NONLINEAR COUPLED SEISMIC SLIDING ANALYSIS OF

EARTH STRUCTURES
By Ellen M. Rathje1 and Jonathan D. Bray2

ABSTRACT: Earthquake-induced sliding displacements of earth structures are generally evaluated using sim-
plified sliding block analyses that do not accurately model the seismic response of the sliding mass nor the
seismic forces along the slide plane. The decoupled approximation introduced to capture each of these effects
separately is generally believed to be conservative. However, recent studies using linear viscoelastic sliding mass
models have revealed instances where the decoupled approximation is unconservative. In this paper, a coupled
analytical model that captures simultaneously the fully nonlinear response of the sliding mass (necessary for
intense motions) and the nonlinear stick-slip sliding response along the slide plane is presented. The proposed
sliding model is validated against shaking table experiments of deformable soil columns sliding down an inclined
plane. The effect of sliding on the response of earth structures is evaluated, and comparisons are made between
sliding displacements calculated using coupled and decoupled analytical procedures with linear and nonlinear
material properties. Nonlinearity resulting from stick-slip episodes is often the dominant source of nonlinearity
in this problem. The decoupled approximation was unconservative primarily for intense ground motions for
systems with low values of ky, larger values of ky /kmax, and high period ratios (Ts /Tm). Results indicate that a
decoupled analysis is adequate for earth structures that are not expected to experience intense, near-fault motions.
However, for projects undergoing intense, near-fault ground motions, a fully nonlinear, coupled stick-slip analysis
is recommended.

INTRODUCTION the sliding interface, and ␴v is total vertical stress acting on

The seismic design of geotechnical structures, such as earth
dams and solid-waste landfills, requires an assessment of the
earthquake-induced sliding displacement of the system. The
calculated seismically induced permanent displacement is a
useful design index, because it indicates the potential damage
to an earth/waste structure during an earthquake. A rigid slid-
ing block procedure was proposed by Newmark (1965), and
his procedure is still the basis of most numerical techniques
used to calculate earthquake-induced sliding displacements in
practice.
Newmark (1965) realized that accelerations generated by
earthquake shaking could impart a destabilizing force suffi-
cient to reduce temporarily the factor of safety of an earth
slope below 1, leading to sliding episodes and the accumula-
tion of permanent displacement. The Newmark procedure
models the sliding mass as a rigid block and utilizes two pa-
rameters: the yield acceleration (ky g, the inertial coefficient
that results in a pseudostatic factor of safety of 1 for the po-
tential sliding mass) and the acceleration-time history of the
rigid foundation. Sliding begins when ky g is exceeded and
continues until the velocity of the sliding block and foundation
again coincide. The relative velocity between the rigid block
and its foundation is integrated to calculate the relative sliding
displacement (Franklin and Chang 1977). One major limitation
of a Newmark analysis is that the sliding mass is modeled as
a rigid block.
The Newmark (1965) procedure was later modified by Mak-
disi and Seed (1978) to account for the deformable response
of earth structures. In this procedure, a dynamic response anal-
ysis of the earth structure is performed, ignoring the potential
for sliding. The seismic coefficient-time history [i.e., k = ␶h /
␴v for a 1D system, where ␶h is the horizontal shear stress at
1
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-
1076.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2001. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on May 8, 1999. This paper is part of the Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 11,
November, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/00/0011-1002–1014/$8.00
⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 20908.
1002 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
the sliding interface (Seed and Martin 1966)], calculated from
the dynamic analysis is then used in a rigid sliding block anal-
ysis in lieu of the acceleration-time history of the rigid foun-
dation. This approximation was termed decoupled, because the
dynamic response analysis is decoupled from the sliding block
analysis. A decoupled sliding block analysis does not accu-
rately model the forces at the sliding interface, because sliding
is ignored (i.e., there is no relative displacement across the
slide plane) when calculating the dynamic response. The
forces at the sliding interface are allowed to exceed the
strength of the interface, leading to an overprediction of the
system response. This overpredicted response has led engi-
neers to assume that a decoupled analysis always provides a
conservative estimate of sliding displacement.
A number of researchers have examined the decoupled ap-
proximation using coupled sliding procedures, where the dy-
namic analysis and sliding analysis are performed simultane-
ously. These studies revealed circumstances where coupled
analysis calculated larger displacements than decoupled anal-
ysis. For the relatively simple material models they employed
(i.e., linear or equivalent-linear viscoelastic), the calculated
displacements from the coupled and decoupled analyses were
generally small when decoupled analysis was unconservative.
However, the calculated displacements were significant for
some earth/waste structures subjected to intense ground mo-
tions. Due to the limitations involved in utilizing linear or
equivalent-linear viscoelastic response models at high levels
of ground shaking, the discrepancy between coupled and de-
coupled sliding analyses should be reevaluated with a fully
nonlinear, time-domain, seismic response model.
A nonlinear, coupled, stick-slip analytical formulation that
models the forces at a sliding interface accurately and uses
fully nonlinear soil properties to model the dynamic response
of the potential sliding mass is presented. The coupled, stick-
slip model is validated using results from shaking table ex-
periments of a sliding, deformable soil column. Nonlinear,
coupled stick-slip analyses are then used to evaluate the effect
of sliding on the response of earth/waste structures. Compar-
isons are made between coupled and decoupled displacements
to discern instances where a coupled analysis is warranted to
ensure sufficiently accurate evaluations of seismic perfor-
mance.
PREVIOUS WORK
A number of investigators have examined the procedures
used to calculate earthquake-induced permanent displacements
of earth structures [see Rathje and Bray (1999a) for a thorough
discussion]. Lin and Whitman (1983) used a single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF), 1D lumped mass system and linear elastic
soil properties to calculate coupled and decoupled displace-
ments for harmonic motions and synthetic earthquake motions.
Decoupled analysis generally provided a conservative estimate
of sliding displacement, with the largest overestimation oc-
curring when the fundamental period of the sliding mass was
equal to the predominant period of the input motion. Chopra
and Zhang (1991) examined coupled and decoupled base slid-
ing displacements of concrete gravity dams. The analytical
model used in the study involved modal analysis of a gener-
alized SDOF system with linear elastic material properties.
Chopra and Zhang (1991) found that decoupled analysis is
generally conservative at low values of ky /kmax, where large
displacements are calculated and unconservative at large val-
ues of ky /kmax, where displacements tend to be small.
Gazetas and Uddin (1994) implemented coupled sliding into
a 2D, equivalent-linear, finite-element program. For shallow
sliding surfaces within an earth dam, the decoupled analysis
could be overly conservative when the predominant period of
the input motion matched the natural period of the earth dam.
However, some instances of underestimation of sliding dis-
placement were identified. Kramer and Smith (1997) used a
lumped mass, SDOF, linear viscoelastic model to evaluate the
sliding displacement of compliant slopes. The study revealed
that coupled displacement analysis could be unconservative
when the natural period of the system is large, as is the case
for solid-waste landfills. Rathje and Bray (1999a) modified the
analytical formulation presented by Chopra and Zhang (1991).
The generalized distributed mass, linear elastic model was
maintained; however, a mode shape appropriate for a 1D soil
column was introduced, and reservoir effects were removed.
The decoupled analysis was found to be unconservative when
the period of the earth structure was greater than twice the
mean period Tm of the input ground motion for high ky /kmax
values. The mean period Tm of an earthquake ground motion
calculated from the strains induced in the softened layer. This
procedure shows good agreement with results from rigid block
shaking table experiments, but has not been validated against
a deformable sliding system. Moreover, these numerical pro-
cedures include the softened, highly damped sliding layer at
all times during the analysis, even when sliding is not occur-
ring.
Previous studies have provided valuable information re-
garding coupled sliding displacements of geotechnical struc-
tures. However, linear or equivalent-linear elastic material
properties were used in all of these studies, and this is a sig-
nificant limitation for intense ground motions. None of these
analytical techniques captures the nonlinear, coupled, stick-slip
response and the fully nonlinear dynamic material response of
the potential sliding mass. A procedure that captures both of
these nonlinear responses is presented herein.
ANALYTICAL FORMULATION
The coupled, stick-slip sliding model presented by Rathje
and Bray (1999a) is implemented within a dynamic response
program that incorporates a lumped mass, multiple-degree-of-
freedom (MDOF), fully nonlinear material response model.
The stick-slip sliding model is a modified version of the model
presented by Chopra and Zhang (1991). A nonlinear, lumped
mass model is more useful than the linear elastic modal anal-
ysis scheme utilized by Rathje and Bray (1999a), because the
variation of dynamic soil properties with depth and time can
be captured.
Fig. 1 shows a typical earth/waste mass that may potentially
slide along a discrete surface, and the models that may be used
to analyze this system. The simplest way to model this sliding
system is to represent it as a Newmark rigid block [Fig. 1(b)].
A more accurate representation of this system incorporates the
seismic response of the deformable earth structure. Fig. 1(c)
shows the 1D, linear elastic, modal representation of the de-
formable sliding mass along with coupled sliding (Rathje and
Bray 1999a). A limitation of this procedure is that the material
properties are linear viscoelastic and do not vary with depth.
Fig. 1(d) shows the model presented in this paper (i.e., a 1D,
lumped mass model of the sliding mass that incorporates fully

冘
is defined as follows: nonlinear soil properties and coupled stick-slip sliding).
C 2i (1/fi ) The analytical models displayed in Fig. 1 all represent the

冘
Tm =
i
(1) sliding mass in one dimension. Studies have revealed that 1D
C i2 analysis provides a reasonably conservative estimate of the
i

where Ci = square roots of the sum of the squared real and

imaginary parts of the positive frequency fast Fourier trans-
form coefficients; and fi = discrete fast Fourier transform fre-
quencies from 0.25 to 20 Hz (Rathje et al. 1998).
Houston et al. (1987) and Yegian et al. (1998) outlined pro-
cedures that use the 1D, equivalent-linear wave-propagation
program SHAKE (Schnabel et al. 1972) to evaluate sliding
displacements while limiting the shear stress along the poten-
tial sliding plane. Houston et al. (1987) introduced a softened
layer at the depth of the sliding surface, which limits accel-
eration at the interface to ky g. Sliding displacements were cal-
culated with a Newmark rigid block analysis using the accel-
eration-time history directly below the sliding interface.
Yegian et al. (1998) introduces a softened layer into SHAKE
to model geosynthetic interfaces in solid-waste landfills. The
nonlinear shear modulus reduction curve for this softened
layer is prescribed based on the accelerations transmitted to a
sliding rigid block during shaking table tests. Material damp-
ing indicated from the transmitted acceleration-sliding dis-
placement loops was strain independent and equal to 43%. FIG. 1. (a) Problem Analyzed; (b) Newmark Rigid Model; (c)
This procedure limits the acceleration transmitted across a po- Linear Elastic, Modal, Coupled Sliding Model; (d) Nonlinear,
tential sliding plane. Sliding displacements for this system are Lumped Mass, Coupled Sliding Model

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1003

dynamic stresses at the base of 2D sliding systems [e.g., Vry-
moed and Calzascia (1978), Elton et al. (1991), Bray et al.
(1996), and Rathje and Bray (1999b)]. Therefore, 1D analysis
is deemed suitable for calculating the base sliding displace-
ment of most earth structures. Moreover, the use of a 1D
model offers a legitimate basis for a direct comparison of de-
coupled and coupled nonlinear sliding block analyses.
The governing equation of dynamic equilibrium of a
MDOF, lumped mass system is given by
Mü ⫹ Cu̇ ⫹ Ku = ⫺M ⭈ 1 ⭈ üg (2)
where M = mass matrix; C = damping matrix; K = stiffness
matrix; ü = vector of nodal relative accelerations; u̇ = vector
of nodal relative velocities; and u = vector of nodal relative
displacements. The acceleration-time history of the foundation
is üg; and 1 is a vector of order N (N = number of DOFs) with
each element in the vector equal to 1.
Sliding initiates when the force at the base of the sliding
mass exceeds the frictional strength at the sliding interface.
For one-way sliding in the positive direction, this condition is
described by the following scalar equation:
⫺MT üg ⫺ 1T M ⭈ ü = ␮MT g (3)
where MT is equal to the total mass above the sliding interface.
The coefficient of friction at the sliding interface is ␮, and the
yield acceleration for the system is defined simply as ␮g. In
(3), MT üg is the force at the sliding interface induced by the
ground acceleration; 1T M ⭈ ü is the force at the sliding interface
from the nonuniform acceleration profile within the sliding
mass; and ␮MT g is the frictional resistance at the sliding in-
terface.
After sliding has initiated, the excitation at the base is the
acceleration of the ground and the acceleration associated with
the sliding displacement. The sliding displacement s is defined
as the difference between the displacement at the base of the
sliding mass and the displacement directly beneath the sliding
interface. The equation of motion for the deformable mass
above the sliding surface during sliding is given by the fol-
lowing expression:
Mü ⫹ Cu̇ ⫹ Ku = ⫺M ⭈ 1 ⭈ (s̈ ⫹ üg) (4)
where s̈ = sliding acceleration at the base of the sliding mass.
During sliding, equilibrium at the shear interface is assured by
⫺MT (s̈ ⫹ üg ) ⫺ 1T M ⭈ ü = ␮MT g (5)
A more useful form of (4) can be generated by solving (5) for
s̈ and substituting the result into (4) to create the following
expression:
M*ü ⫹ Cu̇ ⫹ Ku = M ⭈ 1 ⭈ ␮g (6)
where M* is defined as follows:
1 parameters. These parameters are chosen to provide the best
M* = M ⫺ ⭈ M11T M (7)
MT
It is important to note that there are two specific cases where
the mass matrix M* as defined in (7) may be singular. These
cases are systems with 1- or 2-DOFs, where MT is exactly
equal to the sum of the lumped masses contained in M. When
studying discrete sliding systems, previous researchers have
circumvented this problem by assigning some mass directly to
the sliding interface [e.g., Mostaghel and Tanbakuchi (1993)
and Kramer and Smith (1997). In the computer code devel-
oped for this study, only half of the mass of the base element
(i.e., directly above the sliding interface) is assigned to the
lumped mass for that element, and the other half is assigned
to the sliding interface. This adjustment assures that MT is not
1004 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
equal to the sum of the lumped masses in M, and, therefore,
M* cannot be singular.
During sliding, (6) is the governing equation of motion
within the sliding mass and can be solved to evaluate the nodal
accelerations ü. The forcing function in (6) is constant and
equal to M ⭈ 1 ⭈ ␮g. Therefore, sliding imparts an impact load
equal to M ⭈ 1 ⭈ ␮g at the initiation of sliding, and, subse-
quently, the system responds in free vibration. The natural fre-
quencies of the system defined by (6) are larger than the nat-
ural frequencies of the nonsliding system, due to the changes
in the mass matrix as defined by (7). Based on modal analysis
of a linear viscoelastic system (Rathje and Bray 1999a), the
damped natural frequency of a sliding system is equal to
␻1
␻D = 兹d1 ⫺ ␭2 (8)
d1
where d1 = constant that is calculated from the mode shape
(Rathje and Bray 1999a), and ␭ = viscous damping ratio. For
damping ratios between 5 and 20%, the damped, first natural
frequency of the sliding system is approximately twice that of
the nonsliding system (Rathje and Bray 1999a). Hence, during
sliding, the system responds in free vibration at a higher nat-
ural frequency than the original, fixed base system (i.e., about
double).
The vector of nodal accelerations during sliding is used to
calculate the sliding acceleration at the base of the sliding
mass, with
1 T
s̈ = ⫺␮g ⫺ 1 M ⭈ ü ⫺ üg (9)
MT
The time history of sliding acceleration is numerically inte-
grated twice to calculate the relative sliding displacement
along the sliding interface. A sliding increment ends when the
sliding velocity ṡ is equal to zero.
The coupled, stick-slip response described previously is im-
plemented into the nonlinear dynamic response program, D-
MOD (Matasovic 1993). D-MOD, which is based on DESRA-
2 (Lee and Finn 1978), incorporates a lumped mass
formulation, and the soil is modeled by nonlinear shear
springs. The modified Kondner-Zelasko (MKZ) hyperbolic
stress-strain curve (Matasovic 1993; Matasovic and Vucetic
1995) and the Masing criteria (Masing 1926) are used to rep-
resent the nonlinear hysteretic response of the soil. The MKZ
stress-strain representation is given by the following expres-
sion:
Gmax ⭈ ␥
冉 冊
␶= s⬘ (10)
Gmax␥
1⫹␤
␶mo
where Gmax = small strain shear modulus; ␥ = shear strain; ␶
= shear stress; ␶mo = shear stress capacity of the soil at a spec-
ified reference shear strain ␥mo; and ␤ and s⬘ = curve fitting
fit with the nonlinear strain-dependent shear modulus reduc-
tion and damping curves of the soil. The MKZ model is equiv-
alent to the hyberbolic model when ␤ = s⬘ = 1.0. The addi-
tional MKZ parameters, ␤ and s⬘, allow for more control over
the shape of the stress-strain curve and, hence, provide a more
accurate representation of the variation of shear modulus and
damping ratio with shear strain.
D-MOD solves the equations of motion in the time domain
using the Newmark average acceleration integration proce-
dure, updating the soil stiffness at each time step. D-MOD and
other DESRA-based nonlinear codes have been shown to cal-
culate seismic responses similar to the established equivalent-
linear program SHAKE at low acceleration levels where non-
linearity is less pronounced [e.g., Finn (1988), Matasovic
(1993), and Bray and Rathje (1998)]. However, D-MOD cal-
culates a lower high frequency response and higher low fre-
quency response at high acceleration levels in agreement with
recorded strong motion data at rock and soft soil sites [e.g.,
Borcherdt (1994)]. Back-analysis of several well-documented
case histories, such as Treasure Island during the Loma Prieta
earthquake and the Wildlife Liquefaction site during multiple
earthquakes, have validated the use of D-MOD for ground
response analysis [e.g., Matasovic (1993) and Matasovic and
Vucetic (1995)].

VALIDATION OF COUPLED STICK-SLIP ANALYSIS

The coupled stick-slip analytical formation was validated
against results from shaking table experiments performed at
the Davis Hall Shaking Table Laboratory at the University of
California, Berkeley (Wartman 1999; J. Wartman et al., un-
published paper, 2000). In these tests, the shaking-induced
sliding displacement of a deformable soil column on a plane
inclined 11.3⬚ from the horizontal was measured. The deform-
able soil column consisted of kaolinite/bentonite clay con-
tained in a latex membrane, with acrylic disks at the top and
bottom of the soil. A soil column measuring 25.3 cm in di-
ameter and 16 cm in height was tested, and the small-strain
natural frequency of the soil column was 9.6 Hz. The kaolin-
ite/bentonite clay exhibited some nonlinearity during the tests
(Wartman 1999; J. Wartman et al., unpublished paper, 2000),
with modulus reduction and material damping ratio relation-
ships corresponding approximately to that of a clay with a
plasticity index (PI) of 100 (Vucetic and Dobry 1991). The
bottom of the base disk was covered with a geotextile, and a
high-density polyethylene geomembrane covered the inclined
plane. The frictional resistance of this interface is rate depen-
dent, but its dependence on sliding velocity was evaluated by
Wartman (1999). Tests were performed with sinusoidal input
motions of varying frequencies and intensities.
A comparison between the recorded sliding displacement of
the soil column and the calculated sliding displacement using
the coupled sliding model presented in this paper is shown in
Fig. 2(a). The soil column was modeled with equivalent-linear
properties, defined by the modulus reduction and damping
curves of a clay with PI = 100. Equivalent shear strains were
FIG. 2. (a) Comparison of Experimental and Numerical Sliding
evaluated by averaging the shear strain-time history calculated Displacement Time Histories for 0.18g, 6.7-Hz Input Motion; (b)
from the shaking table test results. A 5-s, 6.7-Hz sinusoidal Experimental and Numerical Sliding Displacement versus Input
motion with a maximum horizontal acceleration (MHA) of Frequency
0.18g was used as input for this test, and the interface friction
angle at the base was 17.5⬚. This interface friction angle is
consistent with the sliding velocity experienced during the test. both sets of data revealing high frequency pulses during slid-
The coupled analysis accurately predicts the initiation of slid- ing. A high frequency response during sliding is predicted by
ing at 0.6 s, and the final calculated displacement is within the analytical formulation due to the change in the governing
1% of the experimental value. Fig. 2(b) compares measured equation of motion during sliding, as indicated by (8). The
and calculated displacements for the same soil column sub- shaking table results verify that a sliding system responds in
jected to input motions of varying frequency and with inten- free vibration and at a frequency higher (about double) than
sities ranging from 0.14g to 0.18g. Strain-compatible shear its nonsliding natural frequency.
moduli and damping ratios were used in the coupled analyses Fig. 3 also reveals that the acceleration-time history at the
based on the average shear strain developed during the shaking top of the deformable soil column has similar amplitudes in
table tests. Average shear strains varied between 0.2 and 0.4% the positive and negative directions. Some researchers have
for the test analyzed, corresponding to G/Gmax values of 0.6– suggested that the acceleration-time history at the top of a
0.7 and damping ratios between 5 and 6%. The coupled anal- sliding mass should display different amplitudes in each di-
yses also incorporated sliding velocity-dependent interface rection. This conclusion is based on observations from shaking
friction angles between 16.5⬚ and 17.5⬚. These friction angles table tests using rigid sliding blocks, where the acceleration
were chosen based on the relationship between interface fric- transmitted to the rigid block in one direction is limited by the
tion angle and sliding velocity developed by Wartman (1999). yield acceleration of the sliding interface. However, unlike a
Generally, the numerical results are within 15% of the ex- rigid sliding block, a deformable soil column vibrates during
perimental results. sliding. Therefore, accelerations greater than the yield accel-
Fig. 3 compares measured and calculated acceleration-time eration can occur within the sliding mass. The acceleration at
histories at the top of the soil column for the experiment dis- the base of a deformable sliding soil column is not constant
played in Fig. 2(a). The maximum accelerations from the cou- because the limiting force at the sliding interface ␮MT g is not
pled analysis and shaking table test compare favorably, with directly related to the acceleration directly above the sliding
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1005
 FIG. 3. Surface Accelerations from Shaking Table Experiment and Coupled Analysis [after Wartman (1999)]

interface, but is a function of the entire nonuniform accelera- ysis peak at a smaller period ratio than those from linear cou-
tion distribution within the soil column. Eqs. (3) and (5) de- pled analysis. The shift in the peak is largely due to nonlinear
scribe this condition. Consequently, accelerations greater than analysis capturing the reduction in stiffness experienced during
the yield acceleration are observed at the base of the deform- shaking. Interestingly, although the nonlinear and linear peaks
able sliding soil column during sliding, while the force at the in Fig. 4 occur at different period ratios, their magnitudes are
sliding interface remains limited to ␮MT g. Data from the shak- reasonably similar. The linear analysis peak is slightly smaller
ing table experiments confirm this observation (Wartman than the nonlinear peak because a constant value of 15%
1999; J. Wartman et al., unpublished paper, 2000). Accord- damping was used in the linear analyses, which is higher than
ingly, numerical procedures that attempt to limit the acceler- the typical level of material damping developed in the nonlin-
ation transmitted to the base of a sliding deformable soil col- ear analysis at low period ratios. Additionally, the linear anal-
umn do not accurately model the overall dynamic response of ysis does not peak at Ts /Tm equal to 1.0 due to nonlinearity
a sliding system. introduced by sliding. The similarity in the linear and nonlin-
The favorable comparison between results of the coupled ear results at period ratios <1.0 indicates that nonlinearity in-
stick-slip numerical model presented and the deformable slid-
ing block experiments provides justification for the use of this
formulation. Previous research [e.g., Finn (1988), Matasovic
and Vucetic (1995), and Bray and Rathje (1998)] has already
provided evidence that a fully nonlinear dynamic analysis can
capture the nonlinear dynamic material response of earth and
waste structures under strong earthquake shaking. Therefore,
the proposed nonlinear, coupled stick-slip analytical procedure
is judged to be sufficiently reliable to estimate the seismically
induced permanent displacement of 1D systems that exhibit
significantly nonlinear material responses. This formulation
provides the opportunity to evaluate the relative importance of
material nonlinearity and nonlinearity introduced by stick-slip
episodes. Additionally, the decoupled approximation for non-
linear systems under intense ground shaking can be investi-
gated.

DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF SLIDING SYSTEMS

The dynamic response of sliding earth structures subjected
to strong ground motion often necessitates modeling nonlinear
dynamic soil properties in the time domain. For intense ground
motions, modeling the soil properties as fully nonlinear, rather
than linear viscoelastic or equivalent-linear, can result in dif-
ferent calculated sliding displacements. Coupled sliding dis-
placements calculated with linear, fully nonlinear, and equiv-
alent-linear soil properties are plotted versus Ts /Tm in Fig. 4.
The period ratio Ts /Tm is defined as the ratio of the 1D initial
fundamental period of the sliding mass (Ts = 4H/Vs, where H
= height of sliding mass, and Vs = shear-wave velocity) to the
mean period of the input ground motion. Ts was varied by
changing the height of the systems (Vs = 240 m/s). The strain-
dependent shear modulus reduction and damping curves for
the equivalent-linear and nonlinear analyses were those of a
medium plasticity clay [PI = 30 (Vucetic and Dobry 1991)].
The Superstition Mountain strong motion record (135 com-
ponent, MHA = 0.89g, Tm = 0.38 s) from the 1987 Superstition
Hills earthquake (Mw = 6.7) was used as the input motion and
systems with various ky values were analyzed. FIG. 4. Coupled Sliding Displacements Calculated with Linear
Fig. 4 reveals that the results from nonlinear coupled anal- and Nonlinear Analysis: (a) k y ⴝ 0.05; (b) k y ⴝ 0.1

1006 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000

 FIG. 5. Acceleration-Time Histories within: (a) Nonsliding; (b) Sliding (k y ⴝ 0.05) Earth Structure
FIG. 6. Response Spectra of Surface Motions for Sliding and
Nonsliding Model of 30-m-High Solid-Waste Landfill
troduced by the slip episode is more significant than nonlin-
earity introduced by material properties over this period range.
However, the difference between linear and nonlinear coupled
sliding analysis becomes more significant at larger period ra-
tios, with the linear analysis predicting displacements as much
as 35 cm greater than the nonlinear analysis. Using linear elas-
tic soil properties in a coupled sliding displacement analysis
can result in significant overprediction of sliding displacement
at large period ratios.
An alternative to a fully nonlinear analysis is a linear vis-
coelastic, modal analysis incorporating an increased natural
period (i.e., due to the reduction in shear modulus) and an
appropriate damping ratio to model the nonlinear response of
the soil (i.e., equivalent-linear material properties). Results
from an equivalent-linear, coupled analysis are also displayed
in Fig. 4. The strain compatible properties were established
from SHAKE analyses without modeling sliding. The fully
nonlinear and equivalent-linear results agree favorably, but the
equivalent-linear modal analysis requires a two-step calcula-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1007
tion procedure (i.e., SHAKE analyses to estimate strain-de-
pendent properties and then a coupled, viscoelastic stick-slip
analysis).
The natural frequency of an earth structure and the govern-
ing equation of motion change during sliding, modifying the
dynamic response of the system. The effects of sliding on the
dynamic response of a solid-waste landfill are demonstrated in
Figs. 5 and 6. Figure 5 shows the acceleration-time histories
in the rigid foundation, directly above the sliding plane, and
at the surface of a nonsliding and sliding (ky = 0.05) 30-m-
high landfill. The Corralitos strong motion record (000 com-
ponent, MHA = 0.64g, Tm = 0.48 s) from the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake (Mw = 6.9) was used as input for these analyses. A
shear-wave velocity profile for solid waste consistent with the
range recommended by Kavazanjian et al. (1996) was used,
and modulus reduction and damping relationships similar to
those for a PI = 30 clay (Vucetic and Dobry 1991) were used
to represent the strain-dependent dynamic properties of solid
waste (Augello et al. 1998). Fig. 5 indicates that the stick-slip
event can reduce the accelerations experienced within the land-
fill. Most noticeably, the large acceleration pulse of 0.64g in
the input motion at approximately 2.5 s is reduced within the
sliding mass. This reduction in acceleration coincides with a
sliding displacement pulse, indicating that sliding was the
cause of the reduced acceleration. However, the acceleration
directly above the sliding plane is not limited to a value of ky,
as is observed in rigid block tests. A similar observation was
made regarding the shaking table experiments.
Fig. 6 compares acceleration response spectra at 5% damp-
ing calculated for surface motions for a 30 m-high landfill
subjected to the Corralitos input motion when sliding (ky =
0.05 and 0.1) is and is not modeled. Sliding can change the
intensity and frequency content of the surface motion. The
MHA decreases as more sliding displacement occurs due to
smaller values of ky. Additionally, the response between peri-
ods of 0.3 and 1.0 s is generally reduced as a result of sliding,
particularly for ky = 0.05. The reduction of spectral amplitudes
at longer periods is a direct result of the change in response
characteristics that occurs during sliding.
The change in intensity and frequency content of the surface
motion of a sliding system could possibly affect the assess-
ment of cover stability for a solid-waste landfill. However,
although sliding can reduce the surface MHA by as much as
30%, a substantial amount of sliding must take place (i.e.,
Ucoupled = 29 cm for the 30-m-high landfill with ky = 0.05),
before the surface response is significantly affected. When
base sliding displacements are maintained below a generally
accepted displacement limit of 15 cm (i.e., ky = 0.1 for this
landfill), the surface response is not significantly modified by
the sliding episodes. Therefore, the response of landfills will
only be moderately affected by sliding at allowable levels of
base displacement.
COMPARISON OF COUPLED AND
DECOUPLED ANALYSES
Coupled and decoupled sliding displacements for linear
elastic and fully nonlinear seismic response analyses are pre-
sented in Fig. 7, along with the calculated displacement from
a rigid sliding block analysis. The Superstition Mountain mo-
tion was used as input and ky = 0.05 for these analyses. The
shear-wave velocity of the soil was equal to 240 m/s, and PI
= 30 shear modulus reduction and damping relationships were
FIG. 7. Coupled and Decoupled Sliding Displacements Cal-
culated from Linear and Nonlinear Analysis
FIG. 8. Effect of Shear-Wave Velocity on Displacement Differ-
ence for Superstition Mountain Input Motion and k y ⴝ 0.05
1008 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
used. The trends apparent in Fig. 7 were insensitive to the use
of linearly increasing shear-wave velocity profiles and to the
use of other modulus reduction and damping curves. Fig. 7
shows that at very small period ratios (i.e., <0.2) all of the
numerical procedures provide similar results because the sys-
tem is very stiff with respect to the input motion. As the sys-
tem becomes relatively more flexible (i.e., Ts /Tm increases),
decoupled displacements become larger than coupled displace-
ments, because a large response develops when sliding is ig-
nored, resulting in large calculated displacements. Here, the
rigid sliding block analysis is significantly unconservative and
should not be used. As the period ratio continues to increase,
the decoupled displacement eventually becomes smaller than
the coupled displacement. For the linear system, the decoupled
displacement response peaks at a period ratio close to 1, be-
cause the largest dynamic response of the system occurs here.
The linear, coupled displacement peaks at a period ratio <1,
because of nonlinearity introduced by sliding. For the nonlin-
ear system, decoupled and coupled displacements peak at pe-
FIG. 9. Coupled and Decoupled System Response for: (a and
b) Ts /Tm ⴝ 0.5; (c and d) Ts /Tm ⴝ 2.0
riod ratios less than the linear system because of nonlinear soil
properties and nonlinear coupled sliding. The rigid sliding
block analysis becomes significantly overconservative at large
period ratios.
The results in Fig. 7 indicate that decoupled sliding dis-
placements are conservative (i.e., greater than coupled dis-
placements) over a smaller range of period ratios when ma-
terial nonlinearity is considered. For the Superstition Mountain
motion and ky = 0.05, linear analysis shows conservative de-
coupled displacements up to a period ratio of 4, whereas non-
linear analysis shows conservative decoupled displacements
only up to a period ratio of 2. Consequently, decoupled dis-
placements are unconservative over a larger range of period
ratios when material nonlinearity is considered. Therefore, ob-
servations made from linear elastic analysis regarding the
range of period ratios that can potentially result in conservative
and unconservative decoupled displacements are not valid at
significant levels of ground shaking when material nonlinearity
is significant.
The effect of shear-wave velocity on the difference between
decoupled and coupled displacements calculated using fully
nonlinear material properties is shown in Fig. 8 for the Su-
perstition Mountain strong ground motion with ky = 0.05. Fig.
8 plots displacement difference (i.e., Udecoupled ⫺ Ucoupled) versus
Ts /Tm. A displacement difference greater than zero indicates
that nonlinear decoupled analysis provides a conservative es-
timate of sliding displacement with respect to nonlinear cou-
pled sliding analysis. Fig. 8 indicates that decoupled analysis
is more conservative, and conservative over a larger range of
periods, for stiffer materials, because the system responds
more linearly. Note that the positions of the maxima and min-
ima in Fig. 8 shift to the right as the stiffness increases, again
because stiffer systems exhibit relatively less nonlinearity for
the same input motion.
The response of the sliding mass during coupled sliding
gives rise to the difference between decoupled and coupled
displacement analyses. Analyses using harmonic input motions
can be used to explain why decoupled analysis is conservative
at low period ratios and unconservative at large period ratios.
Both decoupled and coupled analyses use (9) to evaluate the
sliding acceleration of a sliding mass. The summation of the
terms ⫺(1/MT)1T M ⭈ ü and ⫺üg in (9) represent the k-time his-
tory at the sliding interface for decoupled analysis. However,
decoupled analysis ignores sliding when evaluating the vector
of nodal accelerations ü, while coupled analysis accounts for
sliding when calculating ü [(6)]. Therefore, the differences that
arise between coupled and decoupled displacements stem from
the term ⫺(1/MT)1T M ⭈ ü in (9).
Fig. 9 shows the decoupled and coupled nonlinear re-
sponses, as characterized by (1/MT)1T M ⭈ ü and the sliding ve-
locity ṡ, for a harmonic input motion with MHA = 0.4g and
Tm = 0.5 s. Figs. 9(a and b) display results for Ts /Tm = 0.5,
where decoupled nonlinear analysis is conservative, and Figs.
9(c and d) display results for Ts /Tm = 2.0, where decoupled
nonlinear analysis is unconservative. Only one sliding incre-
ment is shown in Fig. 9 for clarity, and both analyses were
performed with ky = 0.05. First, note the high frequency, free
vibration response of the sliding mass during sliding for cou-
pled sliding analysis. At Ts /Tm = 0.5 [Fig. 9(a)], the coupled
response is larger than the decoupled response (in the negative
direction) immediately after sliding begins because of the im-
pact load that is imparted at the initiation of sliding [(6)]. Fig.
9(b) indicates that ṡ is larger for coupled analysis immediately
after the initiation of sliding due to this larger coupled re-
sponse. However, as the sliding increment continues, the cou-
pled response becomes very small because of damped, free
vibration. Consequently, ṡ for the decoupled analysis eventu-
ally becomes larger than ṡ for the coupled analysis [Fig. 9(b)],
and the decoupled displacement calculated for this sliding in-
crement (22 cm) is greater than the calculated coupled sliding
displacement (18 cm). At Ts /Tm = 2.0 [Fig. 9(c)], the high
frequency coupled response of the sliding mass is still appar-
ent; however, less than one full cycle of high frequency motion
occurs before sliding stops, because Ts is larger. Consequently,
the larger coupled response near the initiation of sliding dom-
inates the sliding displacement calculation. Thus, ṡ for the cou-

TABLE 1. Ground Motions Used in This Study

MHA MHVa Tm D5 – 95 b
Earthquake Mw Record (g) (cm/s) (s) (s)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Cape Mendocino 7.1 Cape Mendocino 090 1.04 42.0 0.35 9.7
Hyogoken-Nambu 6.9 Kobe University 090 (F) 0.31 34.2 0.70 6.0
Landers 7.3 Lucerne (Flt normal) (F) 0.73 146.5 0.31 13.1
Loma Prieta 6.9 BRAN 090 0.51 44.6 0.34 9.8
Corralitos 000 (B) 0.64 55.2 0.48 6.9
Gilroy #1 090 (N) 0.47 33.9 0.39 3.7
Gilroy Gavilan College 067 (N) 0.36 28.6 0.37 5.0
Los Gatos Pres. Center 045 (F) 0.64 99.5 0.72 10.1
Lick Observatory 000 0.45 18.7 0.28 9.5
Michoacan 8.0 Caleta de Campos 0.29 37.1 0.44 27.6
Morgan Hill 6.2 Anderson Dam downstream 250 (F) 0.42 25.3 0.43 6.8
Northridge 6.7 Los Angeles City Terrace 180 0.32 14.1 0.32 11.9
Los Angeles University Hospital 005 0.49 31.1 0.38 10.4
Pacoima Dam downstream 175 (F) 0.42 45.6 0.47 4.3
Santa Susana 026 0.33 21.2 0.25 6.9
Topanga Fire Station 000 0.36 17.6 0.32 8.7
Parkfield 6.1 Cholame #8 320 (F) 0.27 11.3 0.38 10.6
Temblor 205 (F) 0.36 21.5 0.41 4.4
Superstition Hills 6.7 Superstition Mountain 135 0.89 42.2 0.38 12.3
Tabas, Iran 7.4 Tabas (Flt normal) (N) 0.85 121.4 0.46 16.1
Tabas Dayhook (Flt normal) 0.41 26.5 0.46 12.4
Synthetic 7.0 Synthetic 0.78 56.3 0.51 10.5
Synthetic 8.0 Synthetic 0.57 67.1 0.51 24.0
Synthetic 8.0 Synthetic 0.75 63.6 0.47 9.4
Note: F = forward directivity; B = backward directivity; N = neutral directivity.
a
MHV = maximum horizontal velocity.
b
D5 – 95 = significant duration, time between 5% and 95% of Arias Intensity.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1009

pled analysis is larger than for the decoupled analysis [Fig. of sliding dominates the sliding displacement calculation
9(d)], and the coupled sliding displacement (4 cm) is greater [Figs. 9(c and d)]. Conservative decoupled displacements are
than the decoupled sliding displacement (1 cm) for this sliding predicted at these period ratios for some motions because slid-
increment. For this case, the short duration of the sliding in- ing increments for these motions are long enough to allow for
crement, with respect to the natural sliding frequency of the several cycles of free vibration during coupled sliding. This
slide mass, causes the large coupled response near the initia- response results in coupled displacements that are smaller than
tion of sliding to dominate the sliding displacement calcula- decoupled displacements [Figs. 9(a and b)]. In fact, all of the
tion. Sliding increments tend to be short for either long period motions that predict a displacement difference greater than
systems or systems with large values of ky. zero at period ratios greater than 3.0 exhibit forward directivity
effects [i.e., enhanced long period energy and a large displace-
ANALYSIS OF INTENSE MOTIONS ment pulse (Somerville et al. 1997)]. These characteristics lead
to long sliding increments and the observed trend. Additional
A sensitivity study was performed to compare fully nonlin- research is warranted to understand fully the effect of large
ear, coupled and decoupled sliding displacements and to eval- displacement pulses from forward directivity in the near-fault
uate when a fully coupled, nonlinear, stick-slip analysis is war- region on coupled sliding displacements on earth structures.
ranted. Twenty-four input earthquake motions were used for Fig. 11(a) plots displacement ratio (i.e., Udecoupled /Ucoupled)
this study, and these motions are listed in Table 1, along with versus Udecoupled, and Fig. 11(b) plots displacement difference
their important ground motion characteristics. High intensity (i.e., Udecoupled ⫺ Ucoupled) versus Udecoupled for ky values of 0.05,
motions were chosen for this study, because they will induce 0.1, and 0.2. The data in Fig. 11(b) are from the same set of
significant soil nonlinearity and emphasize differences be- analyses used in Fig. 11(a); however, the displacement differ-
tween fully nonlinear coupled and decoupled analyses. ence is plotted rather than the displacement ratio. These figures
Fig. 10 compares the decoupled and coupled displacements assist in evaluating whether the variations between coupled
calculated with fully nonlinear response analyses for the input
motions listed in Table 1 and ky = 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2. The shear-
wave velocity of the sliding mass was 240 m/s, and its height
was varied to change Ts /Tm. Cases where the height remained
constant and the shear-wave velocity varied revealed similar
trends in the results. Modulus reduction and damping relation-
ships for PI = 30 were used. Fig. 10 plots displacement dif-
ference (i.e., Udecoupled ⫺ Ucoupled) versus Ts /Tm. Fig. 10(a) in-
dicates that for ky equal to 0.05 decoupled analysis can
significantly overpredict coupled displacements (i.e., displace-
ment difference greater than 50 cm) at period ratios less than
1.0. At period ratios greater than 2.0, decoupled analysis un-
derpredicts coupled displacement by as much as 20 cm for ky
= 0.05. However, the results in Fig. 10(a) also show some
instances of conservative decoupled displacement in this pe-
riod range. Additionally, unconservative decoupled displace-
ments are observed at period ratios as small as 1.0. Similar
trends are observed for ky = 0.1 and 0.2 [Figs. 10(b and c)];
however, fewer instances of conservative decoupled displace-
ment at large period ratios are observed. At these larger values
of ky, the calculated displacements are small, and, therefore,
the magnitude of the calculated difference between decoupled
and coupled displacements is small. Hence, the decoupled ap-
proximation is primarily a concern at lower ky values, where
larger displacements are calculated.
The data in Fig. 10 are separated based on the MHA of the
input ground motion. Separating the data based on a maximum
horizontal velocity of 50 cm/s resulted in the same basic ob-
servations. The data in Fig. 10(a) indicate that, for input mo-
tions with MHA < 0.5g and ky = 0.05, decoupled displacement
may overpredict coupled displacement by as much as 50 cm
at low period ratios, and, at large period ratios, decoupled dis-
placement may underpredict coupled displacement by as much
as 10 cm. Similar trends are indicated for ky = 0.1 and 0.2
[Figs. 10(b and c)], but to a lesser degree. For high intensity
motions (i.e., MHA > 0.5 g), decoupled analysis overpredicts
coupled displacements by between 50 and 200 cm at period
ratios less than about 1.0 for ky = 0.05 and 0.1. The more
intense motions produce tremendously conservative decoupled
displacements in this period range because sliding increments
tend to be long, which results in a larger difference between
decoupled and coupled displacements [Figs. 9(a and b)]. At
larger period ratios, contrary to the results from lower intensity
motions, the high intensity motions predict conservative and
unconservative decoupled displacements. Unconservative de-
coupled displacements are predicted because sliding incre- FIG. 10. Displacement Difference versus Ts /Tm: (a) k y ⴝ 0.05;
ments are short and the coupled response near the initiation (b) k y ⴝ 0.1; (c) k y ⴝ 0.2

1010 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000

and decoupled displacements are meaningful with respect to
the total displacement calculated by decoupled analysis. Fig.
11(a) indicates that for a calculated decoupled displacement
greater than 10 cm, decoupled analysis tends to be conserva-
tive, and the decoupled displacement is generally within a fac-
tor of 2 of the coupled displacement (i.e., Udecoupled = [0.5 to
2.0] ⭈ Ucoupled). As shown previously in Fig. 10, intense ground
motions produce those few cases where the decoupled dis-
placement is significantly lower than the coupled displacement
in this range. For a decoupled displacement less than 10 cm,
decoupled analysis is generally unconservative, with decou-
pled displacements between 0.2 to 1.0 of the coupled displace-
ment. Fig. 11(b) indicates, however, that for small values of
decoupled displacement (i.e., less than about 1 cm) the dis-
placement difference is small (between 0 and ⫺5 cm). Because
coupled and decoupled analyses provide very similar and very
small displacements in this region, a fully coupled analysis is
not needed here.
The results shown in Fig. 11(b) also indicate that there are
several points between decoupled displacement values of 1
and 10 cm, where the decoupled displacement is unconser-
vative by greater than 5 cm (i.e., displacement difference less
than ⫺5 cm) and low by a factor more than 2. These points
generally correspond to the data at long period ratios shown
in Fig. 10 and for ky values of 0.05 and 0.1. In these circum-
stances, the difference between coupled and decoupled anal-
ysis may affect whether the expected seismic performance of
an earth structure is judged acceptable or unacceptable.

FIG. 11. (a) Displacement Ratio versus Decoupled Displacement; (b) Displacement Difference versus Decoupled Displacement

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1011


FIG. 12. Displacement Difference versus k y /kmax for: (a) Ts /Tm
ⴝ 0.5; (b) Ts /Tm ⴝ 2.5
Because it is customary to plot sliding displacement versus
ky /kmax, displacement difference versus ky /kmax for Ts /Tm = 0.5
and 2.5 is displayed in Figs. 12(a and b), respectively. The
maximum horizontal equivalent loading coefficient kmax was
evaluated from a decoupled dynamic analysis to calculate ky
values, and data for values of unreasonably low values of ky
(i.e., <0.04) were excluded. At Ts /Tm equal to 0.5 and ky /kmax
< 0.5 [Fig. 12(a)], where sliding increments are long and nat-
ural periods are short, decoupled analysis invariably provides
a conservative estimate of coupled displacement. At ky /kmax >
0.5, decoupled displacements are slightly unconservative be-
cause sliding increments are shorter, but the calculated decou-
pled displacement is still within 5 cm of the calculated coupled
displacement. At Ts /Tm equal to 2.5, Fig. 12(b) indicates that
decoupled analysis can underpredict coupled displacements by
5–20 cm at ky /kmax > 0.4. At lower values of ky /kmax, some data
points fall above zero because sliding increments are longer,
which can lead to conservative decoupled displacement esti-
mates [Figs. 9(a and b)]. As observed in Fig. 10, the most
1012 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000
unconservative decoupled displacement results are from high
intensity input motions.
CONCLUSIONS
A fully nonlinear analytical formulation was presented that
calculates the coupled sliding displacement of earth structures
during earthquake ground shaking. The coupled stick-slip for-
mulation was validated against shaking table experiments of a
deformable soil column. The response calculated by the nu-
merical formulation agreed favorably with the response of the
soil column during the shaking table experiment, with both
showing that the sliding mass responds at about twice its non-
sliding natural frequency. Comparisons between shaking table
tests and numerical results reveal that the numerical formula-
tion accurately calculates the sliding displacement of a de-
formable soil column sliding on an inclined plane. The nu-
merical model presented accurately models both the forces
along the sliding interface and the nonlinear material response
of the sliding mass. Consistent with the results from the de-
formable soil column experiments, the coupled analyses indi-
cated that the accelerations within the sliding mass often ex-
ceed the yield acceleration at its base, due to the dynamic
response of the sliding mass.
Comparisons with linear elastic, coupled sliding analysis in-
dicate that nonlinearity introduced by sliding is more signifi-
cant than material nonlinearity at Ts /Tm < 1.0. However, at
larger period ratios, material nonlinearity can have a signifi-
cant impact on the coupled sliding calculation, but this can
sometimes be accommodated by using a two-step, equivalent-
linear procedure. Numerical results reveal that the sliding
event changes the dynamic response of the system, resulting
in a moderate reduction of MHA and a change in the frequency
content of the surface motion. However, a significant amount
of sliding must occur before the surface motion is substantially
modified. Therefore, dynamic analysis that does not model
base sliding may be used to calculate the seismic loading for
cover systems of solid-waste landfills without significant in-
accuracy.
Nonlinear, coupled sliding displacements were compared
with nonlinear, decoupled sliding displacements to identify
when a decoupled displacement analysis might be unconser-
vative. Results using 24 earthquake ground motions reveal that
decoupled analysis is significantly conservative for period ra-
tios Ts /Tm < 1.0. For period ratios greater than 1.0, decoupled
displacements may be conservative or unconservative. In gen-
eral, these results agree with those of Kramer and Smith
(1997) and Rathje and Bray (1999a). For the motions consid-
ered, decoupled displacements were unconservative by less
than 20 cm for input motions with MHA > 0.5g and by less
than 5 cm for input motions with MHA < 0.5g. Results also
reveal that decoupled analysis is potentially unconservative for
systems with larger period ratios and values of ky /kmax greater
than 0.4.
In general, for cases where the calculated decoupled dis-
placement was greater than 10–20 cm, the decoupled displace-
ment was within a factor of 2 of the coupled displacement.
For lower displacement values, the decoupled displacement
could be less than the coupled displacement by a factor of 5
or more. However, the numerical difference in the magnitude
of the decoupled and coupled displacements was insignificant
(i.e., less than 5 cm) when the calculated decoupled displace-
ment was less than 1 cm. The displacement difference could
be significant for larger values of calculated decoupled dis-
placement. The decoupled approximation was unconservative
primarily for intense ground motions for systems with low
values of ky and high period ratios. A rigid block analysis was
either significantly unconservative or conservative, and it
should not be used.
The fully nonlinear, coupled stick-slip analysis developed
as part of this research provides a more accurate representation
of the earthquake-induced sliding of earth/waste structures. For
significant projects undergoing intense, near-fault or large
magnitude events, this fully nonlinear, coupled stick-slip re-
sponse procedure is recommended to estimate seismically in-
duced permanent displacements. However, considering that the
calculated permanent displacement is merely an index of seis-
mic performance and that there are significant uncertainties
involved in ground motion and material property characteri-
zation, the decoupled approximation is judged to be a useful
engineering approximation for most projects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support was provided by the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under
Grant RTA-59A130(4), and the National Science Foundation, Washing-
ton, D.C., under Grant BCS-9157083. This support is gratefully acknowl-
edged. Special thanks to Dr. Joseph Wartman of Golder Associates, who
shared the results of his Caltrans-sponsored shaking table experiments
performed at the University of California at Berkeley (U.C. Berkeley).
Profs. Raymond Seed and Michael Riemer of U.C. Berkeley also partic-
ipated in the experimental study. Finally, valuable discussions with Profs.
Gregory Fenves and Robert Taylor of U.C. Berkeley regarding the cou-
pled model implementation were particularly helpful.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Augello, A. J., Bray, J. D., Abrahamson, N. A., and Seed, R. B. (1998).
‘‘Dynamic properties of solid waste based on back-analysis of OII land-
fill.’’ J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 124(3), 211–222.
Borcherdt, R. D. (1994). ‘‘Estimates of site-dependent response spectra
for design (methodology and justification).’’ Earthquake Spectra, 10(4),
617–653.
Bray, J. D., Augello, A. J., Leonards, G. A., Repetto, P. C., and Byrne,
R. J. (1996). ‘‘Closure to ‘Seismic stability procedures for solid-waste
landfills,’ ’’J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 122(11), 952–953.
Bray, J. D., and Rathje, E. M. (1998). ‘‘Earthquake-induced displacements
of solid-waste landfills.’’ J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE,
124(3), 242–253.
Chopra, A. K., and Zhang, L. (1991). ‘‘Earthquake-induced base sliding
of concrete gravity dams.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(12), 3698–
3719.
Elton, D. J., Shie, C.-F., and Hadj-Hamou, T. (1991). ‘‘One- and two-
dimensional analysis of earth dams.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent
Advancements in Geotech. Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dyn., Univ. of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Mo., 1043–1049.
Finn, W. D. L. (1988). ‘‘Dynamic analysis in geotechnical engineering.’’
Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II, Geotech. Spec. Publ. No.
40, J. L. Von Thun, ed., ASCE, New York, 523–591.
Franklin, A. G., and Chang, F. K. (1977). ‘‘Earthquake resistance of earth
and rockfill dams.’’ Misc. Paper S-71-17, U.S. Army Waterways Ex-
periment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Gazetas, G., and Uddin, N. (1994). ‘‘Permanent deformation on preex-
isting sliding surfaces in dams.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 120(11),
2041–2061.
Houston, S. L., Houston, W. N., and Padilla, J. M. (198). ‘‘Microcom-
puter-aided evaluation of earthquake-induced permanent slope dis-
placements.’’ Microcomp. in Civ. Engrg., 2(3), 207–222.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Matasovic, N., Stokoe, K. H., and Bray, J. D. (1996).
‘‘In situ shear wave velocity of solid waste from surface wave mea-
surements.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Congr. on Envir. Geotechnics, Balkema,
Osaka, Japan, Vol. 1, 97–102.
Kramer, S. L., and Smith, M. W. (1997). ‘‘Modified Newmark model for
seismic displacements of compliant slopes.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE,
123(7), 635–644.
Lee, M. K. W., and Finn, W. D. L. (1978). ‘‘DESRA-2, dynamic effective
stress response analysis of soil deposits with energy transmitting
boundary including assessment of liquefaction potential.’’ Soil Mech.
Ser. No. 36, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of British Columbia, Van-
couver.
Lin, J.-S., and Whitman, R. V. (1983). ‘‘Decoupling approximation to the
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000 / 1013
evaluation of earthquake-induced plastic slip in earth dams.’’ Earth-
quake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., 11, 667–678.
Makdisi, F. I., and Seed, H. B. (1978). ‘‘Simplified procedure for esti-
mating dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformations.’’ J.
Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 104(7), 849–867.
Masing, G. (1926). ‘‘Eigenspannungen und Verfestigung beim Messing.’’
Proc., 2nd Int. Congr. of Appl. Mech.
Matasovic, N. (1993). ‘‘Seismic response of cosmic horizontally-layered
soil deposits.’’ PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Uni-
versity of California, Los Angeles.
Matasovic, N., and Vucetic, M. (1995). ‘‘Seismic response of soil deposits
composed of fully-saturated clay and sand layers.’’ Proc., 1st Int. Conf.
on Earthquake Geotech. Engrg., Balkema, Tokyo, Japan, 611–616.
Mostaghel, N., and Tanbakuchi, J. (1983). ‘‘Response of sliding structures
to earthquake support motion.’’ Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn.,
11, 729–748.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). ‘‘Effects of earthquakes on dams and embank-
ments.’’ Géotechnique, London, 15(2), 139–160.
Rathje, E. M., Abrahamson, N. A., and Bray, J. D. (1998). ‘‘Simplified
frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions.’’ J. Geo-
tech. and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 124(2), 150–159.
Rathje, E. M., and Bray, J. D. (1999a). ‘‘An examination of simplified
earthquake-induced displacement procedures for earth structures.’’ Can.
Geotech. J., Ottawa, 36, 72–87.
Rathje, E. M., and Bray, J. D. (1999b). ‘‘Two dimensional seismic re-
sponse of solid-waste landfills.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Earthquake
Geotech. Engrg., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 655–660.
Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. (1972). ‘‘SHAKE—A com-
puter program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered
sites.’’ Rep. No. EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University
of California, Berkeley, Richmond, Calif.
Seed, H. B., and Martin, G. R. (1966). ‘‘The seismic coefficient in earth
dam design.’’ J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 92(3), 25–58.
Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson, N. A.
(1997). ‘‘Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation
relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture di-
rectivity.’’ Seismological Res. Letters, 68(1), 199–222.
Vrymoed, J. L., and Calzascia, E. R. (1978). ‘‘Simplified determination
of dynamic stresses in earth dams.’’ Proc., Earthquake Engrg. and Soil
Dyn. Conf., ASCE, New York, 991–1006.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. (1991). ‘‘Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic
response.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 117(1), 89–107.
Wartman, J. (1999). ‘‘Physical model studies of seismically induced de-
formations in slopes.’’ PhD dissertation, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Yegian, M. K., Harb, J. N., and Kadakal, U. (1998). ‘‘Dynamic response
analysis procedure for landfills and geosynthetic liners.’’ J. Geotech.
and Geoenvir. Engrg., ASCE, 124(10), 1027–1033.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
C = damping matrix;
Gmax = maximum shear modulus;
g = acceleration of gravity;
H = sliding mass height;
K = stiffness matrix;
k = seismic coefficient;
kmax = maximum horizontal equivalent loading coefficient;
ky = yield acceleration;
M = mass matrix;
M* = mass matrix during sliding;
MT = total mass of system;
s = sliding displacement;
ṡ = sliding velocity;
s̈ = sliding acceleration;
s⬘ = MKZ model parameter;
Tm = mean period;
Ts = fundamental period of system;
t = time;
u = vector of nodal relative displacements;
u̇ = vector of nodal relative velocities;
ü = vector of nodal relative accelerations;
üg = horizontal ground acceleration time history;
 Ucoupled = coupled sliding displacement; ␴v =
total vertical stress;
Udecoupled = decoupled sliding displacement; ␶ =
shear stress;
Vs = shear-wave velocity; ␶h =
horizontal shear stress;
␤ = MKZ model parameter; ␶mo =
shear stress capacity;
␥ = shear strain; ␻D =
damped natural circular frequency of sliding mass
␥mo = reference shear strain; during sliding; and
␮ = friction coefficient; 1 = vector with each element equal to 1.

1014 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 2000