INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Volume 3, No 3, 2013
Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of

adjacent structures
Bipin Shrestha
Structural Engineer, EWES, Nepal
bipinsh01@gmail.com
doi:10.6088/ijcser.201203013055

ABSTRACT
Kathmandu is regarded as one of the most vulnerable capital cities with respect to earthquake
vulnerability. Due to increasing population and land values, building are being constructed to
close proximity to each other. Even though there are code provisions on required separation
distance to avoid the damaging pounding between adjacent structures it has not been strictly
adopted on the site. Additionally to increase the complexity different codes propose different
separation distance for the adjacent structures. This paper presents the required separation
distance to avoid pounding analytically. The required separation distances achieved by SRSS
and DDC methods are compared against analytical separation distance for sets of linear and
nonlinear SDOF systems for a simulated ground motion compatible with Type I spectrum for
Zone V of IS 1893.The paper further presents the effect of different normalized separation
distance on the pounding response of linear and nonlinear SDOF systems. The results
presented indicates that the DDC method predicts the separation distance required to avoid
pounding accurately when the structural response is linear but couldnt predict the required
separation distance accurately when nonlinear response is considered. The absolute sum
method is the conservative method and at times the conservatism is excessive. Response of
the adjacent structures considering pounding with various gap distances showed that the
response of the linear SDOF varies significantly with the nonlinear SDOF thus emphasizing
the use of the nonlinear model while conducting pounding response.
Keyword: Pounding, relative displacement, Linear and nonlinear SDOF, Kelvin impact
model, dynamic properties.
1. Introduction
Pounding is the phenomena of collision between adjacent buildings or different parts of the
same building during strong vibrations. It may cause either architectural or structural damage
and may lead to partial or even complete collapse of the structure. Investigations of past and
recent earthquakes damage have illustrated several instances of pounding damage (AstanehAsl et al., 1994, Northridge Reconnaissance Team, 1996, Kasai and Maison, 1991) in both
building and bridge structures. Pounding damage was observed during the 1985 Mexico
earthquake, the 1988 Sequenay earthquake in Canada, the 1992 Cairo earthquake, the 1994
Northridge earthquake, the 1995 Kobe earthquake and 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Significant
pounding was observed at sites over 90 km from the epicenter thus indicating the possible
catastrophic damage that may occur during future earthquakes having closer epicenters.
Pounding of adjacent buildings could have worse damage as adjacent buildings with different
dynamic characteristics which vibrate out of phase and there is insufficient separation

Received on February 2013 Published on March 2013

603

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

distance or energy dissipation system to accommodate the relative motions of adjacent

buildings.
Pounding may be prevented by providing adequate separation distances between the
potentially colliding structures. However, maximization of land use in costly metropolitan
areas as Kathmandu creates strong opposition to generous separation distances, which are
then very difficult to effectively implement. The problem to be solved is then the estimation
of the minimum separation distance necessary to preclude pounding, which is obviously
equal to the relative displacement demand of the two potentially colliding structural systems.
This study presents a study on the separation distance required to avoid pounding for sets of
linear and nonlinear SDOF (single degree of freedom). Then it goes on to present the
pounding response of the linear and nonlinear SDOF with various normalized gap sizes.

Figure 1: Building stock in Kathmandu vulnerable to seismically induced pounding.

2. Required separation distance

It is recognized and accepted pounding is undesirable phenomenon and should be avoided or
mitigated. This is recognized in seismic design codes and regulations worldwide, which
typically specify minimum separation distances to be provided between adjacent buildings.
However, there seems to be considerable variation on required separation distance to avoid
the pounding between two structures. Some of the codes recommend the Absolute sum
method where the separation distance is given by:
(1)
S= u1+u2
Where S is the separation distance and u1 and u2 are the displacement responses of the
buildings at the potential pounding location (i.e., at the top of the shorter building). Eq. 1 will
subsequently be referred to as the ABS rule. In the case of buildings located on the same
property, UBC 1997 and IBC 2000 specifies that the separation distance between adjacent
buildings is given by:
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

604

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

(2)

S=

Equation 2 will be subsequently referred as SRSS rule.

A more rational method which uses the concept of response spectrum combination is the
Spectral difference method presented by Jeng et al. (1992). The method considers the
maximum differences of displacements of adjacent elastic multi degree of freedom (MDOF)
system. The separation distance according to spectral difference method is given by:
(3)

S=

Where is the same correlation coefficient used by the well-known CQC modal combination
rule. In a probabilistic sense, Eq. 3, which will subsequently be referred to as the Double
Difference Combination (DDC) rule, is the exact solution for linear systems subjected to
stationary white-noise excitations. Kasai et al., (1996) suggested that the DDC rule can still
be used for nonlinear systems as long as modified natural periods T1*, T2* and modified
damping ratios 1*, 2* are used when calculating the correlation coefficient . In their
proposed equations, Ti* and i* (i = 1, 2) are functions of the displacement ductility .
Value of is given by the equation

(4)

Where T1 and T2 are respectively effective periods of the adjacent buildings and is the
effective damping ratio of buildings. Where effective period Ti and is defined by the
relationship based on the Takeda stiffness procedure (MacRae et al. 1994).

Ti=

(i= 1, 2)

(5) and

(6)

Where Mi and Ki are the mass and linear stiffness of the two SDOFs respectively and is
the linear damping ratio of the building and is the displacement ductility of the SDOFs.
3. Evaluation procedure
Two SDOF of varying periods were utilized for the calculation of the separation distance
required to avoid pounding. The periods of SDOFs from 0.1 sec to 1sec, capable of
representative of the most of the building structures within the Kathmandu valley was
considered. A total of 30 linear structure and 30 nonlinear structures, for 3 periods of SDOF
1(i.e. T1=0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 sec) and 10 periods of SDOF 2 (i.e. T2= 0.1 to 1 sec) were used.
All the SDOF structures has the same linear damping ratio of 5% of critical and stiffness of
2358.5 kN/m but the structural mass is varying thus resulting in different fundamental
frequencies. The ground motion used is simulated using the SIMQKE software to match the
response spectrum for hard soil site (Type I) for Zone V defined by Indian standard code
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

605

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

IS1893. The simulated ground motion has duration of 20secs. Figure 2 presents the simulated
ground motion with Peak ground acceleration of 0.36 g. The displacement response of SDOF
systems is then obtained by performing time history analysis and the relative displacement
response is then given by:
S = max|u1 (t) - u2 (t)|

(7)

Where, u1 (t) and u2 (t) are displacement response history of the system 1 and 2. The relative
displacement responses of the SDOF system are calculated for the given time history motion
and maximum relative displacement required to avoid the pounding was selected.
The structures studied are Special moment resisting frames represented for simplicity by
SDOF. However, the result of this study is applicable to an MDOF system whose response is
governed by its fundamental mode. This study is not applicable to tall adjacent buildings
having significant higher mode contributions. The SDOF shear type model which exhibits
both the linear and bi-linear behavior in the form of a hysteretic restoring force-displacement
characteristic was applied. The post-yield stiffness of the nonlinear SDOF was adjusted to 1%
of the elastic stiffness on the SDOF system. The nonlinear system with displacement ductility
=5 was used for the analysis. The time history analysis of the SDOF was conducted and
yielding force of the SDOF systems was adjusted for the ground motion in order to obtain
predefined values of . Then the equation (5) and (6) were used to calculate Ti and (i= 1, 2)
from the results obtained through time-history analysis that were subsequently used to
calculate as given in equation (4). To negate the polarity of the ground motion the ground
motion was applied in both directions (positive and negative).

A c c e le r a t io n [ g ]

3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0

10
11
Time [sec]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Figure 2: Simulated ground motion compatible with type I spectrum IS 1893 (PGA 0.36g)

Figure 3: Bilinear hysteresis curve for nonlinear SDOF

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

606

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

4. Case Study
In order to investigate the effects of the pounding on the adjacent structure with different
dynamic characteristics (time period) a case of two adjacent SDOF structure is selected. In
the present case study a SDOF with 0.3 sec period adjacent to 0.7 sec SDOF is selected as
this pair showed constantly high normalized gap for both linear and nonlinear system. During
the study pounding response of the structured subjected to simulated ground motion with
different separation distance was studied. The gap distance were adjusted to represent no gap
condition, 10% , 25%, 50% and 75% of the required separation distance to avoid contact
between the adjacent structures. A separate case with sufficient separation gap to avoid
pounding was also conducted for comparison with the pounding cases. Table 1 presents the
different separation gaps calculated by various codes with the analytical separation distance
for a case with two adjacent SDOF of 0.3 sec and 0.7 sec. The analytical separation distance
required to avoid the pounding for linear and nonlinear cases were 72.90 mm and 68.80 mm
respectively. The separation gaps calculated according to the building codes were normalized
to the required separation gap for linear and nonlinear SDOF system. To simulate the
pounding which is highly nonlinear phenomena, contact element method was used. The
contact elements used in the past includes linear spring, the energy dissipating Kelvin model
and Nonlinear Hertz contact and Hertz damp model. In this study a Kelvin model with a
linear spring in conjunction with a damper is used to represent the impact force and energy
dissipation during the pounding of the adjacent structure. The contact force during the impact
is given by
Fc = Kk (u1 u2 ) + ck (1- 2);
u1-u2-0 (8)
Fc = 0;

u1-u2-<0 (9)

The damping coefficient Ck can be related to the coefficient of restitution e representing the
energy loss during impact process.
Ck=2

(10)

=-

(11)

In this study, Kelvin model with stiffness Kk is assumed to be 47160 KN. The co-efficient of
restitution, which is defined as the ratio of the relative velocities of the bodies after collision
to the relative velocities of the bodies before collision was assumed to e=0.65. Which mean
35% of the energy is lost during the collision process. Figure 4 presents the impact model
implemented with the contact force relation for the Kelvin model.
5. Results
The results of the linear analysis are presented in figure 5(a). The presented results show that
absolute method represented by ABS is conservative and the conservatism is excessive
especially when the two adjacent structures have nearly similar natural period. SRSS method
predicts the separation distance which are conservative when the both the SDOF have nearly
similar dynamic characteristics. DDC method could predict the separation distance required
fairly accurately when the adjacent structures have nearly similar dynamic property. The
results of the nonlinear analysis are shown in figure 5(b). The result presented show that the
relative distance required to avoid pounding of nonlinear structure is higher than linear
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

607

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

structure at short period range however, at latter periods the normalized separation distance is
less than that given by the linear structure.

Figure 4: Kelvin Impact model and its contact force relationship

None of the methods could represent the required separation distance accurately for the
nonlinear structure. SRSS method yielded the result that is generally un-conservative at short
period range but it became conservative as structural periods matched and as structural period
elongated. The DDC method could predict the separation distance as the structural periods
matched but it yielded in general either conservative or un-conservative result at other period
range.
Table 1: Separation gap required by codes and normalization to required gap

Case
Separation Required
Normalized Gap (linear
SDOF, separation gap =
72.90 mm)
Normalized Gap
(nonlinear SDOF,
separation gap= 68.80
mm)

NBC/IS
UBC97(ABS) UBC97(SRSS)
1893(ABS)
mm
mm
mm
57.87
46
82.67

IS 1893
(ABS/2)
mm
41.33

0.79

0.63

1.18

0.57

0.84

0.67

1.20

0.60

Tables 2 present the pounding response of the two adjacent linear SDOFs with period of 0.3
sec and 0.7 sec with the different gaps sizes normalized to the gap size required to avoid the
pounding. The pounding case with different normalized separation distance is compared with
the non-pounding case. The table indicates that as the normalized separation distance
increased it result in the reduction of the pounding force. However the result presented
indicates it is not necessary that with the larger separation distance pounding force will
reduce. The least Impact force of 160.29 KN is found for the 25% of the required separation
gap and it increases to 189.41 when gap is increased to 50% and again reduces to 164.96 KN
for gap of 75%. The results presented indicate the pounding of structures beneficially
influenced the response of the flexible structure and vice-versa. Base shear of the stiff
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

608

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

adjacent structure is always higher compared to the non-pounding case and the effect worsens
as the separation gap approaches zero. However the base shear of the flexible building
benefits at the cost of the added shear to the stiffer structure.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5: Comparison of the separation distance by different method with the Analytical
method (a) for linear structure (b) for nonlinear structure with =5

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

609

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

Tables 3 present the pounding response of the two adjacent non-linear SDOFs with period of
0.3 sec and 0.7 sec with the different gaps sizes normalized to the gap size required to avoid
the pounding. The table indicates unlike as in the linear case the increase in normalized
separation distance does not result in the reduction of the pounding force. The result
presented indicates the maximum Impact force of 96.57 KN is found for the 75% of the
required separation gap and minimum of 75.51 KN when gap is 25% of the required
separation gap. The pounding force recorded for the nonlinear structures are far too less
compared to the same by the linear SDOFs. Also the result presented indicates the pounding
of structures may result in detrimental response of both the adjacent structures when there is
no separation or the separation gap is too small. However poundings may have beneficial
impact on the ductility demand of both adjacent structures when there is liberal gap provided
even though the pounding force is higher for such cases. Figure 6 presents the comparison of
the impact force for linear and nonlinear SDOF for 10% for required separation gaps. The
figure illustrates the linear model not only overestimate the pounding force but also the
pounding occurrences. Pounding occurs too frequently with the linear model compared to the
nonlinear model where pounding occurred only occasionally.
Table 2: Pounding response of linear SDOF systems

Conditions

Impact Force Max u1 Max u2 Peak SF,F1 Peak SF,F2

(kN)

(mm)

(mm)

(kN)

(kN)

Gap 0

274.87

39.12

55.81

92.26

131.67

Gap 10%

218.57

33.92

50.55

80

119.22

Gap 25%

160.29

28.63

45.84

67.53

108.11

Gap 50%

189.41

24.64

50.41

58.12

118.89

Gap 75%

164.96

18.34

54.97

43.26

129.65

No pounding

17.89

61.57

42.2

145.22

Table 3: Pounding response of nonlinear SDOF systems

Conditions

Impact Force Max u1 Max u2 ductilty,1 ductilty,2

(kN)

(mm)

(mm)

Gap 0

84.76

35.47

65.1

5.84

6.24

Gap 10%

79.34

32.45

58.9

5.34

5.64

Gap 25%

75.51

25.64

56.13

4.22

5.38

Gap 50%

87.54

21.45

45.51

3.53

4.36

Gap 75%

96.57

28.75

46.97

4.73

4.5

No pounding

30.36

52.18

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

610

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

(a)
(b)
Figure 6: Impact force time history (a) linear SDOF for 10% of required gap (b)
nonlinear SDOF for 10% of required gap
5. Conclusion
1. The analytical study described in this paper show that SRSS and DDC method are
capable of predicting the required separation distance of linear structure. However,
none of the methods were completely satisfactory in the sense that they cannot
accurately predict the relative displacement demand between two nonlinear adjacent
systems. The SRSS and DDC rules give results that are conservative or unconservative depending on the relationship between the natural periods of the systems.
However, it is worth mentioning that the results presented were based on a single
simulated ground motion and for the decisive conclusion, relative displacement under
large set of the ground motions needs to be observed. The ABS method resulted in
conservative results and at times the conservatism is excessive making it difficult to
implement (especially when the two SDOF has nearly similar dynamic property).
Only DDC method is capable of considering the vibration phase difference of the
adjacent structure.
2. Pounding response analysis of the adjacent structures considering the different
normalized separation distances revealed that when the linear elastic material behavior
is considered, the stiffer structures suffers detrimentally whereas the flexible structure
benefits. The Impact force in general decreases as the separation distance increase.
However pounding response of the nonlinear SDOF exhibits that the pounding may
even result in detrimental response of both the adjacent structures. The impact force
between the adjacent structures computed using the nonlinear SDOFs is significantly
less compared to linear structures. Also the linear model predicts the pounding to
occur too frequently compared to the case of the nonlinear model. Thus, emphasizing
the need of inclusion of nonlinear structural behavior during the pounding response
analysis for reliable evaluation of pounding force and response of the structure.

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

611

Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response of adjacent structures

Bipin Shrestha

6. References
1. Astaneh-Asl A., Bolt B., McMullin K., Donikian R.R., Modjtahedi D. and Cho S.W.,
(1994), Seismic Performance of Steel Bridges During the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake, Report No. UCB/CEE-Steel-94/01, University of California, Berkeley
2. Advanced Structural Concepts Inc. (1998), Nonlinear Dynamic Time History
Analysis of Single Degree of Freedom Systems (NONLIN), Golden, Colorado
3. Bureau of Indian Standard, (2002), IS 1893 Criteria for Earthquake resistant design of
structure part 1 general provisions and buildings, New Delhi, India
4. Cole G.L., Dhakal R.P., Carr A.J. and Bull D.K., (2010), Building pounding state of
the art: Identifying structures vulnerable to pounding damage, proceeding of NZSEE
conference, Paper No. 11.
5. International Conference of Building officials. (1997), Uniform Building Code (UBC).
Whittier, California, USA.
6. Jeng-Hsaing L. and Chen-Chiang W., (2001), Probability analysis of seismic
pounding of adjacent structure, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
30(10), pp 15391557
7. Kasai K., Jagiasi A.R., Jeng V., (1996), Inelastic vibration phase theory for seismic
pounding mitigation. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(10), pp 1136-1146.
8. Kasai K . and Maison B.F. , (1991), Observation of structural pounding damage from
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, Proceeding of 6th Canadian Conference of Earthquake
Engineering, Toronto, Canada, pp 735-742.
9. Lopez Garcia D., (2004), Separation between adjacent nonlinear structures for
prevention of seismic pounding, proceeding of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 478.
10. MacRae G., Priestly M.J.N. and Tao J., (1994), P-delta designs in seismic regions,
Rep. No. UCSD/SSRP-93/05, Structural System research project, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, California
11. Nepal National Building Code, (1994), NBC-105 Seismic Design of Buildings in
Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal
12. Northridge Reconnaissance Team, (1996), Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994,
Reconnaissance Report, EERI, Oakland, California, pp 25-47.
13. Pantelides C.P. and Ma X. , (1998), Linear and nonlinear pounding of structural
systems, Computer & Structures, 66(1), pp 79-92
14. Penzien J., (1997), Evaluation of building separation distance required to prevent
pounding during strong earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 26(8), pp 849-858.

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 3 Issue 3 2013

612