Pure Appl. Geophys.
168 (2011), 2259–2275
Ó 2011 Springer Basel AG
DOI 10.1007/s00024-011-0364-5
Stick–Slip and the Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium
and a Fixed Particle Lattice
J. KRIM,2 PEIDONG YU,1,3 and R. P. BEHRINGER1
Abstract—We report an experimental study of the stick–slip to
steady sliding behavior of a solid object pulled, via a spring, across
2D granular substrates of photoelastic disks that are either fixed in a
solid lattice (granular solid) or unconstrained, forming a granular
bed. We observe a progression of friction regimes with increasing
sliding speed, including single-slip, double-slip, and mixed stick–
slip regimes, steady sliding, and inertial oscillations. For the case of
the granular bed, we report a detailed analysis of frictional behavior
for the low speed stick–slip regime, including spring and elastic
energy dependencies during the stick and slip portions of the
motion. For the case of the granular solid, we explore friction in the
presence and absence of externally applied vibrations, and compare
it with sliding on a granular bed, which is intrinsically disordered.
We observe that external vibration reduces transition values for
both the single-slip to double-slip transition and the stick–slip to
steady sliding transition. Moreover, we observe that the effect of
packing disorder on granular friction seems similar to the effect of
vibration-induced disorder, a result that, to our knowledge, has not
been reported previously in the experimental literature.
1. Introduction
Friction between two mutually sheared surfaces
appears in a multitude of systems from atoms to
geophysical fault zones (KRIM 1996, 2002; BURRIDGE
and KNOPOFF 1967) and many characteristics are
shared by these systems, despite dramatic differences
in length scale. These include stick–slip to steady
sliding transitions with increased strain rate or sliding
speed, (LUAN and ROBBINS 2004) and demonstrated
sensitivities to disorder (BRAIMAN et al. 1999; MAK
and KRIM,1997; GENG et al. 2003) and externally
1
Department of Physics, Duke University, Box 90305,
Durham, NC 27708, USA. E-mail: bob@phy.duke.edu
2
NC State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
3
Present Address: German Aerospace Center, Institute of
Materials Physics in Space, Linder Hoehe, 51147 Cologne,
Germany.
Pure and Applied Geophysics
imposed vibrations (SOCOLIUC et al. 2006; JOHNSON
and JIA 2005; JOHNSON et al. 2008; CAPOZZA et al.
2009) It is unclear, however, how the fundamental
details of friction in these wide-ranging systems are
linked. Studies that provide insight into the similari-
ties and differences between atomic-scale friction and
the stick–slip phenomenon manifested at the macro-
scale are therefore of great interest. In this work, we
focus on exploring how ideas that have been devel-
oped for understanding atomic-scale friction can be
extended to the intermediate length scales associated
with granular materials. In particular, we study the
motion of an object, a slider, that rests on and is
pulled across a two-dimensional (2D) granular sur-
face consisting of photoelastic disks. The photoelastic
disks are either fixed in a lattice, which we refer to as
a granular solid, or unconstrained, which we refer to
as a granular bed. Employing this apparatus, we
observe a progression of friction regimes with
increasing sliding speed. These include:
1. single-slip stick–slip;
2. double-slip stick–slip;
3. steady sliding; and
4. inertial oscillations.
For the case of the granular solid, we also study
friction in the presence and absence of externally
applied vibrations, enabling comparison of how
vibration-induced disorder compares and contrasts
with the disorder intrinsically present in a granular
bed. Our systems enable us to probe whether trends
predicted by atomic-scale models are present in a
system characterized by macroscopic granular parti-
cles, and whether external vibration can have an
effect similar to that of (thermodynamic) tempera-
ture, which does not play an explicit role in granular
systems.
2260 J. Krim et al.
At the atomic scale, inter-particle interactions are
well defined, and a variety of models have been
suggested to describe how static friction and stick–
slip phenomena at a sliding interface arise from the
molecular nature of the materials at the interface, and
how energy is dissipated through the excitation of
molecular and electronic excitations (ROBBINS and
KRIM 1998; FILIPPOV et al. 2004). Length scales here
are of the order of a few Angstroms, and the relevant
systems are highly sensitive to both temperature
(BAREL and URBAKH 2010; JANSEN et al. 2010) and
sliding velocity levels (LUAN and ROBBINS 2004).
Stick–slip events reported by atomic-force micros-
copy studies are generally associated with one-atom
slip lengths if sufficient resolution is present. Atomic-
scale friction models have, however, demonstrated
that in some cases the slip length may increase from
single-atom to double-atom slip lengths as the sliding
velocity increases (NAKAMURA et al. 2005). Transi-
tions between regimes of single and double slip are
affected by system disorder, with the double-slip
regime extending to lower sliding speeds for some
system conditions (FAJARDO and MAZO 2010).
Increases in temperature, meanwhile, have been
predicted to reduce the slip length in a stick–slip
event (TSHIPRUT et al. 2009). One objective of this
study was to examine whether these features and
tendencies are present in macroscopic granular beds
and solids.
At the geophysical scale, interactions are macro-
scopic, classical, highly dissipative, and involve
complex structures that can extend for many kilo-
meters (BURRIDGE and KNOPOFF 1967). Granular
materials are typically collections of millimeter to
centimeter-scale solid particles, although, in princi-
ple, smaller and larger particles are still granular in
nature, and are also characterized by inter-particle
interactions that are purely classical in nature.
Granular materials are known to be present in fault
zones, which generally contain ground up rock,
gouge (MARONE et al. 1990; DE PAOLA et al. 2011),
that is granular in nature, as seen in Fig. 1. An
expected outcome of detailed laboratory studies, such
as the work described here, is the potential to eluci-
date the complex range of behavior seen in geological
fault settings. Among these phenomena are the
long-standing heat flow paradox, the possibility of
Pure Appl. Geophys.
Figure 1
Dolomite fault gouge from the Triassic Evaporites Formation in the
Northern Apennines of Italy, the source of the 1997 Colifiorito
earthquakes. From DE PAOLA et al. (2011)
earthquake triggering (JOHNSON et al. 2008), acoustic
fluidization (MELOSH 1979), characteristic times
associated with slip, and rupture modes, among oth-
ers. For a recent and useful review, see BEN-ZION
(2001).
Interestingly, granular materials exhibit friction
which is both a collective property of the many-grain
system, as shown by Coulomb (COULOMB 1773;
MUSER et al. 2003), and also involves ordinary fric-
tional interaction between grains. The former is
because of the inherent interlocking of grains, and in
fact occurs for frictionless grains. The latter is
because of the frictional interactions at particle sur-
faces. The fact that intergrain interactions are
frictional means there is no description in terms of a
conserved energy. Indeed, granular interaction forces
do not depend simply on the inter-particle separation,
and trace levels of films adsorbed on the particles
(PANELLA et al. 1996) can profoundly affect friction
levels (MCFADDEN and GELLMAN, 1997), with minimal
changes in inter-particle separation (KRIM and
BEHRINGER 2009).
Disorder, in various forms, can have a significant
effect on friction. Temperature, in the thermody-
namic sense, does not play an explicit role in the
granular case, and mechanical energy dissipated by
Vol. 168, (2011) Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium
friction or restitutional losses is lost to heat without
otherwise affecting the system significantly. Con-
versely, there is no flow of thermal energy back to
mechanical energy in granular systems. The concept
of granular temperature attempts to capture for
granular systems, some of the character of thermo-
dynamic temperature of conventional matter.
External vibration of a granular system can, however,
potentially act in a manner similar to temperature,
because it increases the kinetic energy of the granular
constituents. Such vibrational energy is captured in
granular gas models, which borrow from the molec-
ular theory of gases (GOLDHIRSCH et al. 1993). These
models exploit a generalized or granular temperature
defined in terms of the velocity variance. For denser
granular states (NOWAK et al. 1997), granular ‘‘fluids’’
and ‘‘solids’’, there are still mechanical fluctuations,
which can be quite significant, particularly in sheared
systems (HOWELL et al. 1999). And, the application of
external vibration can have a dramatic effect on state
selection, as seen in recent experiments (DANIELS and
BEHRINGER 2005). There are also several proposals for
new types of granular statistical mechanics (EDWARDS
and OAKESHOTT 1989; HENKES et al. 2007; MAKSE and
KURCHAN 2002). These approaches typically involve
developing new statistical ensembles based on
quantities such as total volume, or stress, which may
well be conserved for granular systems, unlike the
energy. Currently, these new versions of granular
statistics are in their infancy. Connections between
fluctuations and responses of granular systems are
very much open issues, and our experiments may
provide insight into this subject.
Mechanical vibration and disorder are known to
alter friction in a range of systems spanning the
atomic to the macroscopic (SOCOLIUC et al. 2006;
JOHNSON and JIA 2005; JOHNSON et al. 2008; CAPOZZA
et al. 2009), although the fundamental mechanisms
are not well understood. In atomic systems, interfacial
vibrations can act to induce interfacial melting at
temperatures far below ambient melting points
(DAWSON et al. 2009; BOROVSKY et al. 2001). In the
granular experiments of DANIELS and BEHRINGER 2005,
the application of vibrations to a sheared granular
layer enabled the system to find states of ordered
packing. Although these states were stable once gen-
erated, they were generally inaccessible from an
2261
initially spatially disordered state, without the appli-
cation of vibration. Spatial disorder at the atomic scale
has also been linked to friction reduction (BRAIMAN
et al. 1999; MAK and KRIM 1997). In static granular
systems, reduction of inter-particle friction or of
spatial disorder (through a change in polydispersity of
the grain sizes) has been shown to have a significant
effect on the way in which forces are carried through a
sample (GENG et al. 2003). Although both vibration
and frozen spatial disorder in granular systems play
roles that mimic thermal disorder, at this stage there is
no theory, to our knowledge, that can give a clear
quantitative connection between the degree of disor-
der or the strength of vibration and the resulting effect
on order–disorder in a granular system.
A general experimental issue for characterizing
these diverse systems involves developing probes at
the relevant scale. In the atomic case, atomic force
microscopy, microbalances, and other novel tech-
niques have provided numerous important insights
(KRIM 2002), although the nature of the contacts in
these atomic-scale systems can be difficult to char-
acterize in systems where stick–slip behavior is
prominent (FILIPPOV et al. 2004; BAREL and URBAKH
2010). At the other extreme, fault zones have tradi-
tionally been studied by searching for faults that have
been brought to the earth’s surface, by seismographic
approaches, and by bore hole studies. Ordinary gran-
ular materials do not involve the complexities
involved with atomic or geophysical behavior, and
they can be studied directly in table-top experiments.
However, most granular systems, which are 3D in
nature, can be difficult to observe in complete detail,
because they do not allow simple optical access.
However, recent experimental developments provide
new approaches for studying these systems at the
grain scale. Optical access for 3D materials is possible
if an index-matched fluid occupies the interstices
between grains (and if the grains are also transparent)
(TSAI et al. 2003). For quasi-2D materials, such as
those described here, it is possible to observe not only
the detailed motion of the particles, but, through
photoelastic approaches, measure the force response
of individual grains (MAJMUDAR and BEHRINGER 2005;
MAJMUDAR et al. 2007; ZHANG et al. 2010).
Several recent studies have probed the nature of
granular friction (NASUNO et al. 1997a, b; LOSERT
2262 J. Krim et al.
et al. 2000; AHARANOVand SPARKS 2003; SIAVOSHI
et al. 2006; YU and BEHRINGER, 2005; DANNIELS and
HAYMAN, 2008). NASUNO et al. (1997a, b) character-
ized the motion of a slider driven over a granular
surface formed from glass spheres or sand. However,
a connection between the internal granular and slider
dynamics was not accessible. Other recent work
involves the use of photoelastic particles (YU and
BEHRINGER 2005; DANIELS and HAYMAN 2008; YU
et al. 2011). Our work builds on the earlier pre-
liminary studies of YU et al. (2011) and YU and
BEHRINGER (2005). It combines photoelastic/force
information with detailed measurements associated
with motion of an object, a ‘‘slider’’, that is pulled
across a granular surface.
2. Stick–Slip Friction Models
2.1. Simple Block-Spring Model
A variety of models have been proposed to
characterize sliding between two frictional objects.
As a starting point, we consider a simple ‘‘block’’
model that assumes the textbook features of friction
for a slider that is pulled across a frictional surface.
The model consists of two frictional objects, the
slider and an underlying surface, that interact at a
planar interface where there are normal and tangen-
tial forces, Fn and Ft. Static friction supports
tangential forces when |Ft| \ ls |Fn|, where, ls is
the static friction coefficient. When |Ft| exceeds
ls |Fn|, sliding occurs with a frictional drag force
of lk Fn. When the velocity of the slider reaches zero,
friction reverts to its static form. In all cases, in this
scenario, there is an instantaneous switch between
static and sliding friction. Although this model is
ultimately limited, it can still furnish useful insights
into important physical scales.
In the model, a machine moving at velocity V
pulls with force Fp on the block through a spring of
force constant ks. Fp and the block motion are along
the horizontal direction. In the vertical direction, the
force of gravity is balanced by a constant normal
force Fn = Mg. We initially imagine applying this
model to a regime of V and ks that are ‘‘small’’, so
that stick–slip motion of the block occurs. During
Pure Appl. Geophys.
‘‘stick’’, the block is at rest, and Fp is less than ls Mg.
As soon as |Fp| exceeds ls |Fn| the block slips, and
experiences a constant drag force from kinetic
friction, lk Mg \ ls Mg, where lk is the kinetic
friction coefficient. This retarding force acts for a
time Dt during which the block slips a distance Dx:
Thereupon, the block returns to rest, and the frictional
force reverts to its static form. The dynamics of the
slider are simple: F ¼ M€ x ¼ ks ðxo þ Vt  xÞ  Ff :
Here, xo is a reference position which is determined
by the initial state of the system. For instance, if at
t = 0, x = 0 and Fp = ls Mg, the maximum
allowed static frictional force, then xo = lsMg/ks.
When the block is ‘‘stuck’’, Ff is given by the static
friction case, with x_ ¼ x€ ¼ 0: During sliding, the
solution for x(t) is easily obtained as sinusoidal plus
linear components in time t : xðtÞ ¼ A cosðxt þ
/Þ þ Vt þ ðls  lk ÞMg=k; and x2 = ks/M. This form
introduces a characteristic length scale:
b ¼ ðls  lk ÞMg=k ¼ DlMg=ks ; ð1Þ
and a characteristic frequency for inertial oscillations:
x ¼ ðks =MÞ1=2 : ð2Þ
It is also useful to define an inertial time scale,
sint = 2p/x. As above, this assumes that at
t = 0, x = 0, and Fp = lsMg and that the block is
at rest. A = (V2o ? V2)1/2/x, and tanð/Þ ¼ V=Vo :
Here, Vo = bx is a natural velocity scale. A different,
but clearly related, time scale can be constructed
from b=g ¼ Dl=x2 : Thus, M, b, and x provide a
complete set of dimensioned variables for this
system. A length scale that is not present in this
inherently macroscopic model is the grain size, d.
Slip occurs until x_ once again reaches 0. The time
duration of this slip is Dt ¼ ð3p  2/Þx; and the slip
distance is Dx ¼ VDt þ 2b: When the slider once
again comes to rest, the pulling force is Fp ¼
Mgð2lk  ls Þ: Consequently, the next slip event will
occur after a stick time sst ¼ 2MgDl=ðVkÞ ¼ 2b=V;
and thereafter, the stick–slip will repeat with a period
of sst þ Dt: An additional calculation yields:
ls  lk ¼ ðx2 =2gÞðDx  DtVÞ: ð3Þ
Note, too, that the maximum stored potential
energy in the spring is US = (FP)2/(2ks) if we use the
maximum value of Fp = ls Mg. Then the maximum
Vol. 168, (2011) Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium
for potential energy in the spring is US = (ls Mg)2/
(2ks).
The regime of small V/Vo is of some interest. In
this case, / ’ p; and Dt ’ sint =2; i.e. there is
approximately a half period of sinusoidal motion
for the slider velocity during the slip regime. In this
regime, the period of the stick–slip motion is
dominated by the stick time sst. We can approximate
the amplitude of this sinusoidally varying velocity as
Vo = bx. The peak kinetic energy during this
motion is then Kmax ¼ MVo2 =2 ¼ ðDlMgÞ2 =k: In this
regime, we can use Dl ¼ ls  lk ’ ðx2 =2gÞðDxÞto
obtain Dl from measurements of Dx: Then the ratio
of peak kinetic energy during slip to peak stored
energy in the spring is given simply as (dl/ls)2. An
important dimensionless property of our system is
the ratio of the typical slip distance to the particle
diameter:
R ¼ 2b=d ¼ DlMg=ðdks Þ: ð4Þ
For typical parameter values in the experiments,
R ’ 1;and we will see below evidence of these
competing length scales.
2.2. More Complex Behavior and Models
The simple spring-block-friction model above
gives useful scales for mass, time, and length, and
it predicts periodic stick–slip motion irrespective of
V or k. In fact, experiments, including those described
here, do show stick–slip motion for small V and small
ks. However, they also exhibit transitions to other
types of motion, including non-stick–slip periodic
motion, and nearly steady sliding which require more
sophisticated friction models.
These experiments also show more complex
behavior in the stick–slip regime. There are several
identifiable sources of this complex behavior. First,
the granular bed, as described below, is spatially
disordered (to avoid crystallization). Second, the
forces are carried on mesoscopic structures, force
chains (Fig. 2 below), which are approximately linear
collections of grains that carry above-average
amounts of force. At any one time, the number of
grains that are in force chains terminating on the
slider correspond to approximately 10–20% of the
number of grains along the bottom of the slider. Force
2263
chains evolve, bend, fail, and reform during the
course of a slider experiment. Force chains contacting
the slider are analogous to the asperities that are so
important in ordinary friction.
Time-resolved slip events show that the motion of
the slider can be more complex than one might expect
from the simple model. Instead of having a slip phase
consisting of approximately a half cycle of oscillatory
motion, events, particularly large ones, can consist of
a sequence of approximately half-cycle events, where
one event begins before the previous event has ended.
One possible explanation of this behavior is that the
granular material resists the pulling motion through
force chains, which are discussed in more detail
below. During a slip event, some of these chains
break, others can rearrange substantially, and new
chains form. This complex process involves both the
dynamics of the slider and the micro-scale and meso-
scale dynamics of the chains. From this perspective,
fixed ls and lk are rough approximations only.
In fact, experiments and simulations typically
reveal a more complex frictional force that is often
characterized by logarithmic rate-dependence (DIETE-
RICH 1972; RUINA 1983; BAUMBERGER et al. 1999;
BOWDEN and TABOR 1954; HESLOT et al. 1994; MUSER
et al. 2003; MARONE et al. 1990; HARTLEY and
BEHRINGER 2003). This behavior can be explicitly
encapsulated in rate-and-state models (DIETERICH
1972; RUINA 1983). It has been postulated that this
rate dependence is tied to activated processes, which
are thermal in nature (EYRING 1936), or which are a
result of force fluctuations induced by the shearing
process (BEHRINGER et al. 2008). In both these latter
pictures for log rate dependence, there must be
fluctuations (either of energy or of stress), which lead
to logarithmic dependences of stress on shear rate
because of activated processes described through
Boltzmann factors. The atomic-scale friction com-
munity is actively exploring the details of such
models (JINESH et al. 2008).
Theoretical treatments of stick–slip phenomena
frequently focus on how to eliminate them (LUAN and
ROBBINS 2004). It is well known that one way to
eliminate stick–slip is to increase the sliding velocity,
resulting in a transition to steady sliding. However,
theoretical predictions of this transition speed have
yielded values that are orders of magnitude higher
2264 J. Krim et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

than experimental reports, particularly for atomic-

scale measurements employing atomic-force micros-
copy. In addition, the transition to steady sliding does
not usually occur at a single velocity: Instead a
transition regime from strictly stick–slip motion to
intermittent sliding, to steady or oscillatory motion is
quite common, with bifurcations and chaotic system
dynamics all possible (LUAN and ROBBINS 2004;
ELMER 1997; BRAUN et al. 2005; HESLOT et al. 1994).
At the other extreme, experiments on solid and
granular friction frequently demonstrate dependence
of the effective friction coefficients on the rate of
sliding and the age of contacts. The block–spring
model with simple static and kinetic friction coeffi-
cients, ls [ lk, demonstrates neither the bifurcations
nor the rate/aging effects described above. One class of
models frequently used in the geophysical community
to capture these effects are the rate-and-state models
(DIETERICH 1972; RUINA 1983; HESLOT et al. 1994;
CARLSON et al. 1994). For instance, the effective
friction coefficient is proposed to depend on the
sliding velocity and on a state variable, h:

l ¼ lo ¼ a lnðx=V
_ o Þ þ b ln½ðVo hÞ=Dc  ð5Þ
where h evolves as

h_ ¼ 1  xh=D
_ c ð6Þ
Necessarily, this model introduces a microscopic
scale, Dc. For the block–spring model, as applied to
atomic or molecular scales, the transition to steady
sliding speed is frequently reported as:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vc ¼ c Fs d=M ; ð7Þ
where d = d/2 is the lateral displacement over which
the substrate potential changes from a minimum to a
maximum, Fs is the static friction force, and where c
is of order unity. (Once again, a microscopic scale is
involved). Equation 7 is, in essence, a balance
between the stored kinetic energy of the slider just
before a slip, and the frictional energy dissipation
occurring over that slip, assumed to be one lattice
spacing in extent. For our experiments, where Fs is
set bypffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the weight of the slider, we obtain
vc ¼ c ls gd=2 ’ 12cm/s, assuming that c ’ 1:
In order to explain some apparent discrepancies
between theory and experiments, Luan and Robbins
Figure 2
Top Sketch of apparatus. Second from Top Sketch showing the
granular region near the bottom of a typical slider. Third from Top
Photo of the granular bed. The upper black region shows a portion
of the metal slider, moving to the right. The bottom of the slider is
corrugated with semi-circular cut-outs that are approximately the
size of a particle diameter. Brighter grains are subject to larger
forces, and exhibit the characteristic force chains, which tend to be
oriented along the compressive direction for the shear. Fourth from
Top The fixed lattice of 5 mm photoelastic disks. Again, the upper
black region of this image shows a portion of the metal slider,
moving to the right. Below the disks is a solid base to which the
disks are glued. Again, bright particles experience larger forces.
For the case of the fixed solid lattice, the bright regions reveal the
higher order commensurability of the slider with the substrate. The
slider in this case has 56 lattice spacings for each 50 substrate
particles. In the two lowest images, a fixture (not shown) atop the
slider supports a permanent magnet that allows the slider to be
vibrated horizontally by externally applied magnetic fields. The
two different granular configurations, namely the bed and solid,
provide contrast between the picture of stick and slip from the point
of view of granular physics and from solid friction, in which two
contacting solids have a true contact area determined by a limited
number of contacting asperities. In this experiment, the chains
present in the granular bed act as the counterparts to multi-asperity
contacts
Vol. 168, (2011) Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium
(LUAN and ROBBINS 2004) have considered two time
scales associated with the slider:
td ¼ d=vc ; ð8Þ
and
ts ¼ 2H=cs ; ð9Þ
where H is the height of the slider, which, for many
macroscopic slider geometries, is proportional to M.
The quantity cs is the speed of sound in the slider, and
ts is the time for elastic waves to propagate back and
forth over the height of the slider. If td [[ ts, the
authors argue that stress can equilibrate throughout
the slider and there will be no change in the elastic
energy of the slider as it stops in a slip event. In this
case, Eq. 7 is expected to be applicable. For systems
where ts [[ td, this result may not be applicable.
For our case, there is also the possibility of
acoustic propagation reflecting off the bottom bound-
ary of the granular layer. Although the speed of sound
through the slider is very high ( 5000m/s), the
speed of sound through the granular material is only
of the order of a few m/s. In this regard, we note that
the speed of sound through the bulk material from
which the particles are cut is 56 m/s. The speed of
sound through a granular assembly is typically as
much as an order of magnitude less than the bulk
material speed. Hence, we estimate the speed through
the granular assembly here as *10 m/s.
d is the corrugation size in the atomic case. For our
case, the corrugation is set by the mean grain spacing of
the rigid lattice, 5mm, so d = 2.5 mm. The static
friction force, while quite variable, is of the order of 0.5–
1 N, and the mass is 0.17 kg. Taking c  1; yields the
predicted crossover to steady sliding close to 12 cm/s.
The characteristic time d/vc is then 0.021 seconds. To
estimate the speed of sound in the metal slider we take
cs = 5,000 m/s and a slider height of 5 cm, to obtain
ts = 2 9 10 -5 s. Equation 7 should therefore be
applicable. However, the time for acoustic propagation
from the slider, through the granular material, and back
is longer than td, approximately in the range 0.05–
0.1 s. One objective of this work is to examine whether
Eq. 7 is applicable to our experiments.
We note another possibly relevant velocity scale
which is set by the inertial time and the particle size.
This velocity,
2265
vint ¼ dx; ð10Þ
is 4.4 mm 9 20 s-1 ^8 cm/s for the bulk granular
material. Indeed, the ratio (vc/vint)2 = lgM/(dks) ^ R2.
3. Experimental Techniques
3.1. General Features
The experiments described here focus on the
nature of friction between a solid surface and a
quasi-2D granular system consisting of photoelastic
disks made from a commercial polymer (PSM,
Vishay Measurements). As shown in Fig. 2 Top,
these disks are confined in a channel, formed by two
vertically oriented Plexiglas sheets that are separated
by a spacing that is slightly larger than the thickness
of the particles. A cart is driven along a track located
above the channel, and mounted on this cart are a
camera, a light source, and a force gauge, to which
one end of the pulling spring is attached. The other
end of the spring is attached to the ‘‘slider’’, a solid
metal object that has a width comparable with the
thickness of the grains, and that rides on the upper
surface of the granular sample. The force gauge
measures the pulling force, Fp, and the camera/light
source detect the photoelastic response of the grains.
Measurements of Fp are synchronized with camera
frame grabs. The light from the source passes
through a first circular polarizer, then through the
disks along their axial direction, then through a
second crossed circular polarizer, and finally into the
camera. The resulting images of the stressed photo-
elastic particles show light and dark bands within
each disk, and the patterns of the bands provide
quantitative information on inter-particle forces
(MAJMUDAR and BEHRINGER 2005; MAJMUDAR et al.
2007; ZHANG et al. 2010). In particular, those
particles which experience a relative large force
appear bright in a typical image, for example Fig. 2,
bottom two images. Bright regions below the slider
are particles experiencing a large force. These tend
to be organized along force chains oriented along the
compressive direction for the shear. The sliders are
brass or aluminium and are patterned on the bottom
by half-round cut-outs of diameter comparable with
(but not equal to) d.
2266 J. Krim et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

3.2. Granular Bed

0.7
The granular bed consists of a vertically oriented Stick

layer of approximately 10,000 particles. The layer is 0.6 Slip

confined by walls at the ends and at the bottom, but it ΔF

Fp /Mg
is free on the upper surface; the channel length and 0.5
ΔF
depth are respectively 1.5 m and 15.5 cm. The
particle size distribution is bidisperse, with the 0.4 Δt

smaller and larger particle diameters given by 4.0

Δt
and 5.0 mm, respectively. The number fraction of 0.3

smaller particles is 0.63, yielding a mean diameter of 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
d = 4.37 mm. A bidisperse distribution is chosen to Time (s)
avoid long-range crystalline order.
M = 219.0 g, V = 0.033 cm/s, ks = 61 N/m
0.9 M = 219.0 g, V = 0.033 cm/s, ks = 34 N/m
M = 73.0 g, V = 0.033 cm/s, ks = 34 N/m
3.3. Additional Features 0.8

Two additional aspects of these experiments 0.7

Fp/Mg
involved:
0.6
1. using a fixed ordered substrate, the granular solid;
0.5
and
2. probing the effect of added vibration. 0.4

For the case of the granular solid, which is seen in
the bottom-most part of Fig. 2, we glued a single
ordered layer of particles to a strip of metal. The
substrate particle center-to-center spacing is 5 mm.
We used a slider that has 56 lattice cutouts for every
50 substrate particles. In order to apply external
vibrations to the system, we added a permanent
magnet atop one of the sliders and a pair of coils that
moves with the cart and that surround the permanent
magnet. The axes of all magnets are aligned along
the horizontal direction. By applying a current to the
coils, we can apply an AC horizontal force to the
slider with a vibration amplitude of *0.1 mm. More
details of the experiment can also be found elsewhere
(YU et al. 2011).
4. Experimental Results
4.1. Granular Bed: Stick–slip Regime
In the first set of experiments discussed here
and elsewhere (YU et al. 2011), V \ 1 mm/s,
Vo [[ vc [ V, and the motion clearly is described
by stick–slip. We briefly discuss results presented
elsewhere (YU et al. 2011), and add some additional
0.3
1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Time (s)
Figure 3
Top Typical time series for the pulling force, with a stick and
slip event highlighted (Fp, with M ¼ 219:0 g; V ¼ 0:033 cm s1 ;
ks ¼ 34:3 N m1 ) Bottom Examples of stick–slip behavior for other
experimental conditions. All data in this figure are for a granular
bed
details. In a typical experiment for this regime, the
cart advances steadily, and the slider remains nearly
at rest during the stick phase. In fact, there is small
but detectable deformation of the grains because the
effective spring constant for the material is an order
of magnitude greater than the typical pulling spring
constant. Fig. 3 shows typical time series for
Fp, where we have normalized by the slider weight,
Mg. Fp increases nearly uniformly at a rate set by V
until a slip event occurs. Slips occur over time
intervals that are typically much shorter than those
for stick, and the slider advances at a speed in excess
of Vp. At the end of a slip event, Fp is reduced, and a
new stick period ensues. For V values and ks values in
the stick–slip regime, we observe non-periodic
events. Because our material is spatially disordered,
and because the number of strong force chain
Vol. 168, (2011) Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium
contacts is relatively small (typically *15 or less, as
in Fig. 2 Third from Top), there is no compelling
reason to expect periodic stick–slips.
The stick and slip processes are relatively easily
distinguished, because they are characterized by slow
and rapid motion. We define a stick (slip) event
(Fig. 3 as any increase (decrease), DFp ; of Fp with
time that is larger than a threshold slightly larger than
the force gauge resolution. In fact, the values of Fp at
which slips start (Fstart) or end (Fstop) are broadly
distributed, as shown in YU et al. (2011). These
probability distribution functions (PDFs) are insensi-
tive to modest increases of the above threshold. We
also obtain PDFs for the duration over which stick
(slip) occurs, Dt; and the energy changes of the pulling
spring, DEp : As seen by YU et al. (2011), the PDFs for
Dt are described relatively well as nearly exponential
in Dt=tint ; and the PDFs for DEp scaled by (Mg)2/ks are
described relatively well as a universal power-law
with an exponent slightly greater than 1.0.
We note that when Fp is at a maximum just before
the beginning of a slip event, Fp = Fstart, the static
friction coefficient is simply ls = Fp/Fn = Fstart/Mg
where the normal force is set by Fn = Mg. As shown
by YU et al. (2011), typical PDFs of Fstart/Mg and
also Fstop/Mg, are broad, nearly overlapping, and
roughly gaussian (see also ALBERT et al. 2001). The
means of the PDFs for both Fstart/Mg and Fstop/Mg are
close to 0.5 and have variances of *0.07. Necessar-
ily, however, the mean for Fstart/Mg is slightly higher
than the mean for Fstop/Mg. The PDFs for both
quantities do not change significantly for different V
and ks in the stick–slip regime.
As would be expected, there is creep immediately
preceding slip events, as shown in Fig. 4. On the scale
of Fig. 3, this motion is not easily observable. In the
low-V case, the elementary block–spring model
indicates that slip occurs for roughly half a period
of sinusoidal motion at frequency x. It is then
straightforward to show that ls  lk ¼ ðx2 =2gÞ
ðDx  DtVÞ: Hence, the effective static and kinetic
friction coefficients are determined: as above, Fp/Mg
at failure yields ls, and determination of Dx and Dt
yields lk.
The change in energy after a slip event is DE ¼
DEp þ DEg where DEg is the potential energy stored
inside the granular disks, and Ep = F2p/(2ks). As
2267
0.6 0.8
x position of the slider (cm)
0.55 0.6
0.5 0.4
Fp/Mg
0.45 0.2
Creep
0.4 0
0.35 Fp -0.2
x
0.3 -0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
Figure 4
Example of creep preceding a slip event, as seen in the pulling
force, Fp and in the slider position
discussed in more detail below, we estimate the
effective spring constant for the grains as kg ’ 250N/
m. If we think of the grains and pulling spring as two
springs in series, acted on by the force Fp, then the
effective spring constant will be ke = ks kg/(ks ? kg).
The energies stored in the spring and in the grains are,
respectively, F2p/(2kp) and F2p/(2kg), and the fraction of
the energy stored in the grains is ð1 þ kg =ks Þ1 : DEg
ranges from 10 to approximately 30% of the energy
loss for springs used in the stick–slip regime, as in
Fig. 5, for example. Note that in this picture, the total
energy loss is an O(1) factor different from the energy
2 2
loss in the spring, and hence, DE ¼ ðFstart  Fstop Þ=
ð2ks Þ provides a reasonable, though not complete
measure of energy lost in a slip event.
Data for DE are of some interest, because they can
be compared with data for earthquake magnitudes,
m, and the well known Gutenberg–Richter (GR)
power-law distribution, N(m). We have shown (YU
et al. 2011) that the PDFs for the energy loss at slips
can be described by a power law with an exponent
-1.2 ± 0.1. Some comments about these results are
in order. First, the fact that the data from our
experiments show a power law is interesting in its
own right, because it indicates that slip events involve
complex non-repetitive processes. Of course, com-
parison with the GR relation can only be made in a
heuristic sense, because the details of the experiment
and the multiple faults that are represented in a
typical GR distribution are very different. Second,
there are several details involved in comparing our
PDFs of slip energies and the GR law. The GR
2268 J. Krim et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

t25v033f30d1009E4-15
300 50
Energy in spring (gram*cm)

Energy in grains (gram*cm)

250 41.667 2
10

P(Δ Fp/Mg)
200 33.333

0
150 25 10
Energy in the spring m=219g, k =107 N/m, V=0.033cm/s
s
Energy in the grains m=219g, k =61 N/m, V=0.033cm/s
s
100 16.667 m=219g, k =34 N/m, V=0.033cm/s
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 s
m=219g, k =34 N/m, V=0.066cm/s
data indexes (30 Hz) −2
10
s
m=219g, k =34 N/m, V=0.017cm/s
s
Figure 5 m=73g, k =34 N/m, V=0.033cm/s
s
Pulling spring energy (black) and granular elastic energy (red)
−3 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0
during stick–slip motion. Here, M = 219.0 g, V = 0.033 cm/s, and
kp = 34.3 N/m log10(Δ Fp/Mg)

Figure 6
PDFs for drops, DFp ; after a slip. Note that these distributions show
relation is a cumulative probability distribution scaling collapse when DFp is normalized by Mg
function (CDF). In YU et al. (2011), we present our
data as a probability distribution function (PDF),
P(m)dm, which is related to the CDF by NðmÞ ¼ that largest spring constant considered in the previous
R1 0 0
m Pðm Þdm : The GR CDF is log10N(m) = a - bm, section and we explore velocities that are up to 150
where b ^ 1, from the global range of earthquake times greater.
data. m can be related to the seismic energy Es by In all cases, we observe transitions from stick–slip
log10 ðDEs Þ ¼ 1:5m þ 4:8; and the PDF of DEs is dynamics to oscillatory dynamics, sometimes with an
related to the PDF of m by PðDEs Þ ¼ PðmÞdm= intervening steady sliding state. Before turning to a
dðDEs Þ. The PDF for DEs is PðEs Þ / DEs where discussion of oscillatory sliding, we consider possible
 ¼ 1 þ 2b=3: If b = 1, then  ’ 5=3: (See BEN-ZION oscillatory frequencies associated with our system. A
(2008) for a more detailed discussion.) In fact, this mass and spring system with mass 170 g and spring
power-law is reflected in the force drops after slip constant 160 N/m oscillates with frequency 4.88 Hz,
events, as shown in Fig. 6. The deviations from a or period 0.205 s, referred to here as inertial oscil-
power law at the lower and higher ends of the data are lations. Note that this frequency may be modified
because of measurement resolution and finite slider because of the elasticity of the grains, that is, there is
mass, respectively. an effective spring constant for the spring plus grains,
ke = kskg/(ks ? kg), that is lower than the bare spring
constant alone. The slope of the force versus distance
4.2. Granular Bed and Solid: Stick–slip
curve for the granular solid in the stick–slip low
to Steady Sliding
velocity regime (without vibrations) provides an
Figures 7, 8 and 9 present pulling force, Fp, ver- effective spring constant for the system, k = 100 N/m,
sus puller displacement in steps of 0.1 mm, for a which incorporates the effects of the elasticity of the
170 g slider pulled along by a 160 N/m spring, for, photoelastic disks. This implies a grain spring
respectively, the granular bed, the granular solid with constant of *250 N/m, which is consistent with an
no applied vibration, and the granular solid under the independent calibration made by measuring the grain
influence of external 11 Hz vibrations. In each case, displacement in response to an applied force. Taking
we show a puller displacement of 10 cm. Note that M = 0.17 kg, and k = 100 N/m, gives a frequency of
because the puller is moving uniformly, puller 3.86 Hz, and a period of 0.259 s. Interestingly, the
displacement can be converted simply to elapsed effective spring constant seems to be slightly higher for
time. We use a spring constant that is 60% larger than the granular solid with vibrations, i.e. ke ’ 120N/m,
Vol. 168, (2011) Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium 2269

Figure 7
Granular bed, (no external vibration): pulling force versus distance in steps (1 step = 0.1 mm) for a 170 g slider and 160 N/m spring at pulling
speeds ranging from 0.2 to 5 cm/s. Stick–slip events are not observed above 1 cm/s. Modulated inertial oscillations, characteristic of the
crossover to steady sliding, are observed at 5 cm/s. Their frequency is consistent with inertial oscillations of a 170 g mass on a 160 N/m
spring, 4.88 Hz (period = 0.205 s)

giving a slightly higher frequency of 4.22 Hz, with a
slightly shorter period of 0.236 s. For the granular
bed, the data in the stick–slip regime are noisier, but
we estimate ke ’ 68N/m, hence an inertial frequency
of 3.18 Hz and period of 0.314 s.
Figure 7 shows data for the granular bed without
vibration for pulling speeds ranging from 0.2 cm/s to
5 cm/s. The stick–slip character, even for the lower
speeds, is much less sharp than for the slower speeds
and weaker spring constants discussed earlier. Nev-
ertheless, for pulling speeds of 0.5–1 cm/s we see
relatively organized slips with a typical size scale that
is roughly comparable with the size of a particle (or
the size of the cut-outs on the bottom of the slider).
For a pulling speed of 0.5 cm/s, the typical peak-to-
peak distance in the force-displacement data is
2270 J. Krim et al. Pure Appl. Geophys.

Figure 8
Granular solid, (no external vibration): pulling force versus distance in steps (1 step = 0.1 mm) for a 170 g slider and 160 N/m spring at
pulling speeds ranging from 0.2 to 10 cm/s. Stick–slip events are not observed above 2 cm/s. A distinct change in behavior is observed at
5 cm/s. Modulated inertial oscillations, characteristic of the crossover to steady sliding, are observed at 10 cm/s. Their frequency is consistent
with inertial oscillations of a 170 g mass on a 160 N/m spring, 4.88 Hz (period = 0.205 s). Lattice/grain size dimensions (4.5 mm) are
displayed in the 0.2 cm/s plot. Slip events correspond, on average, to an integral number of lattice steps

*0.47 cm, corresponding to a time of 0.94 s; for
1 cm/s, the peak-to-peak distance is *0.57 cm,
corresponding to a time of 0.56 s. We will see below
that for the granular bed the effect of the character-
istic size of a particle/slider-roughness is even
clearer. For a pulling speed of 5 cm/s, periodic
dynamics occur, with a typical distance per period of
*1.8 cm, corresponding to a time of 0.36 s. This
time is close to the estimated period for inertial
oscillations for the granular bed case, namely 0.314 s.
Figure 8 presents data for Fp versus puller
displacement for sliding on the granular solid without
vibration, where the cart is moving at speeds of
0.2–10 cm/s. Unlike the case of a disordered granular
Vol. 168, (2011) Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium 2271

Figure 9
Granular solid, vibrated at 11 Hz with a peak amplitude of *0.2 mm: pulling force versus distance in steps (1 step = 0.1 mm) for a 170 g
slider and 160 N/m spring at pulling speeds ranging from 0.2 to 10 cm/s. Stick–slip events are not observed above 2 cm/s. Modulated inertial
oscillations, characteristic of the initial onset of the crossover to steady sliding, are observed at 5 and 10 cm/s. Their frequency is consistent
with inertial oscillation of a 170 g mass on a 160 N/m spring, 4.88 Hz (period = 0.205 s). The 0.2 cm/s data do not include the starting point
for the motion

bed, the stick–slip is more periodic, and the slip
distances are close to that of the grain dimensions or
multiples of it. (displayed in the 0.2 cm/s plot) As the
pulling speed is increased from 0.2 to 2.0 cm/s, the
typical force drop and slip distance of an event
increases by approximately a factor of two in each
case. This occurs because the characteristic puller
displacement and slip distances change from d to
2d or 3d. We note that the average slip distances are
closer to multiples of the periodicity roughness
profile of the slider than that of the grains. A
transition/bifurcation to steady sliding is evident for
5 cm/s. The fast oscillations at the beginning of the
5 cm/s run are apparently a transient, and the nearly
2272 J. Krim et al.
constant pulling force in the second part of the run are
the steady state. Above this speed, the system
displays inertial oscillations, similar to those reported
by NASUNO et al. (1997a, b) for granular layers
consisting of glass spheres. The period of these
oscillation, 0.205 s, is displayed in the 10 cm/s plot.
We can also compare this with the prediction of Eq. 7
for the crossover velocity to steady sliding. Taking M
= 0.17 kg, and k = 100 N/m, and a characteristic
distance of one disk, the prediction of Eq. 7 for the
crossover velocity to steady sliding is approximately
10 cm/s. Here, we take c of order unity, Fs to be the
static friction force, Fs = 1 N, and d to be half of the
characteristic distance 5 mm. This estimate corre-
sponds reasonably well to the observed velocity of
5 cm/s for which we observe steady sliding.
Figure 9 presents data for the granular solid in the
presence of externally imposed horizontal vibration
at a frequency of 11 Hz, close to the third overtone of
the system’s inertial resonant frequency. In this
figure, the effect of increased pulling speed is
qualitatively similar to what is seen in atomic scale
stick–slip models of moderate strength substrates as
velocity is increased (NAKAMURA et al. 2005). In
particular, at low sliding speeds, the slip length in the
stick–slip corresponds to the particle/slider-roughness
length scale. There is then a transition from a region
of single lattice-spacing sliding to a region of
multiple lattice-spacing sliding as the pulling velocity
increases. Close to 5 cm/s, the system transitions to
oscillations. The oscillations observed are consistent
with inertial oscillations of the spring–mass system,
and are similar to those reported earlier by Kudrolli
and coworkers (NASUNO et al. 1997a, b). In the
granular solid case with vibration, we expect a
characteristic period of 0.236 s. This value matches
the data reasonably well for sliding at 5 cm/s, where
the period of oscillations is 0.263 s (Fig. 7). At
10 cm/s, the period of the oscillations is comparable,
namely 0.249 s. Videos of the system while being
vibrated reveal an amplitude of vibration of the order
of tenths of millimeters, which adds approximately
8lJ of energy to the 0.17 kg slider. To place this
in context, this amount of energy, converted to
gravitational energy, would correspond to a height
increase of 0.024 mm. An oscillatory amplitude of
0.2 mm at 11 Hz corresponds to a peak (horizontal)
Pure Appl. Geophys.
velocity of Ax = 1.4 cm, which is squarely in the
middle of the range considered here, in which a
number of different transitions occur. It may there-
fore be expected that the vibrated system would
display transitions at lower sliding speeds than the
unvibrated slider.
Comparing the unvibrated granular solid data,
Fig. 8, with the vibrated granular solid data, Fig. 9,
several features stand out:
1. With vibration, a steady sliding regime is not
observed for the sliding speeds studied.
2. With vibration, the system transitions to inertial
oscillations at a lower sliding speed.
3. At the lower speeds, at least, vibration regularizes
the slips, and reduces the typical change in force
following a slip.
4. The transition between slips of d and 2d, etc., is
much cleaner with vibration than without.
5. The presence of vibrations tends to elevate
the transitions between stick–slips from nd to
(n ? 1)d.
In some regards, the vibration affects the system
in a manner that is qualitatively similar to an increase
of disorder in molecular systems (NAKAMURA et al.
2005; FAJARDO and MAZO 2010). However, the
observed response does not exhibit the behavior
associated with single contact friction at increased
temperature, i.e., a shift of the transition to higher
speeds (TSHIPRUT et al. 2009). This is likely to be
because of the extended incommensurate nature of
the contact.
In Fig. 10, we compare sliding at 5 cm/s for the
three high-velocity cases studied: sliding on the solid
bed in the presence and absence of vibration, and
sliding on the granular bed. The vibrated and
granular substrates are very similar at comparable
pulling speeds in the regime of inertial oscillations.
The solid lattice exhibits entirely distinct behavior in
that it requires a higher sliding speed to transition
into the inertial oscillatory behavior. We interpret
this as, on average, an effectively smaller amount of
energy needed to lift the slider over the grains in the
case of the granular bed vs. the solid bed. For the
granular solid the addition of vibration provides
energy to the slider that effectively lowers the energy
barrier.
Vol. 168, (2011) Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium
Figure 10
Pulling force versus distance in steps (1 step = 0.1 mm) for a 170 g
slider and 160 N/m spring pulled at 5cm/s. This figure compares
three cases: granular solid without vibration (top), granular solid
with 11 Hz vibration applied to the slider (middle); and granular
bed (bottom). The force curve for the vibrated granular solid and
the granular bed are very similar at 5 cm/s, in distinct contrast with
the unvibrated granular solid (see text)
5. Conclusions
To summarize, we have performed an experi-
mental study of the stick–slip and stick–slip to steady
sliding behavior of a slider that is pulled through
a spring across 2D granular beds of photoelastic
disks. The disks are either fixed in a lattice or
unconstrained. We find more overlap than might be
expected, despite the difference in scales, between
molecular, granular and geophysical friction. To our
knowledge, this similarity has not been reported
previously in the experimental literature. Despite
having minimal impact on mean effective friction
coefficients, both external vibration and granular
‘‘disorder‘‘ affect transitions at higher pulling speeds.
Specifically, they result in a reduction in the cross-
over speed to steady sliding and an increase in the
crossover from single to double jump stick–slip
2273
behavior. The values at which we observe the
crossover are in quantitative agreement with esti-
mates based on current molecular models.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the US Army Research
Office (grant W911NF-07-1-0131-00), by LANL
Subcontract Number: 64898-001-08 (with P. John-
son and C. Marone), and by NSF-DMR0906908 and
NSF-DMR0805204. We appreciate insightful discus-
sions with M.O. Robbins.
REFERENCES
AHARANOV, E. and SPARKS, D. (2003) Stick–slip in granular mate-
rial, J. Geophys. Res. 109, art #B09306
BAREL, I. and URBAKH, M. (2010), Multibond dynamics of Nano-
scale friction: the role of temperature Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, art #
066104
BAUMBERGER, T., BERTHOUD, P. and COROLI, C. (1999), Physical
analysis of the state- and rate-dependent friction law. II.
Dynamic friction Phys. Rev. B 60, 3928-3939
BEHRINGER, R.P., CHAKRABORTY, D. BI, B., HENKES, S. and HARTLEY,
R. (2008), Title: Why Do Granular Materials Stiffen with Shear
Rate? Test of Novel Stress-Based Statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101,
art #268301
BEN-ZION, Y (2001), Dynamic ruptures in recent models of earth-
quake faults, J. Mechanics and Physics of Solids 49, 2209-2244
BEN-ZION, Y. (2008) Collective Behavior of Earthquakes and
Faults: Continuum-Discrete Transisitions, Porgressive Evolu-
tionary Changes, and Different Dynamic Regimes Reviews of
Geophysics 46, RG406, 1-70
BOROVSKY, B., KRIM, J., SYED Asif, S.A. and WAHL, K. (2001)
Measuring Nanomechanical Properties of a Dynamic Contact
Using an Indenter Probe and Quartz Crystal Microbalance,
J. Appl. Phys. 90 6391-6396
BOWDEN, F. P. and TABOR, D. (1954) , The Friction and Lubrication
of Solids, Oxford University Press
BRAIMAN, Y., HENTSCHEL, H.G.E., FAMILY, F., MAK, C., AND KRIM, J.
(1999), Tuning Friction with Noise and Disorder Phys. Rev. E
59(5), R4737-R4740.
BRAUN, O.M., PEYRARD, M., BORTOLANI, V., FRANCHINI, A. and
VANOSSI (2005),Transition from smooth sliding to stick–slip
motion in a single frictional contact Phys. Rev. E 72, art #
056116
BURRIDGE, R. and KNOPOFF, L. (1967), Model and Theoretical
Seismicity Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 57, 3411
CAPOZZA, R., VANOSSI, A., VEZZANI, A., AND ZAPPERI, S. (2009)
Suppression of Friction by Mechanical Vibrations, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 103, art # 085502
CARLSON, J. M., LANGER, J. S. and SHAW, B. E. (1994) Dynamics of
Earthquake faults, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 657-670
2274 J. Krim et al.
COULOMB, C.A. (1773) Memoires deMathematique & de Physique,
presentes a l’Academie Royale des Sciences par divers Savans et
lus dan ses Assemblees, 7, 343-382
DANIELS, K.E. and BEHRINGER, R.P. (2005), Hysteresis and com-
petition between disorder and crystallization in sheared and
vibrated granular flow., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, art# 168001
DANIELS, K. E. and HAYMAN, N.W. (2008), Force chains in
seismogenic faults visualized with photoelastic granular shear
experiments Journal of Geophysical Research 113, art # B11411
DAWSON, B.D., LEE, S.M. and KRIM, J. (2009), Tribo-Induced
Melting Transition at a Sliding Asperity Contact, Phys. Rev. Lett.
103, art # 205502
DE PAOLA, N., HIROSE, T., MITCHELL, T., DI TORO, G., VITI, C. and
SHIMAMOTO, T. (2011) Fault lubrication and earthquake propa-
gation in thermally unstable Rocks, Geology 39, 35-38
DIETERICH, J. H. (1972), Time-Dependent Friction in Rocks,
J. Geophysical Research 77, 3690
EDWARDS, S.F. and OAKESHOTT, R.B.S. (1989), Theory of Powders,
Physica A 157, 1080-1090
ELMER, F.-J. (1997), Nonlinear dynamics of dry friction, J. Phys.
A. Math Gen. 30, 6057-6063
EYRING, H., (1936), Viscosity, plasticity, and diffusion as examples
of absolute reaction rates, J. Chem. Phys. 4, 283-291
FAJARDO, O.Y. and MAZO, J. J (2010), Title: Effects of surface
disorder and temperature on atomic friction, Phys. Rev. B 82, art
#035435
FILIPPOV, A.E., KLAFTNER, J., and URBAKH, M. (2004), Friction
through dynamical formation and rupture of molecular bonds,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, art #135503
GENG, J., BEHRINGER, R. P., REYDELLET, G., and CLEMENT, E. (2003),
Green’s function measurements of force transmission in 2D
granular materials, Physica D 182, 274303
GOLDHIRSCH, I., and ZANETTI, G. (1993), Clustering Instabilty in
Dissipative Gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1619-1622
HARTLEY, R. R. and BEHRINGER, R. P. (2003), Logarithmic rate
dependence of force networks in sheared granular materials,
Nature 421, 928-930
HENKES, S., O0 HERN, C.S. and CHAKRABORTY, B. (2007), Entropy and
temperature of a static granular assembly: An ab initio
approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, art# 038002
HESLOT, F., BAUMBERGER, T., PERRIN, B., CAROLI, B. and CAROLI,
C.(1994) Creep, Stick–slip, and Dry-Friction dynamics- Exper-
iments and a Heuristic Model,Phys. Rev. E 49, 4973-4988
HOWELL, D.W., BEHRINGER, R.P., and VEJE, C.T. (1999), Fluctua-
tions in granular media, Chaos 9, 559-572
JANSEN, L., HOLSCHER, H., FUCHS, H. and SCHIRMEISEN, A. (2010)
Temperature Dependence of Atomic-Scale Stick–slip Friction,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, art # 256101
JINESH, B., YU, S., KRYLOV, H., VALK, DIENWIEBEL, M. and FRENKEN,
J.W.M. (2008), Thermolubricity in atomic-scale friction, Phys.
Rev. B 78 art # 155440
JOHNSON, P.A. and JIA X. (2005), Nonlinear dynamics, granular
media and dynamic earthquake triggering, Nature 437, 871-
874
JOHNSON, P., SAVAGE, H., KNUTH, M., GOMBERG, J., and MARONE, C.
(2008), Effects of acoustic waves on stick–slip in granular media
and implications for earthquakes, Nature 451, 47-60
KRIM, J. (1996) The Atomic-scale Origins of Friction, Langmuir,
12, 4564-4566
KRIM, J. (2002), Friction at Macroscopic and Microscopic Length
Scales, Amer. J. Phys. 70, 890-897
Pure Appl. Geophys.
KRIM, J and BERHINGER, R.P. (2009), Friction, force chains, and
falling fruit, Physics Today 62, 66-67
LOSERT, W., GEMINARD, J.-C., NASUNO, S. AND GOLLUB, J. P., (2000),
Mechanisms for slow strengthening in granular materials,
Phys.Rev. E 61 4060-4068
LUAN, B. and ROBBINS, M.O. (2004), Effect of inertia and elasticity
on stick–slip motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, art # 036105
MAK, C. and KRIM, J. (1997), Quartz crystal microbalance studies
of disorder-induced lubrication, Faraday Discussions 107,
389-397
MAKSE, H. A. and KURCHAN J. (2002) Testing the thermodynamic
approach to granular matter with a numerical model of a deci-
sive experiment Nature 415, 614-617
MAJMUDAR, T. S. and BEHRINGER,R. P. (2005), Title: Contact force
measurements and stress-induced anisotropy in granular mate-
rials, Nature 435, 1079-1082
MAJMUDAR, T. S., SPERL, M., LUDING, S. and BEHRINGER, R. P.
(2007), Jamming transition in granular systems, Phys.Rev. Lett.
98, art #058001
MARONE, C., RALEIGH, C. B. and SCHOLZ, C. H. (1990), Frictional
behavior and constitutive modeling of simulated fault gouge,
J. Geophysical Research 95, 7007-7025
MCFADDEN, C.F. and GELLMAN, A.J., (1997) Metallic friction: the
influence of atomic adsorbates at submonolayer coverages, Surf.
Sci. 391, 287-299
MELOSH, H.J., (1979) Acoustic Fluidization-New Geologicprocess,
J. Geophysical Research 84, 7513-7520
MUSER, M. H., URBAKH, M. and ROBBINS, M. O. (2003), Statistical
mechanics of static and low-velocity kinetic friction, Advances in
Chemical Physics 126, 187-272
NAKAMURA, J., WAKUNAMI, S. and NATORI, A. (2005) Double-slip
mechanism in atomic-scale friction: Tomlinson model at finite
temperatures, Phys. Rev. B 72, art # 235415
NASUNO, S., KUDROLLI, A. and GOLLUB, J. P., (1997a), Friction in
granular layers: Hysteresis and precursors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79
949-952
NASUNO, S., KUDROLLI, A. and GOLLUB, J. P., (1997) Sensitive force
measurements in a sheared granular flow with simultaneous
imaging, Powders & Grains 97,329-332, R. P. Behringer and
J. T. Jenkins, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997
NOWAK, E.R., KNIGHT, J.B., POVINELLI, M.L., JAEGER, H.M. and
NAGEL, S.R. (1997), Reversibility and irreversibility in the pack-
ing of vibrated granular material Powder Technol. 94, 79-83
PANELLA, V., CHIARELLO, R. and KRIM, J. (1996), Adequacy of the
Lifshitz theory for certain thin adsorbed films, Phys. Rev. Lett.
76, 3606-3609
ROBBINS. M.O., and KRIM, J. (1998), Energy Dissipation in inter-
facial friction, MRS Bulletin 23, 23-25
RUINA, A. (1983), Slip instability and state variable friction laws,
Jour. Geophysical Research 88, 359-370
SIAVOSHI, S., ORPE,A. V. and KUDROLLI, A. (2006), Friction of a
slider on a granular layer: Nonmonotonic thickness dependence
and effect of boundary conditions, Phys. Rev. E 73, art
#010301(R)
SOCOLIUC, A., GNECCO, E., MAIER, S., PFEIFER, O., BARATOFF, A.,
BENNEWITZ,R. and MEYER, E. (2006), Atomic-scale control of
friction by actuation of nanometer-sized contacts Science 313,
207-210
TSAI, J.-C., VOTH, G. A., and GOLLUB, J.P. (2003), Internal Gran-
ular Dynamics, Shear-Induced Crystallization, and Compaction
Steps, Phys. Rev. Lett 91, 064301
Vol. 168, (2011) Transition to Steady Sliding in a 2D Granular Medium 2275

TSHIPRUT, Z., ZELNER, S. and URBAKH, M. (2009) Temperature-
Induced Enhancement of Nanoscale Friction, Phys. Rev. Lett
102, art # 136102
YU, PEIDONG and BEHRINGER, R.P. (2005), Granular Friction:
A Slider Experiment Chaos 15 041102
YU, P., SHANNON, T., UTTER, B. and BEGRINGER, R.P., (2011) Stick–
slip in a 2D granular Medium, Preprint.
ZHANG, J., MAJMUDAR, T. S., TORDESILLAS, A. and BEHRINGER, R. P.
(2010) Statistical properties of a 2D granular material subjected
to cyclic shear, Granular Matter. 12, 159-172

(Received September 2, 2010, revised June 8, 2011, accepted June 10, 2011, Published online August 9, 2011)