrete inst. 66,
381-390 (1969).
6. A. K. Chopra, D. P. Clough and R. W. Clough, ‘Earthquake resistance of building with a “soft” first story’, Earthquake eng. struct.
dyn. 1, 347-355 (1973).
7. K. Matsushita and M. Izumi, ‘Studies on mechanisms to decrease earthquake forces applied to buildings’, Proc. 4th world con$
earthquake eng., Santiago de Chile 1 (1969).
8. M. S. Caspe, ‘Earthquake isolation of multistory concrete structures’, J . Am. concrete inst., 67,923-933 (1970).
9. J. M. Kelly, J. M. Eidinger and C. J. Derham, ‘A practical soft story isolation system’, Report No. UCB/EERC-77/27, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1977.
10. J. M. Kelly and D. E. Chitty, ‘Control of seismic response of piping systems and components in power plants by base isolation’, Proc.
ASCE pressure vessels piping con$. 79-PVP55, San Francisco (25-29 June 1979).
11. C. J. Derham, A. G. Thomas and J. M. Kelly, ‘A rubber bearing system for seismic protection of structures’, in Engineering Design for
Earthquake Environments, 1. Mech. E. Conf. Publ. 1978-12, London, 1979, pp. 53-58.
12. R. I. Skinner, J. M. Kelly and A. J. Heine, ‘Hysteretic dampers for earthquake-resistant structures’, Earthquake eng. struct. dyn., 3,
287-296 (1975).
13. J. M. Kelly, ‘Control devices for earthquake-resistant structural design’, in Structural Control (Ed. H. H. E. Leipholz), North-
Holland and SM Publications, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 391413.
14. J. M. Kelly and S. B. Hodder, ‘Experimental study for lead and elastomeric dampers for base isolation systems’, Report No.
U C B / E E R C 4 1 / 1 6 ,Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1981.
15. J. M. Kelly, ‘The influence of base isolation on the seismic response of light secondary equipment’, Report No. U C B / E E R C 4 1 / 1 7 ,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1982.
16. J. H. Williams, Jr., ‘Designing earthquake-resistant structures’, Techn. rev., 76, 3 7 4 3 (1973).
17. C. Plichon and F. Jolivet, ‘Aseismic foundation systems for nuclear power plants’, Proc. S.M.1.R.T con$, London, England, Paper
No. C 190/1978 (1978).
18. J. M. Kelly, ‘Aseismic base isolation’, Shock uib. dig., 14, No. 5, 17-25 (1982).
19. N. Mostaghel, M. Hejazi and J. Tanbakuchi, ‘Response of sliding structures to harmonic support motion’, Earthquake eng. struct.
dyn., 11, 355-366 (1983).
20. D. Chen and R. W. Clough, ‘Earthquake response of structures with friction sliding motion’, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1981.
21. D. Chen, ‘Earthquake response control by sliding friction’, Proc. US-PRC bilateral workshop earthquake eng., Harbin, China, 27-30
August (1982).
22. Strong Motion Earthquake Accelerograms, Vol. 11, Part A, California Institute of Technology, EERL 71-50, 1971.