Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic pounding between adjacent buildings: Identification of parameters, T

soil interaction issues and mitigation measures
Mahmoud Miaria, , Kok Keong Choonga, Robert Jankowskib
⁎

a
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gdańsk University of Technology, Poland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Structural pounding has been observed in many previous earthquakes due to insufficient gap commonly pro-
Structural pounding vided between adjacent structures. The collisions usually generate large impact forces and short duration ac-
Impact models celeration pulses which may result in significant damage to the colliding buildings. Because of that, earthquake-
Fixed-base buildings induced structural pounding has been intensively studied and investigated for the last three decades. Results of
Isolated buildings
some of these investigations are compatible, whereas others contradict. This work reviews previous research
Soil structure interaction
Seismic gap
studies concerning earthquake-induced structural pounding aiming to better understand pounding phenomenon
Mitigation Measures itself and the reasons behind the contradictory results. The effect of pounding on buildings with fixed bases,
isolated buildings, and buildings resting on soft soils are discussed. Then, aspects of a sufficient recommended
gap are considered. Appropriate mitigation measures are also addressed and directions of the future research
studies on structural pounding are recommended.

1. Introduction
Structural pounding is referred to collisions that occur between
adjacent structures during earthquakes. Such collisions are due to the
insufficient gap provided between adjacent structures and their out-of-
phase vibrations. The gap provided in the metropolitan cities is mostly a
narrow gap or null due to financial and architectural issues. For in-
stance, statistics of Eskisehir City (Turkey) shows that only 36% of their
adjacent buildings are well separated [1]. The collision between
structures might generate a high impact force and short duration ac-
celeration pulses (spikes) on both buildings, which is not considered in
engineering design, thereby causing both global and local damages. The
phenomenon of structural pounding has been observed in many
earthquakes. Damages due to pounding during the Mexico earthquake
(1985) were the largest ever reported; in about 15% of buildings with
major damage or collapse, some evidence of pounding was found and in
20–30% of these cases pounding could have been a significant factor in
the structural damage [2–5]. The earthquake statistics estimate that
around 10,000 people were killed, 50,000 were injured and 250,000
became homeless [6]. The same phenomenon was observed in the Loma
Prieta earthquake (1989) where 200 buildings out of 500 surveyed
structures experienced pounding [7]. Pounding between adjacent
structures was also observed in recent earthquakes, such as in Lorca
(Spain 2001) [8], Wenchuan (Sichuan Province in China in 2008) [9],
Christchurch (New Zealand 2010) [10,11], Christchurch (2011)
[12,13], Gorkha (Nepal 2015) [14–19]. Most of the damage due to
pounding in these earthquakes occurred to masonry, then to concrete
structures.
Pounding phenomenon is enhanced when adjacent structures vi-
brate out-of-phase due to the difference in their natural periods which is
the common case, as most of the adjacent buildings are of different
dynamic properties (Fig. 1) [4,6,20].
Pounding scenarios are mainly classified into two types: slab-to-slab
collision (floor-to-floor collision) and slab-to-column collision (floor-to-
column collision) [21]. The first type occurs when the colliding build-
ings have the same floor heights, while the second type takes place
when the colliding buildings have different floor heights (Fig. 2). The
second case is considered to be more significant than the first one due to
high shear forces developed at the mid-height of the impacted column
[4].

Abbreviations: SDOF, Single-degree-of-freedom system; MDOF, Multi-degree-of-freedom system; IDR, Interstorey drift; 1D, One dimension; 2D, Two dimension; 3D,
Three dimension; C.M, Centre of mass; C.G, Centre of gravity; SRSS, Square root of the sum of the squares; SSI, Soil-structure interaction; ABS, Absolute sum; DDC,
Double difference method; CQC, Complete quadratic combination; FV, Fluid viscous; MR, Magneto-rheological; TMD, Tuned mass damper; PTMD, Pounding TMD;
STMD, Shared TMD; RNC, Roll-in-cage isolator
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mahmoud-miari@hotmail.com (M. Miari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.02.024
Received 18 December 2018; Received in revised form 14 February 2019; Accepted 23 February 2019
Available online 18 March 2019
0267-7261/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Miari, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150

Fig. 1. Seismic behaviour of adjacent buildings.

Fig. 2. Pounding scenarios.

Fig. 3. Pounding configurations.

Structural pounding can also be classified more generally by using Some researchers consider also a separate sixth type of pounding
five categories (Fig. 3) [21]: configurations which is totally devoted to collisions between masonry
buildings (see [13] for example). It is due to the fact that masonry
1. Floor-to-column pounding structures are especially vulnerable to damage due to pounding.
2. Pounding of heavier building with adjacent lighter building Floor-to-column pounding, pounding between taller and shorter
3. Pounding of taller building with adjacent shorter building building as well as end building pounding were the main causes of
4. Torsional pounding (eccentric pounding) damage during the Wenchuan earthquake (Sichuan Province in China
5. End building pounding in 2008) [9]. The contribution of these configurations to pounding

136
M. Miari, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150

Table 1
Contribution of pounding configurations during the Christchurch (2011) and the Taipei earthquakes.
Earthquake Floor-to-floor Floor-to-column Pounding between heavier Pounding between taller Eccentric End building Pounding between
pounding pounding and lighter building and shorter building pounding pounding masonry structures

Christchurch (2011) 31% 33% – 28% 15% – 75%

Taipei 9% 14% 8% 60% – 14% –

Fig. 4. Flow chart of the studies reviewed in this work.

during the Christchurch (2011) [13] and the Taipei [22] earthquakes
based on surveys of 119 and 708 buildings, respectively, are sum-
marised in Table 1.
Due to its significant effect, a lot of researchers have focused their
studies on earthquake-induced structural pounding to better under-
stand this phenomenon, the factors that influence it and to propose the
best mitigation measures for it. The uncertainties in the dynamic
properties of adjacent structures may show non-uniform trend in
structural displacement histories. This leads to high complexity of
pounding phenomenon making it more difficult in studying. This fact
explains the contradiction between certain research results. The present
study thus reviews the aspects of structural pounding between adjacent
buildings providing possible applicable mitigation measures and re-
commendations for future research. Fig. 4 shows the flow chart of the
studies reviewed in the work indicating that the interest in the
pounding phenomenon is rapidly growing in time.
2. Impact models
2.1. General definitions
The accurate estimation of the impact force during collision, as well
as the prediction of its behaviour, provides valuable knowledge in the
assessment of structural pounding. Several impact models of impacts
have been developed and described in the literature. The models mainly
follow one of two approaches: stereomechanical or force-based ap-
proach (known also as penalty approach). The stereomechanical ap-
proach uses the law of the conservation of momentum and energy. This
approach relates directly the impact velocities (post-impact velocities
v1 , v2 and the prior-impact velocities v1, v2 ) to the coefficient of res-
titution e (see Eqs. (1), (2) and (3)) [23].
m2 v1 m2 v2
v1 = v1 (1 + e )
m1 + m2
m1 v1 m1 v2
v2 = v2+(1+e )
m1 + m2
v2 v1
e=
v1 v2 (3)
where m1 and m2 are the masses of the colliding bodies. The coefficient
of restitution e can be obtained on the basis of Eq. (4) by dropping a ball
from a height h1 onto a rigid plate and measuring the rebound height h2 .
It represents the level of plasticity and other energy losses in the impact
and it is between 0 and 1; the value 0 means fully plastic and the value
1 means fully elastic.
e2 =
h2
h1 (4)
It should be added that the stereomechanical approach is very rarely
used in structural pounding problems, as it ignores the period of impact,
assuming that it lasts negligibly short time, so it does not directly
evaluate the impact force during contact.
The second approach of impact models is the force-based approach
which contributes the introduction of a spring with stiffness simulating
the impact stiffness of the colliding structures. The spring is active only
when there is contact between buildings. The first developed model
based on this approach is the linear spring model (Fig. 5a). The impact
force, F (t ) , based on this model is shown in Eqs. (5) and (6).
k (t ) (t ) > 0
F (t ) =
0 (t ) 0 (5)
(t ) = u1 (t ) u2 (t ) d (6)
where k (N/m) is the stiffness of the spring (which is equal to the im-
pact element stiffness at the contact location), (t ) is the inter-
penetration depth, u1 (t ) and u2 (t ) are the displacements of the two
adjacent structures and d is the initial separating distance.
The main drawback of the abovementioned model is that it assumes
elastic impact and it ignores the plastic behaviour and energy dissipa-
(1) tion during collision. To overcome this drawback, the linear viscoelastic
models (known as Kelvin-Voigt model) was considered by
Anagnostopoulos [24,25] (Fig. 5b). It contributes the introduction of a
(2) damper (dashpot) in parallel with the spring to represent the energy

137
M. Miari, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150

(a) linear spring model (b) linear viscoelastic model

(c) Hertz model (d) Hertzdamp model

Fig. 5. Impact models.

dissipation. The model is defined in Eqs. (7), (8) and (9). k (t ) + c (t ) (t ) (t ) >0 and (t ) > 0
F (t ) = k (t ) (t ) > 0 and (t ) 0
F ( t ) = k (t ) + c (t ) (t ) > 0 0 (t ) 0 (10)
0 (t ) 0 (7)
c (t ) = (t ) (11)

m1 m2 3k (1 e 2)
c=2 k =
m1 + m2 (8) 2e 2 (v1 v2) (12)
Indeed, Mahmoud et al. [28] also modified the linear viscoelastic
=
lne model to omit the tensile forces. The impact force estimated from this
2+ (lne )2
(9) model is presented in Eqs. (13), (14) and (15).

where (t ) is the relative velocity between colliding elements, c (kg/s) k (t ) + c (t ) (t ) > 0 and (t ) > 0
is the impact damping coefficient, and is the impact damping ratio. F (t ) = k (t ) (t ) > 0 and (t ) 0
The main drawback of this model is related to the fact that it considers 0 (t ) 0 (13)
uniform dissipation of energy in the approach and restitution phases of
collision which results in negative forces (tensile forces) at the end of m1 m2
c=2 k
impact which has no physical meaning. To overcome this issue, Ko- m1 + m2 (14)
modromos et al. [26] proposed to modify the linear viscoelastic model
by omitting these tensile forces, so as to have always F (t ) 0 . Pant 1 e2
=
et al. [27] developed another modification of the linear viscoelastic e (e ( 2) + 2) (15)
model to overcome its drawback. The impact force estimated from this Another spring model is the nonlinear Hertz model (see Eq. (16) and
model is shown in Eqs. (10), (11) and (12). Fig. 5c). This model has been used by several researchers, e.g. Davis

138
M. Miari, et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150

[29] and Chau and co-workers [30–33] to introduce the nonlinear the friction force (the 2D problem considers only impact force in the
stiffness during impact. direction of the ground motion while omits the friction which is in the
1.5 (t )
perpendicular direction), structure eccentricity and asymmetric plan
K (t ) > 0 (which means omitting torsional pounding), spatial movement of the
F (t ) =
0 (t ) 0 (16) colliding structures (which omits the exact impact location) as well as
1.5 the contact geometry. Therefore, Polycarpou et al. [48–50] developed a
where K is the impact stiffness parameter (N/m ).
new impact force model to investigate the 3D multi-degree-of-freedom
The Hertzdamp model was developed later to introduce the non-
systems.
linear damping to the nonlinear Hertz model (see Eqs. (17), (18) and
(19) as well as Fig. 5d) [34,35].
2.2. Parameters of the models
K 1.5 (t )+C (t ) (t ) (t ) > 0
F (t ) =
0 (t ) 0 (17) Different approaches have been applied to determine the impact
stiffness coefficient (k ) (linear models) as well as the impact stiffness
C (t ) = 1.5 (t )
(18) parameters (K , K ? ) (nonlinear models). In both cases, the parameters
are used to simulate the stiffness of buildings at the contact location,
3K (1 e 2)
= which is often considered to be related to the axial stiffness of the stiffer
4(v1 v2) (19) structure [51].
where C (t ) (kg/s) is the impact damping parameter. Ye et al. [36,37] The most basic equation for the impact stiffness coefficient, k , is
showed that the value of the impact damping ratio, , for this model shown in Eq. (26) [51].
leads to inaccurate results and suggested a new equation for the impact EA
damping ratio of the Hertzdamp model (Eq. (20)). k=
L (26)
8K (1 e ) where E , A and L are the modulus of elasticity, area and length of the
=
5e (v1 v2) (20) colliding structural element of a building, respectively.
Furthermore, a nonlinear viscoelastic model was developed by Cole et al. [52] developed a new formula for the impact stiffness on
Jankowski [38–41] to include the nonlinear response in impact mod- the basis of impact elements properties and the collision duration (Eq.
elling. The impact force estimated from this model is shown in Eqs. (27)).
(21), (22) and (23).
( )( )
m1 m2 2
m1 + m2 tc
K 1.5 (t )+C (t ) (t ) (t ) > 0 and (t ) > 0 k= 2
lne
F (t ) = K 1.5 (t ) (t ) > 0 and (t ) 0 1 2 + (lne )2
(27)
0 (t ) 0 (21)
where tc is the impact duration.
m1 m2 Xu et al. [53] developed another formula for the impact stiffness
C (t ) = 2 K (t )
m1 + m2 (22) (Eq. (28)) of linear models and then compared it to the axial stiffness
formula (Eq. (26)) and Cole's formula (Eq. (27)). The comparison re-
9 5 1 e2 sults show that the developed equation gives more accurate results than
=
2 e (e (9 16) + 16) (23) the other two formulas.
1.5
where K (N/m ) is the impact stiffness parameter and C (t ) (kg/s) is 2(lne)
arcsin
m2
the impact damping parameter in the nonlinear viscoelastic model. The k= k1 e
2
+ (lne )2

modification of the impact damping parameter, C (t ) , was considered by m1 + m2 (28)

Naderpour et al. [42] (see Eq. (24)). where T1 T2 and k1 is calculated for the first structure based on Eq.
e (v 1 v2)(1 e ) (26) (when T1 > T2 , m1, m2 and k1 will be replaced by m2 , m1 and k2 ,
C (t ) = K 1.5 (t )
respectively).
(t ) (24)
Polycarpou et al. [48] developed a simple formula for the impact
where (t ) is the relative acceleration between colliding elements while stiffness in the normal (Eqs. (29) and (30)) and tangential (Eqs. (31)
and are the parameters of the model obtained by fitting the ex- and (32)) directions in the case of 3D pounding.
perimental data using the least squares method (the typical values are: 1
= 0.01557 , = 0.2706 ). 1 p12 1 p22
k= +
Khatiwada et al. [43] developed a viscous elastoplastic impact EDyn,1 EDyn,2 (29)
model (a modified model of the nonlinear viscoelastic model) to include
the elastoplastic behaviour. The impact force estimated from this model EDyn, i = 5.82(Est , i ) 0.63 [GPa] (30)
is shown in Eq. (25).
1
1.5 (t ) 1.5 (t )
2 p1 1 p22
K + C (t ) (t ) K + C (t ) (t ) < FE and (t ) >0 k= +
GDyn,2 GDyn,2 (31)
FE K 1.5 (t ) + C (t ) (t ) FE and (t ) >0
F (t ) =
K 1.5 (t ) K 1.5 (t ) < FE and (t ) 0 EDyn, i
GDyn, i =
FE K 1.5 (t ) FE and (t ) 0 2(1+pi ) (32)
(25) where EDyn, i is the dynamic modulus of elasticity for normal strength
where FE is the yield strength of the structural element at the contact concrete (determined based on work by Salman and Al-Amawee [54]),
point. Est , i is the static modulus of elasticity and pi is the Poisson's ratio for
Other impact force models have also been developed [44–47]. structure i.
Most of the above described impact force models concern 1D and 2D Khatami [55] developed a new methodology to consider the non-
problems. However, this consideration has many drawbacks, as it omits linear stiffness of the spring (Eq. (33)).

139
M. Miari, et al.
F1 (t ) F2 (t )
K n (t ) =
u1 (t ) u2 (t ) (33)
where F1 (t ) and F2 (t ) are the impact forces of the first and the second
building at time instant t, respectively.
Furthermore, the structural response due to pounding was found to
be insensitive to the high values of the impact stiffness coefficient. For
instance, Ghandil and Aldaikh [56] found that the pounding-involved
response is insensitive to the impact stiffness coefficient when its value
is higher than 1010 N/m. Meanwhile, Naserkhaki et al. [57] suggested
that the impact stiffness coefficient should be 50–100 times larger than
the lateral stiffness of the building. On the other hand, Jankowski [38]
found, by equalizing the maximum impact force obtained numerically
with the value obtained experimentally, that the value of the impact
stiffness coefficient and the impact stiffness parameter is 9.35·107 N/m
and 1.13·109 N/m1.5 for the linear and nonlinear viscoelastic models,
respectively. However, these values are applicable to the specific ex-
periments and cannot be generalised. Moreover, the axial stiffness of
the colliding element (beam/slab) depends on the supporting system,
i.e. whether the supports consist of columns at the edge or there is a
shear wall along the length of the beam/slab. This issue has a con-
siderable effects on the estimated pounding force [58]. To date, no
formula has been developed to consider the supporting system which is
still a gap in the impact modelling.
Fundamentally, the coefficient of restitution is defined as the ratio
of the impact velocity after collision to that before collision (Eq. (3)).
However, the parameter is different for various materials. Jankowski
[59] proposed four formulas for the coefficient of restitution for steel,
concrete, timber and ceramic materials in terms of the prior impact
velocity v (see Eq. (34)). If the impact occurs between elements of
different materials, then the coefficient of restitution is evaluated on the
basis of Eq. (35).
0.0039v 3 + 0.0440v 2 0.1867v + 0.7299 steel to steel
0.0070v 3 + 0.0696v 2 0.2529v + 0.7929 concrete to concrete
e=
0.0043v 3 + 0.0479v 2 0.1971v + 0.7067 timber to timber
0.0040v 3 + 0.0474v 2 0.2116v + 0.8141 ceramic to ceramic
(34)
e1 E1 + e2 E2
e=
E1 + E1 (35)
Apart from the above considerations, the coefficient of restitution
was assumed without any reference formula in most of the studies by
taking the constant value of 0.65 (which corresponds to damping ratio
equal to 0.14 for the linear viscoelastic model and 0.35 for the non-
linear viscoelastic model) [38,56]. This is referred to several studies,
including the work of Polycarpou [60], which concluded that the im-
pact model results are insensitive to the values of the coefficient of
restitution and the impact stiffness. However, Naderpour et al. [42]
investigated the impact force and its dependency on the coefficient of
restitution and stiffness of the impact spring and the results reveal that
the impact force uniformly increases with the increase in the stiffness of
the impact spring and uniformly decreases with the increase in the
coefficient of restitution. Khatiwada [61] found that the coefficient of
restitution is sensitive to the mass of the striker slab, mass of the pen-
dulum and the ratio of masses of the striker and the struck slabs. The
results indicated also that the coefficient of restitution increased when
the striker slab is more flexible and decreased when the striker slab is
more rigid. Anagnostopoulos [24] concluded that the displacement due
to pounding is insensitive to the impact stiffness and the coefficient of
restitution, while the values of velocity and acceleration are sensitive.
These contradictory results need to be investigated in future studies.
2.3. Effectiveness of different models
Numerous studies have been focused on the comparison between
140
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
the effectiveness of different pounding models. Komodromos et al. [26]
showed that his results [26] as well as results obtained by Anagnosto-
poulos [24] and Jankowski [38] are similar, apart from the numerical
model used. Jankowski et al. [62–64] concluded that the nonlinear
viscoelastic model has higher accuracy in estimating the impact force
than the nonlinear elastic Hertz model, Hertzdamp model and the linear
viscoelastic model. However, the Hertzdamp model has higher accuracy
than the nonlinear viscoelastic model in estimating the impact velocity
(see [64] for example). Khatiwada et al. [65] indicated that the
Hertzdamp model shows inaccurate results whereas the linear viscoe-
lastic model, the modified Hertzdamp model and the nonlinear vis-
coelastic model are more precise. Indeed, the model described by Pant
et al. [27] has been found to be more rational in estimating the impact
force and the interstorey drift as compared to models considered by
Komodromos [26] and Ye et al. [37] (see [27] for example). Mavro-
nicola et al. [66,67] compared the effectiveness of five models de-
scribed in the works of Anagnostopoulos [24], Komodromos et al. [26],
Ye et al. [37], Mahmoud et al. [28] as well as by Pant et al. [27]. The
results of the study indicate that the accuracy of models depend
somehow on the impact stiffness and the coefficient of restitution taken
into consideration in the analyses. Therefore, no final conclusion con-
cerning the most precise model can be reported here. Further research
on the impact models and their accuracy is recommended.
3. Influence of pounding on dynamic properties of adjacent
buildings
3.1. Fixed-base buildings
Several research studies have been conducted to study the effect of
different structural dynamic properties (mass, storey height, total
height, etc.) and ground motion characteristics on the response para-
meters of colliding buildings (acceleration, displacement, interstorey
drift, impact forces, shear forces, etc.). The works of Anagnostopoulos
[24] as well as Anagnostopoulos and Spiliopoulos [68] are considered
as ones of the pioneering studies that investigated the factors influen-
cing structural pounding using single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) sys-
tems and multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems, respectively. These
studies concluded that pounding would be more crucial if there is a
significant difference in the masses, periods or heights of the colliding
buildings. Indeed, pounding leads to considerable increase in the peak
interstorey drift (IDR), residual IDR, floor peak accelerations, shear
forces and impact forces while the displacement response depends on
the dynamic properties of the colliding buildings (it may increase or
decrease) [69–76]. The structure response is amplified in the direction
of pounding and unaffected in the other direction [77] and this am-
plification highly depends on the dynamic properties of the structure
(mass, ductility, damping ratio, period, etc.) [78,79]. The decrease in
the displacement in certain cases is attributed to the fact that pounding
blocks the movement of vibrating buildings. However, this decrease
could not be considered beneficial, since the generated impact forces
due to this phenomenon leads to a significant damage. Crozet et al.
[80,81] performed Monte Carlo simulations based on Sobol's method of
SDOF systems to investigate the influence of the dynamic properties on
structural response under pounding. The results indicate that the fre-
quency ratio has the largest influence on the maximum impact force
and ductility demands while the frequency and mass ratios have the
largest influence on the impact impulse (mass ratio is predominant for
low frequency range).
Karayannis et al. [82,83] examined the global and local behaviour
of buildings subjected to transverse pounding with two cases: case 1
(floor-to-floor pounding) and case 2 (floor-to-column pounding). In the
case of floor-to-floor pounding, the columns of both buildings at the
contact area experience significant increase in the ductility demands.
Moreover, the ductility demands of these columns may exceed the
available ductility values. However, in the case of floor-to-column
M. Miari, et al.
pounding, only the columns of the taller building at and above the
contact area experience significant increase in the ductility demands.
The column subjected to collision from the slab of the adjacent shorter
structure becomes critical in the contact buildings case (in this case, the
ductility demand exceeds the available ductility), and also experiences
a significant critical increase in the shear demand in all cases exceeding
the shear strength. It was also concluded (see [83] for details) that
significant difference in the storey numbers (up to 4 times) of the col-
liding structures in the case of floor-to-column pounding decreases
significantly the ductility and shear demands of the column of the taller
building that is subjected to the collision with the top slab of the shorter
structure, as compared to the case when the difference in the numbers
of storeys is smaller. Also, the shear demand exceeds the available shear
strength in the case of torsional pounding of buildings with different
storey heights [84,85]. The conflict of the difference between the
pounding of the slab and the column at the its mid-height or at its
lower/upper parts is still not with clear results, as Dogan et al. [1]
concluded that pounding at lower/upper part of the column is more
significant than pounding at the middle of the column which is in
contradictory to the work of Rajaram [86] which concluded that
pounding at the mid-height is more significant.
In general, pounding amplifies the response of flexible building and
has insignificant effect on the stiff structure response [59,87–95]. This
is due to the transfer of the pounding forces from the stiffer structure to
the flexible one [96,97]. In contradiction to that, pounding was found
to amplify the response of stiffer structure and supress the flexible
structure response in other works (see [31,98,99], for example). Di-
mitrakopoulos et al. [100,101] performed dimensional analysis to in-
vestigate the influence of the dynamic properties of the building on the
structural response for pounding between two SDOF systems as well as
for pounding of the SDOF oscillator with a rigid wall. The results of the
study indicate that the flexible structure response is amplified for low
frequency range of the ground motion while the stiff structure response
is amplified for high frequency range of the ground motion. Indeed, the
response of the structure with lower mass, is generally amplified with
few exceptions. Changhai et al. [102] performed also dimensional
analysis for the same reason considering two 2D three-storey frames
idealized as MDOF systems. The results show that the flexible structure
is more sensitive to the change in the dynamic properties of the ad-
jacent structure (stiffness ratio, mass ratio, yield stiffness, yield dis-
placement and separating gap). However, the response of both adjacent
structures (flexible and stiff) experienced three phases of change with
the change of the aforementioned dynamic properties which are am-
plified, de-amplified, and unaffected. Chenna et al. [103] concluded
that when the two structures vibrate at a period/frequency close to the
period/frequency of the ground motion, the response of the stiff
structure is more significant than the response of the flexible structure.
However, if the frequencies of the vibration and the ground motion are
not close, the response of the flexible structure becomes more sig-
nificant than the response of the stiff structure. Fujii et al. [104] found
that the response of flexible-stiff structures under pounding differs if
both buildings are of the same height or have different heights. Thus, no
general trend can be illustrated for the increase or decrease in the re-
sponse of the flexible (or stiff) structure since it significantly depends on
the adjacent stiff (or flexible) structure and the ground motion char-
acteristics.
With regard to the material effect on pounding between adjacent
buildings, Jankowski [59] performed shaking table experiments of two
adjacent towers with different materials. The steel towers experienced
the highest peak displacement, followed by concrete and ceramic
towers, while the timber towers experienced a displacement less than
that when the two towers vibrate separately. Favvata et al. [105] stu-
died pounding between concrete and steel structures. The results show
that the RC structures are mostly affected at the top columns regarding
flexural and ductility demands and the bottom columns regarding shear
and ductility demands. On the other hand, the steel structures are
141
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
affected mostly at the top columns regarding shear and flexural de-
mands and the bottom columns regarding flexural demands.
Impact forces are transferred to the colliding buildings in the form
of different internal forces: normal forces (beams and slabs), shear
forces (columns), torsion (beams and columns) and bending (beams and
slabs). Ehab et al. [106] studied the flow of the impact forces in the
collided structure by comparing the performance of the slabs, beams,
columns and shear walls. It was found that the contribution of the slabs
in the distribution of the impact force is high (due to its very high in-
plane axial stiffness relative to the flexural column/wall stiffnesses), the
contribution of columns is low in the case of floor-to-floor pounding
and high in the case of floor-to-column pounding, and the contribution
of shear walls and beams is low in the direction perpendicular to the
earthquake propagation direction and high in the direction parallel to
the direction of earthquake propagation. Thus, considering frame
structures (beams and columns) underestimate the results and rather
“frame + slab” structures should be considered [77]. In addition,
considering the infill has a substantial effect on the structure behaviour
under earthquakes, and hence, pounding. Infilled frames have a higher
stiffness than the bare frames (frames without infill), and hence,
pounding is less significant to infilled frames [107,108]. The first mode
is usually the dominant one for the case without pounding while higher
modes are experienced for pounding-involved structural response.
Thus, infilled frames experience much smaller displacements than the
bare frames which means that the infilled frames require much smaller
seismic gap than the bare ones [109]. However, for the floor-to-column
pounding, the column subjected to pounding of the adjacent slab is still
in a critical case for the infilled frames as the ductility and shear de-
mands may exceed the available values [110]. The shear and ductility
demands for the column subjected to pounding is higher in the case of
the infilled frames, as compared to the case of the bare frames [111].
This means that, although infill increases the stiffness of the building, it
does not eliminate the excessive shear and ductility demands for the
columns that experience impacts from the adjacent slab.
Furthermore, the abovementioned studies focused on the symmetric
(translational) pounding while the asymmetric (torsional) pounding
was ignored. The asymmetric pounding occurs if one of the two col-
liding structures is asymmetric or when the contact area is asymmetric.
The first case is observed when there is eccentricity (ex or ey) between
the centre of mass (C.M) and the centre of gravity (C.G) (known also as
eccentric pounding) while the second case occurs when the colliding
buildings are not on the same row (Fig. 6). The asymmetric pounding
induces torque in the colliding buildings. The torsional effect of this
type of pounding has been an interest for several researchers.
Irregular structures (soft storeys) are more vulnerable to eccentric
pounding than the regular structures due to the presence of eccentricity
between the centres of mass and gravity. Building irregularity has a
substantial influence on the peak displacement, shear forces, impact
forces and ductility demands [112]. The impact force increases as the
setback degree increases [86]. Indeed, asymmetric pounding (torsional
pounding) is more critical than the symmetric pounding (translational
(a) Structure asymmetry (b) Contact asymmetry
Fig. 6. Asymmetric pounding.
M. Miari, et al.
pounding) due to torsion affect. Torsional pounding is more complex
than that of the solely translational pounding. Moreover, torsional
pounding leads to a considerable increase in the number of collisions,
building displacements, shear demands, torsion demands, and ductility
demands [32,84,113–115]. However, the maximum torsional impact
velocity is insensitive to the changes in the eccentricity and the se-
parating distance during pounding [114]. The increase in torsional
demand depends on the number of storeys of the shorter structure
(direct proportional) [84]. Indeed, higher asymmetry leads to higher
torsional responses [84,85]. The torsional response increases as the
stiffness of the shorter building increases. The highest value of the
torsional moment is experienced in the case of contact buildings and
larger gaps lead to lower torsional moment [84]. In addition, the tor-
sional movement of the buildings significantly affects the distribution of
the developed shear in the columns. High shear forces are developed in
the columns in the direction normal to the direction of the propagation
of the ground motion [84,85]. The column that is subjected to collision
from the adjacent slab (in floor-to-column pounding case) experiences
significant increase in the ductility and shear demands. The ductility
and shear demands increase as the stiffness of the shorter building in-
creases. The highest shear forces are developed in the case of contact
buildings [84]. Moreover, the torque demands are increased for both
structures but are more substantial in the case of stiffer structures [99].
The results of the aforementioned study shows that the bi-directional
ground motions should be used in the two-way eccentricity and uni-
directional ground motion can be used only in one-way eccentricity
[99].
Moreover, the ground motion characteristics have a significant in-
fluence on the response of colliding buildings [51]. Near field ground
motions cause higher increase in the response of the colliding buildings
(particularly peak pounding force, acceleration at impact and top le-
vels, base shear and storey drift), as compared to the far field ground
motions [116]. The response amplification due to pounding for both
regular and irregular structures are higher under repeated earthquakes
than under single seismic events [117,118]. In addition, when the ex-
citation period is between the periods of both buildings, the excitation
period will be equal or close to the pounding period. This may lead to
the critical pounding and may result in the increase in the impact ve-
locity, storey displacements, storey shear, etc. [31,88]. Polycarpou
et al. [119] studied the influence of the excitation angle of the ground
motion on the pounding behaviour in contrary to most previous works
which mostly regarded the incidence angle as either 0° or 90°. The re-
sults show that the maximum response amplification due to pounding is
at an excitation angle different from 0° and 90°, wherein the response at
this angle could be 4 times larger than that at 0°. Moreover, the ex-
citation angle, where the response amplification is maximum, is not
constant and it depends on the structure and the excitation character-
istics. Indeed, the vertical component of the earthquake has negligible
effect on the structural response but has a substantial effect on the local
structural damage [120]. The nonlinear time history analysis must be
used instead of response spectrum concept because the response spec-
trum underestimates the response of colliding buildings [96,97]. It is
worth mentioning that Rahimi et al. [121] developed a new statistical
method to develop the incremental dynamic analysis curves instead of
performing nonlinear analysis, thereby highly effective in saving time.
Other several parameters influencing pounding between adjacent
buildings have been rarely studied. These parameters include: P-delta
effect (neglecting the P-delta effect will underestimate the impact force)
[122,123], structure type and cracked/uncracked sections [51],
lumped/distributed mass models (lumped mass models lead to mis-
interpretation of the real behaviour of buildings where distributed mass
models should be considered to include the wave propagation)
[52,124,125], elastic and inelastic responses (consideration of the
elastic behaviour will overestimate the response) [87,126], linear and
nonlinear response (consideration of the linear response of buildings
due to pounding leads to inaccurate results) [127] and friction force
142
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
occurring during collision (the friction force has a significant effect on
the displacement of the flexible structure and insignificant effect on the
displacement of the stiff structure, but the ductility demand of the stiff
structure increases due to pounding with friction while the flexible
structure remains elastic) [94].
3.2. Isolated buildings
Isolation systems are being used for preventing damages in struc-
tures under seismic excitations [128]. These systems decrease the re-
lative floor displacement and acceleration of the superstructure while
leading to large displacements at the isolation level (especially for long
period ground motions) by inducing flexibility to the base of the
structure which can prevent resonance with the dominant frequency
[129,130]. Isolated buildings require large gaps so that pounding due to
the large displacements experienced at the base is prevented. The
seismic isolation system at the base is in danger of experiencing
pounding due to the commonly narrow provided gap. Pounding of
isolated buildings has been experienced, for example, in the Northridge
earthquake (1994) [131]. In addition, pounding of isolated buildings
occur either with the adjacent moat wall, adjacent fixed base structure
or adjacent isolated building, mainly at the isolation level.
Komodromos and co-workers [26,132,133] studied the performance
of isolated buildings subjected to pounding with moat walls. The results
of the studies indicate that pounding of isolated buildings amplifies the
acceleration at both base and floor levels (with substantial increase at
the isolation level since it is the level of impact) and the interstorey drift
at the top of the superstructure. These response amplifications (accel-
erations, base shear and interstorey drift) increase with the increase in
the flexibility of the isolation system. In addition, two-sided pounding
with moat walls (in the left and right) is more significant than one-sided
pounding. The response of the superstructure highly depends on the
stiffness of the moat wall. Higher stiffness of moat wall induces higher
impact forces, accelerations and displacements [134]. Pant et al.
[135–137] studied the influence of isolated bound properties (lower
and upper) effect under unidirectional and bidirectional ground mo-
tions. The results reveal that the response of the superstructure is
governed by upper bound properties when no pounding occurs and by
lower bound properties when pounding takes place. Moreover, near
field ground motions have higher effect (mainly on acceleration at the
base level) than the far field ground motions. The influence on the
structural response is higher under bidirectional ground motions. Fur-
thermore, the stiff isolated structure (stiff superstructure) is subjected
to higher damage (higher demands and impact forces) than the flexible
isolated structure (flexible superstructure) when pounded with adjacent
moat wall [138,139]. This is due to the sudden increase in the storey
drifts of the stiff structure, which is not experienced by the flexible
structure. Polycarpou et al. [140] investigated the effect of the vertical
location of the impact of base isolated building pounded with moat
wall. Specifically, two buildings were studied, the first one without
basement (the isolation system at the ground floor) while the second
with one-storey basement (the isolation system is under the basement).
The second building experienced higher accelerations and lower dis-
placements during pounding. Moreover, Mavronicola et al. [141] in-
vestigated the effect of the incidence angle of the ground motion ex-
citation and the mass eccentricities on the behaviour of isolated
buildings pounded with moat wall. The laminated rubber bearings were
used as the isolation system. The results show that the incidence angle
of the excitation considerably affects the response of isolated buildings
with and without pounding. The mass eccentricities lead to asymmetry
of the buildings, even if both structures have the same geometric
properties. This mass eccentricity substantially amplifies the response
of isolated buildings during pounding.
Polycarpou et al. [60,142,143] investigated pounding of isolated
buildings (with rubber isolators) with moat walls and adjacent fixed
base structure. The results show that pounding with fixed base structure
M. Miari, et al.
is more critical than pounding with moat wall. In the case of pounding
with moat wall, collisions occur at the isolation level, whereas collisions
take place at the isolated and floor levels in the case of pounding with
fixed building (especially at the top floor). This is due to the flexibility
provided in fixed base structures which is not provided by moat walls.
This result indicates that the gap to be provided between isolated
buildings and fixed-base buildings is higher than the gap between iso-
lated buildings and moat walls. When calculating the sufficient seismic
gap, the deformations at the isolated level and at the top storey have to
be considered in the case of isolated buildings adjacent to fixed base
buildings. The square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) is in-
sufficient for preventing pounding of isolated buildings due to the high
displacements induced by the isolation system. In addition, pounding of
isolated buildings substantially depends on the number of storeys of the
fixed-base building. Pant et al. [144] investigated pounding between
isolated buildings and fixed base buildings with different storey heights
(floor-to-column pounding). The results indicate that the storey shears
are amplified due to floor-to-column pounding, but failure results from
flexural behaviour rather than from the shear forces exceeding the
shear demands.
Mehmet et al. [145] studied pounding between two adjacent iso-
lated buildings with different dynamic properties considering inelastic
response. The results reveal that the flexible structure is significantly
affected by pounding and its response is sensitive to the variation of the
gap size, structural stiffness, structural mass and friction coefficient.
However, the response of the stiff structure is insignificantly affected by
pounding and insensitive to the mentioned parameters. Liu et al. [146]
investigated pounding of two base-isolated buildings with two different
types of isolation systems (lead rubber bearing isolators and friction
pendulum isolators). Both buildings experienced amplification in the
impact force and storey shear forces, velocity and acceleration due to
pounding. The amplification is higher in the case of building with
friction pendulum isolators, as compared to the structure with rubber
bearing isolators. Moreover, the acceleration amplification experienced
is higher than that of the velocity and displacement. Mahmoud et al.
[147] studied three cases of pounding: pounding between fixed base
buildings, pounding between fixed and isolated buildings and pounding
between isolated buildings taking into consideration isolated buildings
with stiff and flexible superstructures. The results indicate that, in all
cases, pounding has a substantial influence on the building response. In
addition, pounding effect significantly depends on the type of the base
of the building. The variation in the storeys response of the isolated
building is insignificant while for the fixed base buildings is significant.
3.3. Flexible soil-based buildings
The studied cases related to the effect of soil have considered two
aspects: spatial variations of the ground motion and soil-structure in-
teractions (SSI).
3.3.1. Spatial variation of the ground motion
Several researchers [78,148–150] investigated the effect of spatial
variations on structural pounding. The spatial variation has significant
effect on the acceleration (amplification), impact forces (amplification),
number of collisions (amplification) and the displacement (increase or
decrease) of both structures, especially when the colliding buildings
have similar natural periods. However, the spatial variation has insig-
nificant effect on the shear response. In the case of similar natural
periods, the spatial variation of the ground motion is the primary source
of pounding. In addition, the higher level of spatial variations of the
ground motion leads to a higher effect of pounding and its influence on
the colliding buildings. The spatial variation effect is more substantial
for the stiffer structure, especially in the case of out-of-phase shifts
between the spatial vibration ground motion and the structure/
pounding vibration modes. Pounding is more significant also when the
building response is nonlinear inelastic. Gong et al. [151] investigated
143
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
the torsional effect due spatially varying ground motions. In this study,
by using bidirectional spatially varying ground motions, the base shear
of both structures was reduced, the torque was reduced in asymmetric
structure and became larger in the symmetric structure, as compared to
the uniform ground motions. The effect of spatial variation of the
ground motion is higher in the case of small eccentricities. In this case
(using spatially varying ground motions), bidirectional ground motions
must be used since the unidirectional ground motions underestimate
the response results.
3.3.2. Soil structure interaction
The assumption of ignoring the effects of SSI is applicable only for
stiff soil (rock soil). On the other hand, especially for soft soils, the
response of the structure under seismic excitation is substantially in-
fluenced by SSI [152]. It has been confirmed that the SSI decreases the
stiffness of the structure due to the movement of the flexible base/soil
[153]. Hence, SSI has also a considerable effect on pounding phe-
nomenon. Naserkhaki et al. [154] investigated pounding between
buildings with different heights considering SSI. The results indicate
that, due to pounding, the tall building experiences lower displacement
at all storeys. Shear forces decrease in the storeys below the pounding
level (top storey of short building) while increases in the storeys above
the pounding levels. This is referred that pounding of the tall building
with the shorter building prevents the movement of the storeys below
the pounding level, while the higher storeys move freely. This sudden
jump in the relative displacement causes this considerable increase in
the storey shears above pounding levels. However, the storey shears
and displacement of the shorter building increase in all storeys. In ad-
dition, pounding is significant in the case of soil-pile-structure inter-
action [155]. The flexible structure was found to be more sensitive to
pounding with SSI comparing to the stiffer structure [56,156–158].
When the heights of the shorter and taller buildings are somehow si-
milar, then pounding will have short magnitude and duration. When
the difference in heights of the shorter and taller buildings is significant,
collisions will take place with low magnitude and long period. The most
critical pounding scenario is when the shorter building height is half of
the height of the taller structure [56,154]. Moreover, near field earth-
quakes are more significant than the far field earthquakes considering
SSI [159,160].
Most studies indicate that the response of the superstructure re-
garding displacement, shear forces, pounding forces, base forces and
acceleration is higher in the case when SSI is considered
[56,154,157,161–164]. In other works, it was found that considering
SSI leads to the reduction in the peak displacements, shear forces, im-
pact forces and energy (dissipated yielding energy, dissipated damping
energy and absorbed energy) while it leads to the increase in the ac-
celeration at all storeys and the number of impacts [156,159,160]. The
difference in the results is attributed to the types of soil used in the
investigation, i.e. whether it is stiff (reduction in displacements) or
flexible (increase in displacements) and the foundation type.
Mahmoud et al. [165] investigated the influence of SSI on the iso-
lated buildings with rubber bearings which were subjected to pounding
with moat wall. The results reveal that, with regard to the super-
structure response, the displacement, acceleration and number of im-
pacts increase while the impact force and dissipated energy decrease
when taking SSI into consideration. With regard to the isolated base
considering SSI, the acceleration decreases while the displacement is
insensitive. The response is higher when the soil is softer and when the
ground motion is near the site.
4. Seismic gap
The best approach to eliminate pounding effects is to provide suf-
ficient seismic gap that is capable to eliminate collision between
structures. Increasing the gap will not significantly decrease the
pounding effects unless it is large enough to eliminate collisions at all
M. Miari, et al.
[77,99]. On this basis, the development of different formulas of the
required seismic gap was considered by many researchers. This issue is
also addressed in the modern seismic codes. Some differences were
observed between the details described in the design codes regarding
the seismic gap, but the design philosophy is the same.
The required seismic gap to be provided can be simply calculated as
the absolute sum (ABS) of the peak displacements of both buildings
when they vibrate separately (Eq. (36)). This equation can be found in
more than one code, including the Uniform Building Code 97 (UBC 97)
[166]. The formula is a conservative one and overestimates the re-
quired gap since its unlikely that the buildings would have their peak
displacements at the same time. Because of that, Anagnostopoulos [24]
suggested that the adequate seismic gap is equal to the square root of
the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the peak displacements of both
buildings vibrating separately (Eq. (37)). The formula was later em-
bedded in the UBC 97 code [166]. Several studies have shown that this
formula is conservative [167,168]. However, this formula is un-
conservative when pounding occurs between buildings with different
structural systems [106], when the nonlinear response is considered
[169], or in the near-collapse limit state when the peak response due
the ground motion is analysed [170]. Therefore, Jeng et al. [171]
proposed a third equation on the basis of spectral difference method,
known as the double difference method (DDC) or the complete quad-
ratic combination (CQC) method (Eq. (38)). The DDC formula is con-
sidered to be more accurate than the SRSS one. However, this formula
requires the evaluation of the correlation factor, , which represents the
uncertainties in the pounding phenomenon (Eq. (39)). Several ap-
proaches have been proposed to evaluate the correlation factor - see
papers by Filiatrault [172,173], Kasai [174], Penzien [175] and Valles
[176]. Lopez-Garcia et al. [177] investigated these four methods for
nonlinear systems and concluded that results of the four methods are
less accurate than those of the SRSS approach. Moreover, Lopez-Garcia
[178] also studied the accuracy of the DDC method using nonlinear
systems and concluded that the DDC formula provide both conservative
and unconservative (when the periods of adjacent buildings are very
close to each other) results. Then, a new method for the evaluation of
the correlation factor was proposed and it was illustrated that the DDC
formula (based on the proposed correlation factor) provides more ac-
curate results than the ABS and SRSS formulas.
S = U1 + U2
S= U12 + U22
S= U12 + U22 2 U1 U2
( + )( )
1.5
8( 1 2) 2
T2
1 T1
T2
T1
= 2
( )
T2 2
1+( ) ( ) + 4(
T2 2
( )
2
T2 2 2) T2
1 +4 1 2 +
T1 T1 T1 1 2 T1
where S is the sufficient seismic separation gap, U1, 1 and T1 are the
design displacement, damping ratio and natural period for the first
building and U2 , 2 and T2 are the design displacement, damping ratio
and natural period for the second building (T1 < T2 ) , respectively. In-
deed, Lopez-Garcia et al. [179] assessed the DDC formula and checked
up to what extent it is conservative. The results show that the accuracy
of this formula depends on the natural periods of both buildings (T1 and
T2) and the predominant period of the earthquake excitation (Tm ) . As-
suming that T1 < T2 , the accuracy of the DDC formula is summarised as
follows:
1) When T2 < Tm T1, the DDC formula is always conservative. The
degree of conservatism of the formula increases with the following:
– increase of T1/ T2
– decrease of T1 and T2 when T1/ T2 is constant
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
2) When T2 > Tm T1, the DDC formula is not always conservative
neither unconservative. This depends on the relation T1/ T2 as fol-
lows:
– when T1/ T2 <0.75 , the formula is always unconservative.
– when T1/ T2 >0.75 , the formula is always conservative. The degree of
conservatism of the formula increases with the:
– increase of T1/ T2
– increase of T1 and T 2 when T1/ T2 is constant
3) When T2 = Tm T1, the DDC formula is always conservative.
Hong et al. [180], Garcia [181], and Hong et al. [182] examined the
CQC formula in the case of a two-sided crossing taking into con-
sideration different cases with or without uncertainty of structural
properties of adjacent buildings, including damping ratios and natural
periods. The numerical results of this study illustrate that the CQC
formula underestimates or overestimates the required gap. The relation
between the required separating distance, Drequired , to that calculated
based on CQC formula with a two-sided crossing, DCQC , is as follows:
1) Drequired = 0.9DCQC when 0.8<T1/ T2 <1.2
2) Drequired = 1.0DCQC otherwise
Wang et al. [183] extended this work by using a nonstationary ex-
citation. The results were generally consistent with the previous ones.
However, the relation between the required separating distance,
Drequired , to that calculated based on CQC formula with a two-sided
crossing, DCQC , is as follows:
1) Drequired = 0.9DCQC when 0.75<T1/T2 < 1.25
2) Drequired = 1.1DCQC otherwise
This work also proposes a criterion for evaluating the required gap
on the basis of safety levels.
Shrestha [127] compared the ABS, SRSS and DDC equations with
the analytical required gap taking into consideration linear and non-
linear models. The results indicate that the ABS method is always
conservative and overestimates the gap, the SRSS approach is con-
(36) servative when the natural periods of both buildings are close to each
other and unconservative if the natural periods are different, and the
(37) DDC formula is the best one for predicting the separation gap. However,
only one ground motion was considered in the study, thereby indicating
(38) that the results have to be confirmed by further research using other
ground motions. Barbato et al. [184] also found that the DDC formula is
the most accurate one, while ABS and SRSS methods give un-
conservative results.
Furthermore, the Taiwan Building Code (TBC) [185] takes the
(39)
plastic deformations into account in the required seismic gap formula
(Eq. (40)).
S = 0.6( u1 + u2 ) (40)
where u1 and u2 are the allowable plastic displacements of buildings
and 0.6 is the reduction factor, taking into account the fact that the
peak displacements of two buildings are rarely observed at the same
time. The allowable plastic displacements can be calculated based on
Eqs. (41) and (42).
u1 = 1.4 y R1 e1 (41)
u2 = 1.4 y R2 e2 (42)
where 1.4 is the over strength factor, R1 and R2 are the allowable duc-
tility factors, y is the first yielding amplification factor and e1 and e2
are the elastic displacements due to the seismic forces. Lin et al.
[186,187] proved that this formula is conservative and overestimates
the gap.
144
M. Miari, et al.
In addition, the minimum required separation based on the ASCE
7–05 code [188] is shown in Eq. (43).
Cd
max , e
=
I
where Cd is the total deflection amplification factor, max , e is the max-
imum elastic displacement and I is the importance factor.
Moreover, other codes relate the required seismic gap to the
building height. The Australian code (AS1170.4–2007) [189] suggests
that the required seismic gap should be calculated as 1% of the total
height of the taller building, Hmax (see Eq. (44)).
S = 0.01Hmax
Several studies verified this formula and concluded that it is a
conservative approach [149] and overestimates the required seismic
gap [190]. The inaccurate results of the ABS and SRSS methods, as well
as the formula described in the Australian seismic code, are due to the
fact of ignoring the in- and out-of-phase vibrations. Naderpour et al.
[190] developed more accurate formula for the required seismic gap
which takes into account the in- and out-of-phase vibrations (Eq. (45)).
S= U12 + U22 2SFU1 U2
where U1 and U2 are the design displacements (peak displacements
without pounding), and SF represents the separation factor which de-
pends on the periods of both buildings, as shown in Eq. (46).
T2
SF = 10.5(T2 T1)
T1
where T1 < T2
The abovementioned equations are based on the assumption that
damping is proportional. However, non-proportional damping may
highly influence the building behaviour. In this case, the above-
mentioned equations will provide inaccurate results. Yu et al. [191]
proposed a new and more accurate method (general spectral difference
method) for the calculation of the gap between structures taking into
consideration the non-proportional damping.
The above described formulas for the seismic gap size between two
adjacent buildings concern fixed-base structures. On the other hand,
flexible base buildings (due to SSI or seismic isolation) require larger
gap to be provided (the sufficient gap in the case of soft soil might be
even 3 times larger than the recommended one) [56,163,164].
5. Mitigation measures
Although providing a sufficient gap is usually the best solution, it is
often rejected by property owners and engineers due to financial and
architectural issues. In addition, this solution is inapplicable for
buildings that are already built without sufficient seismic separation.
Thus, the development of mitigation measures, as an alternative to the
sufficiently large seismic gap, is apparent.
The use of collision shear walls (Fig. 7) and bracing systems for
pounding mitigation has been presented in several studies and found to
be effective in mitigating earthquake-induced structural pounding
Fig. 7. Collison shear walls layout (plan view).
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
[112,169]. These shear walls decrease the maximum out-of-phase dis-
placements of the colliding buildings [192]. In addition, it decreases the
top displacements and number of impacts but increases the maximum
(43) impact force. However, it has a higher capacity to absorb energy than
moment resistant concrete frames, thereby decreasing the effect of the
high impact load [193]. These walls also limit the ductility increase in
the case of pounding compared with the case without collisions
[194,195]. Buildings with collision walls experience local repairable
damage due to pounding, especially at the point of pounding of the slab
of the adjacent structure but no structural collapse will occur. These
walls also protect the other parts of the structure from damage and only
(44) damage to non-structural elements might be observed due to the ac-
celeration spikes.
Several methods have been proposed to overcome the problem of
the high acceleration spikes developed due to pounding. The effect of
the use of impact absorbing materials on the response of colliding
buildings was investigated by several studies on fixed base buildings,
such as rubber shock absorbers [196–198], polystyrene, [199,200] and
polymers [201,202] and on isolated buildings [132,203] (Fig. 8). The
results reveal that the shock absorbers reduce the peak acceleration and
impact forces of colliding buildings but increase the number of colli-
(45)
sions. This is due to its softness behaviour.
Another common mitigation measure is to connect adjacent build-
ings with links to make the structural vibrations in-phase. The results of
several studies indicate that the use of various types of links (such as
spring links, dashpot links or viscoelastic links) between the storeys of
two adjacent structures decrease significantly the response (displace-
(46) ments) of the flexible building and has insignificant effect on the re-
sponse of the stiff structures [204–206]. Several types of dampers have
also been proposed and investigated. Patel et al. [207] as well as Tu-
baldi et al. [208] investigated the influence of the use of the viscous
dampers, its arrangement and its impact damping on pounding miti-
gation. The viscous dampers were found to be effective in reduction of
damaging impacts. The use of viscous dampers at the isolation level of
isolated buildings has also been proposed for controlling the large
structural displacements and mitigating pounding [60,209]. By de-
signing the viscous dampers with optimum parameters, we are able to
reduce the displacements of isolated buildings and mitigate pounding
between adjacent isolated buildings. Licari et al. [210] developed a new
model, named multi-link viscoelastic system, which allows us to con-
nect the two adjacent buildings with dampers combined with in-parallel
springs. This system is characterised by damping variation with respect
to time. It is also better than other approaches that use constant
damping and more effective in mitigating pounding because it leads to
a considerable decrease in shear forces. Roshan et al. [211] compared
the difference in the effects of viscous dampers and viscoelastic dam-
pers. The results indicate that the effects of both dampers are similarly
effective in reducing the response of both buildings, with a bit higher
reduction when using viscoelastic dampers. Since the viscoelastic
dampers are more expensive than the viscous dampers, this makes the
use of viscous dampers more favourable than the viscoelastic dampers.
Rawlinson et al. [212] designed, developed and tested two prototypes
of dampers to mitigate pounding between isolated buildings, i.e. pure
viscous dampers and two-phased viscoplastic dampers (that include a
friction devise in addition to viscous damper).
The use of friction dampers is also effective in pounding mitigation
[192]. Furthermore, the use of fluid viscous (FV) dampers [213–216] is
not only an adequate technique of mitigating pounding but it also in-
creases the general safety of the building. The results show that using
FV dampers leads to the decrease in the normal forces, shear forces and
bending moments by 42%, 39%, and 32%, respectively, as compared to
the no pounding case (free vibrations). Moreover, linking adjacent
buildings with magneto-rheological (MR) dampers, as a method for
mitigating pounding phenomenon, has been under study by several
researchers. The results reveal that the use of MR dampers with passive-
off, passive-on (active) (with different voltages), semi-active and fuzzy
145
M. Miari, et al.
Fig. 8. Rubber shock absorbers.
controllers decreases the displacements, accelerations and the required
gap and leads to the total synchronisation of the response of the two
adjacent buildings [217–219]. The fuzzy controller has the largest in-
fluence on the reduction of these parameters, as compared to other
types of controllers. In addition, the passive-on (active) controller with
a high voltage has a substantial effect on the reduction of these para-
meters. In the case of this type of controller, as voltage of the active
damper increases, the damper force increases, hence, leading to larger
capability to resist pounding. The main advantage of this controller is
the possibility of controlling the MR damper output force by controlling
the induced voltage. However, the variation of the voltage of the pas-
sive-on is sudden, while that of the fuzzy controller is adaptable and
soft, thereby making the use of the fuzzy controller more preferable.
Indeed, the use of coupled dampers is more effective in mitigating
pounding than the single link elements [217]. Tuned mass dampers
(TMD) were also proposed as an effective technique in pounding miti-
gation by reducing the peak displacements of buildings during earth-
quakes [220]. Several researchers (see [221–225]) developed pounding
TMD (PTMD), a modified version of TMD, which includes a viscous
material to absorb the energy of TMD during pounding. This method is
more effective in reducing the response of the structures, as compared
to TMD. Abdullah et al. [226] used passive shared tuned mass (STMD)
dampers (one single TMD on each building connected with a spring to
the second structure instead of two separated TMDs) (Fig. 9) which is
also found to be more effective in preventing pounding, as compared to
TMD. Kim [227] suggested the use of semi-active shared tuned mass
dampers controlled by multi-input multi output fuzzy logic controller.
This system, which consists of two dampers connecting both buildings
and has half of the TMD system mass, reduces the displacement, ac-
celeration and drift more effectively than the TMD. However, applying
these dampers is restricted due to the large space needed for installa-
tion. Further research to overcome this restriction is necessary.
Ismail et al. suggested the use the roll-in-cage isolators (RNC) to
control large displacements resulting from installation of the isolation
system at the isolation level. By performing numerical analysis on this
type of isolation system, the method was confirmed to be effective in
controlling both translational and rotational pounding through using
Fig. 9. Different types of mass dampers (a) STMD and (b) TMD.
146
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
passive and active controls [228–233]. In addition, Agarwal et al. [234]
suggested the use of friction-varying base isolation system (isolation
system with varying coefficient of friction) that can reduce building
response in certain situations. Moreover, Rawlinson et al. [235] de-
veloped a new passive damper to mitigate pounding for base isolated
buildings.
6. Conclusions and directions of future research
In this study, the detailed state of the art review has been conducted
concerning the topic of earthquake-induced pounding between adjacent
buildings. Particularly, pounding effects on fixed-base buildings, iso-
lated buildings as well as buildings resting on soft soils have been ad-
dressed in terms of the influencing factors (mass, frequency, ground
motion characteristics, etc.) and the affected parameters (shear de-
mands, ductility demands, etc.). Then, the aspects of sufficient se-
paration gap have been considered by revising the modern seismic
codes and recommendations of different research studies. Finally, the
appropriate pounding mitigation measures have been discussed in
terms of their efficiency and applicability.
The most important recommendations extracted from this review
are listed below:
1) The effect of the impact stiffness and the coefficient of restitution on
impact modelling are significant, while they have been ignored in
many of the previous studies. This calls for further studies to
quantify both parameters for different configurations of colliding
buildings.
2) The dispersion in the results of pounding problems, while using
different models of structural pounding, has been observed from a
number of studies. The development of new models, that could more
effectively simulate collisions between different types of buildings,
is recommended.
3) Several parameters have been omitted in the evaluation of structural
pounding during earthquakes, e.g. P-delta effect, angle of incidence
of ground motions, structural system, etc. Further studies, taking
these parameters into consideration, are apparent.
4) Effective formulas designed for evaluating the seismic gap needed
for preventing pounding between buildings during various ground
motions face certain problems. Most of the recommended formulas
either overestimate or underestimate the sufficient gap. Further
research focused on this issue is needed.
5) A number of the proposed mitigation measures have certain draw-
backs, i.e. space needed for damper connectors, damage to shear
walls, etc. Future research to overcome these difficulties is sug-
gested.
6) Different types of analysis, such as Monte Carlo simulation, have
been conducted to investigate the most influential dynamic para-
meters on structural pounding using SDOF systems. The verification
of the results for MDOF systems is necessary.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest statement
Declarations of interest
None.
References
[1] Doğan M, Günaydın A. Pounding of adjacent RC buildings during seismic loads. J
Eng Archit Fac Eskişeh Osman Univ 2009;22:129–45.
M. Miari, et al.
[2] Rosenblueth E, Meli R. The 1985 Mexico earthquake. Concrete Int 1986;8:23–34.
[3] Valles-Mattox R, Reinhorn A. Evaluation, prevention and mitigation of pounding
effects in building structures. In: Proceedings of the eleventh world conference on
earthquake engineering. Paper No. 26; 1996.
[4] Anagnostopoulos S. Building pounding re-examined: how serious a problem is it.
In: Proceedings of the eleventh world conference on earthquake engineering; 1996.
p. 2108.
[5] Anagnostopoulos S. Earthquake induced pounding: State of the art. In: Proceedings
of the 10th European conference on earthquake engineering; 1995. p. 897–905.
[6] Degg M. Some implications of the 1985 Mexican earthquake for hazard assessment.
Geohazards. Springer; 1992. p. 105–14.
[7] Kasai K, Maison BF. Building pounding damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. Eng Struct 1997;19:195–207.
[8] Romão X, Costa A, Paupério E, Rodrigues H, Vicente R, Varum H, et al. Field
observations and interpretation of the structural performance of constructions after
the 11 May 2011 Lorca earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 2013;34:670–92.
[9] Wibowo A, Kafle B, Kermani AM, Lam NT, Wilson JL, Gad EF. Damage in the 2008
China earthquake. In: Proceedings of Australian earthquake engineering society
conference; 2008.
[10] Cole G, Bull D, Dhakal R, Carr A. Interbuilding pounding damage observed in the
2010 Darfield earthquake. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 2010;43:382.
[11] Cole G, Dhakal R, Carr A, Bull D, Case studies of observed pounding damage
during the 2010 Darfield earthquake. In: Proceedings of 9th pacific conference on
earthquake engineering. Paper No. 173l; 2011.
[12] Cole G, Dhakal R, Chouw N, Building pounding damage observed in the 2011
Christchurch earthquake. In: Proceeding of 15th world conference on earthquake
engineering; 2012.
[13] Cole GL, Dhakal RP, Turner FM. Building pounding damage observed in the 2011
Christchurch earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41:893–913.
[14] Gautam D, Rodrigues H, Bhetwal KK, Neupane P, Sanada Y. Common structural
and construction deficiencies of Nepalese buildings. Innov Infrastruct Solut
2016;1:1.
[15] Sharma K, Deng L, Noguez CC. Field investigation on the performance of building
structures during the April 25, 2015, Gorkha earthquake in Nepal. Eng Struct
2016;121:61–74.
[16] Gautam D, Chaulagain H. Structural performance and associated lessons to be
learned from world earthquakes in Nepal after 25 April 2015 (MW 7.8) Gorkha
earthquake. Eng Fail Anal 2016;68:222–43.
[17] Shakya K, Pant D, Maharjan M, Bhagat S, Wijeyewickrema A, Maskey P. Lessons
learned from performance of buildings during the September 18, 2011 earthquake
in Nepal. Asian J Civil Eng (BHRC) 2013;17:719–33.
[18] Rai DC, Singhal V, Raj S B, Sagar SL. Reconnaissance of the effects of the M7. 8
Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk
2016;7:1–17.
[19] Shrestha B, Hao H. Building pounding damages observed during the 2015 Gorkha
earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil 2018;32:04018006.
[20] Isobe D, Ohta T, Inoue T, Matsueda F. Seismic pounding and collapse behavior of
neighboring buildings with different natural periods. Nat Sci 2012;4:686.
[21] Cole G, Dhakal R, Carr A, Bull D. Building pounding state of the art: Identifying
structures vulnerable to pounding damage. In: Proceedings of New Zealand society
for earthquake engineering annual conference. Paper No. 11; 2010.
[22] Jeng V, Tzeng W. Assessment of seismic pounding hazard for Taipei City. Eng
Struct 2000;22:459–71.
[23] Goldsmith W. Impact: the theory and physical behaviour of colliding solids.
London: Arnold; 1960.
[24] Anagnostopoulos SA. Pounding of buildings in series during earthquakes. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 1988;16:443–56.
[25] Anagnostopoulos SA. Equivalent viscous damping for modeling inelastic impacts
in earthquake pounding problems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:897–902.
[26] Komodromos P, Polycarpou PC, Papaloizou L, Phocas MC. Response of seismically
isolated buildings considering poundings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2007;36:1605–22.
[27] Pant DR, Wijeyewickrema AC, Ohmachi T. Seismic pounding between reinforced
concrete buildings: a study using two recently proposed contact element models.
In: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on earthquake engineering; 2010.
[28] Mahmoud S, Jankowski R. Modified linear viscoelastic model of earthquake-in-
duced structural pounding. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Environ Eng
2011;35:51–62.
[29] Davis R. Pounding of buildings modelled by an impact oscillator. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 1992;21:253–74.
[30] Chau K, Wei X. Pounding of structures modelled as non‐linear impacts of two
oscillators. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2001;30:633–51.
[31] Chau K, Wei X, Guo X, Shen C. Experimental and theoretical simulations of seismic
poundings between two adjacent structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2003;32:537–54.
[32] Chau K, Wei X, Wang L. Experimental and theoretical simulations of seismic tor-
sional poundings between two adjacent structures. In: Proceedings of the 13th
world conference on earthquake engineering 13WCEE. 2004; p. 1–6.
[33] Wang L, Chau K, Wei X. Numerical simulations of nonlinear seismic torsional
pounding between two single-story structures. Adv Struct Eng 2009;12:87–101.
[34] Muthukumar S, DesRoches R. A Hertz contact model with non‐linear damping for
pounding simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35:811–28.
[35] Muthukumar S, Desroches R. Evaluation of impact models for seismic pounding.
In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering; 2004.
[36] Ye K, Li L, Zhu H. A note on the Hertz contact model with nonlinear damping for
pounding simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38:1135–42.
147
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
[37] Ye K, Li L, Zhu H. A modified Kelvin impact model for pounding simulation of
base-isolated building with adjacent structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib
2009;8:433–46.
[38] Jankowski R. Non‐linear viscoelastic modelling of earthquake‐induced structural
pounding. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34:595–611.
[39] Jankowski R. Non-linear viscoelastic model of structural pounding. In: 13 WCEE
Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. Paper No.
3082; 2004.
[40] Jankowski R. Analytical expression between the impact damping ratio and the
coefficient of restitution in the non‐linear viscoelastic model of structural
pounding. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35:517–24.
[41] Jankowski R. Theoretical and experimental assessment of parameters for the non-
linear viscoelastic model of structural pounding. J Theor Appl Mech
2007;45:931–42.
[42] Naderpour H, Barros R, Khatami S, Jankowski R. Numerical study on pounding
between two adjacent buildings under earthquake excitation. Shock Vib
2016;2016. [article ID 1504783].
[43] Khatiwada S, Chouw N, Butterworth J. Development of pounding model for ad-
jacent structures in earthquakes. In: Proceeding of the 9th pacific conference on
earthquake engineering. Paper No. 80; 2011.
[44] Liu Y, Liu W-G, Wang X, He W-F, Yang Q-R. New equivalent linear impact model
for simulation of seismic isolated structure pounding against moat wall. Shock Vib
2014;2014. [article ID 151237].
[45] Xue Q, Zhang C, He J, Zou G, Zhang J. An updated analytical structural pounding
force model based on viscoelasticity of materials. Shock Vib 2016;2016. [article ID
2596923].
[46] Khatiwada S, Chouw N, Larkin T. Simulation of structural pounding with the sears
impact model. In: Proceedings of the 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on
computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering; 2013.
p. 12–4.
[47] Bamer F, Markert B. A nonlinear visco‐elastoplastic model for structural pounding.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2018;47:2490–5.
[48] Polycarpou PC, Papaloizou L, Komodromos P. An efficient methodology for si-
mulating earthquake‐induced 3D pounding of buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2014;43:985–1003.
[49] Polycarpou P, Komodromos P. On the numerical simulation of structural pounding
in three dimensions. In: Proceedings of world congress on advances in structural
engineering and mechanics (ASEM13); 2013.
[50] Polycarpou P, Komodromos P. A methodology for an efficient three-dimensional
(3D) numerical simulation of earthquake-induced pounding of building. In:
Proceedings of the 14th world conference of earthquake engineering; 2012.
[51] Abdel-Mooty M, Al-Atrpy H, Ghouneim M. Modeling and analysis of factors af-
fecting seismic pounding of adjacent multi-story buildings. WIT Trans Built
Environ 2009;104:127–38.
[52] Cole G, Dhakal R, Carr A, Bull D. An investigation of the effects of mass dis-
tribution on pounding structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2011;40:641–59.
[53] Xu X, Xu X, Liu W, Zhou D. A new formula of impact stiffness in linear viscoelastic
model for pounding simulation. Shock Vib 2016;2016. [article ID 5861739].
[54] Salman MM, Al-Amawee AH. The ratio between static and dynamic modulus of
elasticity in normal and high strength concrete. J Eng Sustain Dev
2018;10:163–74.
[55] Khatami SM, Naderpour H, Barros RC. A new theory of pounding between two
bodies considering link element by having nonlinear stiffness of spring, In:
Proceedings of the second European conference on earthquake engineering and
semiology; 2014.
[56] Ghandil M, Aldaikh H. Damage‐based seismic planar pounding analysis of adjacent
symmetric buildings considering inelastic structure–soil–structure interaction.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2017;46:1141–59.
[57] Naserkhaki S, Aziz A, Farah N, Pourmohammad H. Parametric study on earth-
quake induced pounding between adjacent buildings. Struct Eng Mech
2012;43:503–26.
[58] Khatiwada S, Chouw N, Larkin T. An experimental investigation on contact be-
haviour during structural pounding. In: Proceedings of New Zealand society for
earthquake engineering annual conference; 2014. p. 21–3.
[59] Jankowski R. Experimental study on earthquake‐induced pounding between
structural elements made of different building materials. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2010;39:343–54.
[60] Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P. Earthquake-induced poundings of a seismically
isolated building with adjacent structures. Eng Struct 2010;32:1937–51.
[61] Khatiwada S, Larkin T, Chouw N. Influence of mass and contact surface on
pounding response of RC structures. Earthq Struct 2014;7:385–400.
[62] Mahmoud S, Jankowski R. Earthquake-induced structural pounding. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer; 2015.
[63] Jankowski R. Comparison of numerical models of impact force for simulation of
earthquake-induced structural pounding. Lect Notes Comput Sci
2008;5(101):710–7.
[64] Mahmoud S, Chen X, Jankowski R. Structural pounding models with Hertz spring
and nonlinear damper. J Appl Sci 2008;8:1850–8.
[65] Khatiwada S, Chouw N, Butterworth J. Evaluation of numerical pounding models
with experimental validation. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 2013;46:117–30.
[66] Mavronicola EA, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P. Effect of planar impact modeling
on the pounding response of base-isolated buildings. Front Built Environ
2016;2:11.
[67] Mavronicola E, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P. "The effect of modified linear
viscoelastic impact models in the pounding response of a base-isolated building
with adjacent structures. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on
M. Miari, et al.
computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering; 2015.
[68] Anagnostopoulos SA, Spiliopoulos KV. An investigation of earthquake induced
pounding between adjacent buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1992;21:289–302.
[69] Sołtysik B, Jankowski R. Non-linear strain rate analysis of earthquake-induced
pounding between steel buildings. Int J Earth Sci Eng 2013;6:429–33.
[70] Raheem SEA. Seismic pounding between adjacent building structures. Electron J
Struct Eng 2006;6:155.
[71] Sołtysik B, Jankowski R. Building damage due to structural pounding during
earthquakes. J Phys: Conf Ser 2015;628. [article no. 012040].
[72] Rojas FR, Anderson JC. Pounding of an 18-story building during recorded earth-
quakes. J Struct Eng 2012;138:1530–44.
[73] Raheem SEA, Mitigation measures for seismic pounding effects on adjacent
buildings responses. In: Proceedings of 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on
computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering; 2013.
[74] Raheem SEA. Mitigation measures for earthquake induced pounding effects on
seismic performance of adjacent buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2014;12:1705–24.
[75] Inel M, Cayci BT, Kmaml M, Altinel O. Structural pounding of mid-rise RC
buildings during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the second European conference
on earthquake engineering and semiology; 2014.
[76] Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Structural pounding between ad-
jacent buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part I: the effect of different
structures arrangement. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:1509–28.
[77] Jameel M, Islam A, Hussain RR, Hasan SD, Khaleel M. Non-linear FEM analysis of
seismic induced pounding between neighbouring multi-storey structures. Lat Am J
Solids Struct 2013;10:921–39.
[78] Jankowski R. Pounding force response spectrum under earthquake excitation. Eng
Struct 2006;28:1149–61.
[79] Jankowski R. Impact force spectrum for damage assessment of earthquake-induced
structural pounding. Key Eng Mater 2005;293–294:711–8.
[80] Crozet V, Politopoulos I, Yang M, Martinez JM, Erlicher S. Sensitivity analysis of
pounding between adjacent structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2018;47:219–35.
[81] Crozet V, Politopoulos I, Yang M, Martinez J, Erlicher S. Influential structural
parameters of pounding between buildings during earthquakes. Procedia Eng
2017;199:1092–7.
[82] Karayannis CG, Favvata MJ. Earthquake‐induced interaction between adjacent
reinforced concrete structures with non‐equal heights. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2005;34:1–20.
[83] Karayannis CG, Favvata MJ. Inter-story pounding between multistory reinforced
concrete structures. Struct Eng Mech 2005;20:505–26.
[84] Karayannis CG, Naoum MC. Torsional behavior of multistory RC frame structures
due to asymmetric seismic interaction. Eng Struct 2018;163:93–111.
[85] Karayannis CG, Naoum MC. Inter-story pounding and torsional effect due to in-
teraction between adjacent multistory RC buildings. In: Proceedings of the 6th
international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and
earthquake engineering, vol. 2; 2017. p. 3556–67.
[86] Rajaram C, Kumar RP. Three dimensional modeling of pounding between adjacent
buildings. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on structural
stability and dynamics (ICSSD); 2012.
[87] Mahmoud S, Jankowski R. Inelastic damage-involved response of colliding
buildings during earthquakes. Key Eng Mater 2010;417–418:513–6.
[88] Naserkhaki SDGS, Tolloei D Tayyebi. Heavier adjacent building pounding due to
earthquake excitation. Asian J Civil Eng 2013;14.
[89] Jankowski R. Pounding between inelastic three-storey buildings under seismic
excitations. Key Eng Mater 2016;665:121–4.
[90] Jankowski R. Non-linear modelling of earthquake induced pounding of buildings,"
Mechanics of the 21st Century. In: Proceedings of 21st international congress on
theoretical and applied mechanics (ICTAM). Paper ID 12659; 2005.
[91] Jankowski R. Earthquake-induced pounding between equal height buildings with
substantially different dynamic properties. Eng Struct 2008;30:2818–29.
[92] Maison BF, Kasai K. Dynamics of pounding when two buildings collide. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 1992;21:771–86.
[93] Jankowski R. Non-linear FEM analysis of earthquake-induced pounding between
the main building and the stairway tower of the Olive View Hospital. Eng Struct
2009;31:1851–64.
[94] Mouzakis HP, Papadrakakis M. Three dimensional nonlinear building pounding
with friction during earthquakes. J Earthq Eng 2004;8:107–32.
[95] Jankowski R. Assessment of damage due to earthquake-induced pounding between
the main building and the stairway tower. Key Eng Mater 2007;347:339–44.
[96] Maniatakis CA, Spyrakos CC, Kiriakopoulos PD, Tsellos KP. Pounding phenomena
affecting seismic response of a historic byzantine church. In: Proceedings of the
16th European conference on earthquake engineering,; 2018.
[97] Maniatakis CA, Spyrakos CC, Kiriakopoulos PD, Tsellos K-P. Seismic response of a
historic church considering pounding phenomena. Bull Earthq Eng
2018;16:2913–41.
[98] Jankowski R, Seleemah A, El-Khoriby S, Elwardany H. Experimental study on
pounding between structures during damaging earthquakes. Key Eng Mater
2015;627:249–52.
[99] Gong L, Hao H. Analysis of coupled lateral-torsional-pounding responses of one-
storey asymmetric adjacent structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions
Part I: uniform ground motion input. Adv Struct Eng 2005;8:463–79.
[100] Dimitrakopoulos E, Makris N, Kappos AJ. Dimensional analysis of the earth-
quake‐induced pounding between adjacent structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2009;38:867–86.
[101] Dimitrakopoulos E, Makris N, Kappos AJ. Dimensional analysis of the earthquake
response of a pounding oscillator. J Eng Mech 2010;136:299–310.
[102] Zhai C, Jiang S, Li S, Xie L. Dimensional analysis of earthquake-induced pounding
148
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
between adjacent inelastic MDOF buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib
2015;14:295–313.
[103] Chenna R, Ramancharla PK. Damage assessment due to pounding between ad-
jacent structures with equal and unequal heights. J Civil Struct Health Monit
2018;8:635–48.
[104] Fujii K, Sakai Y. Shaking table test of adjacent building models considering
pounding. Int J Comput Methods Exp Meas 2018;6:857–67.
[105] Favvata M, Naoum M, Karayannis C. Earthquake induced interaction between RC
frame and steel frame structures. WIT Trans Built Environ 2013;134:839–51.
[106] Ehab M, Salem H, Mostafa H, Yehia N. Earthquake pounding effect on adjacent
reinforced concrete buildings. Int J Comput Appl 2014;106.
[107] Elwardany H, Seleemah A, Jankowski R. Seismic pounding behavior of multi-story
buildings in series considering the effect of infill panels. Eng Struct
2017;144:139–50.
[108] Elwardany H, Seleemah A, Jankowski R. Corrigendum to “Seismic pounding be-
havior of multi-story buildings in series considering the effect of infill panels”
[Eng. Struct. 144 (2017) 139–150]. Eng Struct 2018;171:933.
[109] Ismail R, Hasnan MH, Shamsudin N. Structural pounding of concrete frame
structure with masonry infill wall under seismic loading. AIP Conf Proc
2017:120011.
[110] Favvata M, Karayannis C, Anagnostopoulou V. Influence of infill panels with and
without openings on the pounding effect of RC structures. In: Proceedings of the
15th world on earthquake engineering; 2012. p. 24–8.
[111] Favvata MJ, Karayannis CG. The inter-storey pounding effect on the seismic be-
haviour of infilled and pilotis RC structures. Seismic behaviour and design of ir-
regular and complex civil structures. Springer; 2013. p. 87–101.
[112] Nk A, Nair N. Evaluation of seismic pounding between adjacent RC buildings. Int J
Innov Res Sci Technol 2016;3:138–47.
[113] Wang L, Chau K. Chaotic seismic torsional pounding between two single story
asymmetric towers. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake
engineering; 2008. p. 1–8.
[114] Wei X, Wang L, Chau K. Nonlinear seismic torsional pounding between an
asymmetric tower and a barrier. Earthq Spectra 2009;25:899–925.
[115] Fiore A, Marano GC, Monaco P. Earthquake-induced lateral-torsional pounding
between two equal height multi-storey buildings under multiple bi-directional
ground motions. Adv Struct Eng 2013;16:845–65.
[116] Chitte CJ, Jadhav AS, Kumavat HR. Seismic pounding between adjacent building
structures subjected to near field ground motion. Int J Res Eng Technol
2014;3:53–62.
[117] Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Structural pounding between ad-
jacent buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part II: the effect of multiple
earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:1529–45.
[118] Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou G, Beskos D. Structural pounding between adjacent
buildings: The effects of different structures configurations and multiple earth-
quakes. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering,
2012. p. 24–8.
[119] Polycarpou PC, Papaloizou L, Komodromos P, Charmpis DC. Effect of the seismic
excitation angle on the dynamic response of adjacent buildings during pounding.
Earthq Struct 2015;8:1127–46.
[120] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Pnevmatikos NG. On the seismic response of collided struc-
tures. Int J Civ Archit Struct Constr Eng 2014;8:750–5.
[121] Rahimi S, Soltani M. A stochastic simulation algorithm for evaluation of seismic
pounding response of adjacent structures. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O: J Risk Reliab
2015;229:517–29.
[122] Kazemi F, Mohebi B, Yakhchalian M. Evaluation the P-Delta effect on collapse
capacity of adjacent structures subjected to far-field ground motions. Civil Eng J
2018;4:1066–73.
[123] Mohebi B, Kazemi F, Yakhchalian M. Investigating the P-Delta effects on the
seismic collapse capacity of adjacent structures. In: Proceedings of the 16th
European conference on earthquake engineering; 2018.
[124] Cole G, Dhakal RP, Carr AJ, Bull D. The effect of diaphragm wave propagation on
the analysis of pounding structures. In: ECCOMAS thematic conference on com-
putational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering; 2009.
[125] Cole G, Dhakal R, Carr A, Bull D. The significance of lumped or distributed mass
assumptions on the analysis of pounding structures. In: Proceedings of the 13th
Asia Pacific vibration conference; 2009.
[126] Mahmoud S, Jankowski R. Elastic and inelastic multi-storey buildings under
earthquake excitation with the effect of pounding. J Appl Sci 2009;9:3250–62.
[127] Shrestha B. Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity on pounding response
of adjacent structures. Int J Civil Struct Eng 2013;3:603.
[128] Naeim F, Kelly JM. Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice.
John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
[129] Jangid R, Kelly J. Base isolation for near‐fault motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2001;30:691–707.
[130] Makris N, Chang SP. Effect of viscous, viscoplastic and friction damping on the
response of seismic isolated structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29:85–107.
[131] Nagarajaiah S, Sun X. Base-isolated fcc building: impact response in Northridge
earthquake. J Struct Eng 2001;127:1063–75.
[132] Komodromos P. Simulation of the earthquake-induced pounding of seismically
isolated buildings. Comput Struct 2008;86:618–26.
[133] Polycarpou P, Komodromos P. Simulating seismically isolated buildings under
earthquake-induced pounding incidences. In: Proceedings of the eleventh inter-
national conference on structures under shock and impact (SUSI2010); 2010. p.
245–56.
[134] Masroor A, Mosqueda G. Experimental simulation of base‐isolated buildings
pounding against moat wall and effects on superstructure response. Earthq Eng
M. Miari, et al.
Struct Dyn 2012;41:2093–109.
[135] Pant DR, Wijeyewickrema AC. Influence of near-fault ground motions on the re-
sponse of base-isolated reinforced concrete buildings considering seismic
pounding. Adv Struct Eng 2013;16:1973–88.
[136] Pant D, Wijeyewickrema A. Pounding of seismically isolated reinforced concrete
buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions. In: Proceedings of the 15th word
conference on earthquake engineering; 2012.
[137] Pant DR, Wijeyewickrema AC. Performance of base‐isolated reinforced concrete
buildings under bidirectional seismic excitation considering pounding with re-
taining walls including friction effects. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2014;43:1521–41.
[138] Bao Y, Becker TC. Inelastic response of base-isolated structures subjected to im-
pact. Eng Struct 2018;171:86–93.
[139] Masroor A, Mosqueda G. Assessing the collapse probability of base-isolated
buildings considering pounding to moat walls using the FEMA P695 methodology.
Earthq Spectra 2015;31:2069–86.
[140] Polycarpou P, Papaloizou L, Mavronicola E, Komodromos K, Phocas MC.
Earthquake induced poundings of seismically isolated buildings: The effect of the
vertical location of impacts. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pan American congress of
applied mechanics; 2008. p. 7–11.
[141] Mavronicola EA, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P. Spatial seismic modeling of
base‐isolated buildings pounding against moat walls: effects of ground motion
directionality and mass eccentricity. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2017;46:1161–79.
[142] Polycarpou P, Papaloizou L, Mavronicola E, Komodromos P. Numerical simulation
of seismically isolated buildings considering poundings with adjacent structures.
In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering; 2008.
[143] Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P. On poundings of a seismically isolated building
with adjacent structures during strong earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2010;39:933–40.
[144] Pant DR, Wijeyewickrema AC. Structural performance of a base‐isolated re-
inforced concrete building subjected to seismic pounding. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2012;41:1709–16.
[145] Uz M, Hadi M. Investigating the effects of pounding for inelastic base isolated
adjacent buildings under earthquake excitations. Proceedings of the 21st
Australian conference on the mechanics of structures and materials. The
Netherlands: CRC Press; 2010. p. 329–34.
[146] Liu C, Yang W, Yan Z, Lu Z, Luo N. Base pounding model and response analysis of
base-isolated structures under earthquake excitation. Appl Sci 2017;7:1238.
[147] Mahmoud S, Jankowski R. Pounding-involved response of isolated and non-iso-
lated buildings under earthquake excitation. Earthq Struct 2010;1:231–52.
[148] Hao H, Liu XY, Shen J. Pounding response of adjacent buildings subjected to
spatial earthquake ground excitations. Adv Struct Eng 2000;3:145–62.
[149] Hao H. Analysis of seismic pounding between adjacent buildings. Aust J Struct Eng
2015;16:208–25.
[150] Jankowski R. Non-linear FEM analysis of pounding-involved response of buildings
under non-uniform earthquake excitation. Eng Struct 2012;37:99–105.
[151] Hao H, Gong L. Analysis of coupled lateral-torsional-pounding responses of one-
storey asymmetric adjacent structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions
part II: Spatially varying ground motion input. Adv Struct Eng 2005;8:481–96.
[152] Far H. Advanced computation methods for soil-structure interaction analysis of
structures resting on soft soils. Int J Geotech Eng 2017:1–8.
[153] Stewart JP, Fenves GL, Seed RB. Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. I:
analytical methods. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;125:26–37.
[154] Naserkhaki S, El-Rich M, Aziz F, Pourmohammad H. Pounding between adjacent
buildings of varying height coupled through soil. Struct Eng Mech
2014;52:573–93.
[155] Fatahi B, Van Nguyen Q, Xu R, Sun W-j. Three-dimensional response of neigh-
boring buildings sitting on pile foundations to seismic pounding. Int J Geomech
2018;18:04018007.
[156] Mahmoud S, Abd-Elhamed A, Jankowski R. Earthquake-induced pounding be-
tween equal height multi-storey buildings considering soil-structure interaction.
Bull Earthq Eng 2013;11:1021–48.
[157] Naserkhaki S, Aziz FNA, Pourmohammad H. Earthquake induced pounding be-
tween adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction. Earthq Eng Eng
Vib 2012;11:343–58.
[158] Madani B, Behnamfar F, Riahi HT. Dynamic response of structures subjected to
pounding and structure–soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2015;78:46–60.
[159] Shakya K, Wijeyewickrema AC. Mid-column pounding of multi-story reinforced
concrete buildings considering soil effects. Adv Struct Eng 2009;12:71–85.
[160] Shakya K, Wijeyewickrema AC, Ohmachi T. Mid-column seismic pounding of re-
inforced concrete buildings in a row considering effects of soil. In: Proceedings of
the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering; 2008, p. 12–17.
[161] Farghaly AA. Seismic analysis of adjacent buildings subjected to double pounding
considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Adv Struct Eng 2017;9:51–62.
[162] Kontoni D-PN, Farghaly AA. Seismic response of adjacent unequal buildings sub-
jected to double pounding considering soil-structure interaction. Computation
2018;6:10.
[163] Naserkhaki S, Rich M El, Abdul AF, Pourmohammad H. Separation gap, a critical
factor in earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings. Asian J Civil
Eng 2013;14:881–98.
[164] Li P, Liu S, Lu Z. Studies on pounding response considering structure-soil-structure
interaction under seismic loads. Sustainability 2017;9:2219.
[165] Mahmoud S, Gutub SA. Earthquake induced pounding-involved response of base-
isolated buildings incorporating soil flexibility. Adv Struct Eng 2013;16:2043–62.
[166] International Conference of Building Offcials. Uniform Building Code (UBC).
California, USA: Whittier; 1997.
149
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
[167] Kumar MP, Kumar JC. Seismic pounding of the adjacent buildings with different
heights. Int J Eng Res Sci Technol 2015;4:350–61.
[168] Pantelides C, Ma X. Linear and nonlinear pounding of structural systems. Comput
Struct 1998;66:79–92.
[169] Jamal KA, Vidyadhara H. Seismic pounding of multistoreyed buildings. Int J Res
Eng Technol 2013;15.
[170] Favvata MJ. Minimum required separation gap for adjacent RC frames with po-
tential inter-story seismic pounding. Eng Struct 2017;152:643–59.
[171] Jeng V, Kasai K, Maison BF. A spectral difference method to estimate building
separations to avoid pounding. Earthq Spectra 1992;8:201–23.
[172] Filiatrault A, Cervantes M, Folz B, Prion H. Pounding of buildings during earth-
quakes: a Canadian perspective. Can J Civil Eng 1994;21:251–65.
[173] Filiatrault A, Cervantes M. Separation between buildings to avoid pounding during
earthquakes. Can J Civil Eng 1995;22:164–79.
[174] Kasai K, Jagiasi AR, Jeng V. Inelastic vibration phase theory for seismic pounding
mitigation. J Struct Eng 1996;122:1136–46.
[175] Penzien J. Evaluation of building separation distance required to prevent
pounding during strong earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1997;26:849–58.
[176] Valles RE, Reinhorn AM. Evaluation, prevention and mitigation of pounding ef-
fects in building structures. U.S.A.: National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York at Bualo; 1997.
[177] Lopez-Garcia D, Soong T. Evaluation of current criteria in predicting the separa-
tion necessary to prevent seismic pounding between nonlinear hysteretic struc-
tural systems. Eng Struct 2009;31:1217–29.
[178] Garcia DL. Separation between adjacent nonlinear structures for prevention of
seismic pounding. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering; 2004.
[179] Lopez-Garcia D, Soong T. Assessment of the separation necessary to prevent
seismic pounding between linear structural systems. Probabilistic Eng Mech
2009;24:210–23.
[180] Hong H, Wang S, Hong P. Critical building separation distance in reducing
pounding risk under earthquake excitation. Struct Saf 2003;25:287–303.
[181] Garcia DL. Discussion on: critical building separation distance in reducing
pounding risk under earthquake excitation. Struct Saf 2005;4:393–6.
[182] Hong H, Wang S, Hong P. Reply to discussion on “Critical building separation
distance in reducing pounding risk under earthquake excitation. Struct Saf
2005;4:397–8.
[183] Wang S, Hong H. Quantiles of critical separation distance for nonstationary
seismic excitations. Eng Struct 2006;28:985–91.
[184] Barbato M, Tubaldi E. A probabilistic performance‐based approach for mitigating
the seismic pounding risk between adjacent buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2013;42:1203–19.
[185] Taiwan Building Code. Construction and planning administration Ministry of
Interior, Seismic provisions; 1997.
[186] Lin JH, Weng CC. A study on seismic pounding probability of buildings in Taipei
metropolitan area. J Chin Inst Eng 2002;25:123–35.
[187] Lin JH. Evaluation of seismic pounding risk of buildings in Taiwan. J Chin Inst Eng
2005;28:867–72.
[188] American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and
other structures (ASCE/SEI 7–05); 2006.
[189] Standards Australia. Structural design actions Part 4: Earthquake actions in
Australia; 2007.
[190] Naderpour H, Khatami SM, Barros RC. Prediction of critical distance between two
MDOF systems subjected to seismic excitation in terms of artificial neural net-
works. Period Polytech Civil Eng 2017;61:516–29.
[191] Yu Z-w, Liu H-y, Guo W, Liu Q. A general spectral difference method for calcu-
lating the minimum safety distance to avoid the pounding of adjacent structures
during earthquakes. Eng Struct 2017;150:646–55.
[192] Hameed A, Saleem M, Qazi A, Saeed S, Bashir M. Mitigation of seismic pounding
between adjacent buildings. Pak J Sci 2012;64:326.
[193] Barros RC, Khatami SM. Seismic response effect of shear walls in reducing
pounding risk of reinforced concrete buildings subjected to near-fault ground
motions. In: Proceedings of the fifthteenth world conference on earthquake en-
gineering; 2012.
[194] Anagnostopoulos S, Karamaneas C. Use of collision shear walls to minimize
seismic separation and to protect adjacent buildings from collapse due to earth-
quake‐induced pounding. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37:1371–88.
[195] Anagnostopoulos S, Karamaneas C. Collision shear walls to mitigate seismic
pounding of adjacent buildings. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on
earthquake engineering; 2008.
[196] Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P, Polycarpou AC. A nonlinear impact model for
simulating the use of rubber shock absorbers for mitigating the effects of structural
pounding during earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:81–100.
[197] Lin JH, Weng CC. Spectral analysis on pounding probability of adjacent buildings.
Eng Struct 2001;23:768–78.
[198] Takabatake H, Yasui M, Nakagawa Y, Kishida A. Relaxation method for pounding
action between adjacent buildings at expansion joint. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2014;43:1381–400.
[199] Rezavandi A, Moghadam A. Experimental and numerical study on pounding ef-
fects and mitigation techniques for adjacent structures. Adv Struct Eng
2007;10:121–34.
[200] Rezavani A, Moghadam A. Using shaking table to study different methods of re-
duceing effects of buildings pounding during earthquake. In: Proceedings of the
13th world conference on earthquake engineering; 2004.
[201] Sołtysik B, Falborski T, Jankowski R. Preventing of earthquake-induced pounding
between steel structures by using polymer elements–experimental study. Procedia
M. Miari, et al.
Eng 2017;199:278–83.
[202] Sołtysik B, Falborski T, Jankowski R. Study on polymer elements for mitigation of
earthquake-induced pounding between buildings in complex arrangements. In:
Proceedings of the 8th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular
and complex structures. Paper No. 12; 2017.
[203] Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P. Numerical investigation of potential mitigation
measures for poundings of seismically isolated buildings. Earthq Struct
2011;2:1–24.
[204] Jankowski R, Mahmoud S. Linking of adjacent three-storey buildings for mitiga-
tion of structural pounding during earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng
2016;14:3075–97.
[205] Richardson A, Walsh KK, Abdullah MM. Closed‐form equations for coupling linear
structures using stiffness and damping elements. Struct Control Health Monit
2013;20:259–81.
[206] Richardson A, Walsh K, Abdullah M. Closed-form design equations for controlling
vibrations in connected structures. J Earthq Eng 2013;17:699–719.
[207] Patel C, Jangid R. Seismic response of dynamically similar adjacent structures
connected with viscous dampers. IES J Part A: Civil Struct Eng 2010;3:1–13.
[208] Tubaldi E, Barbato M, Ghazizadeh S. A probabilistic performance-based risk as-
sessment approach for seismic pounding with efficient application to linear sys-
tems. Struct Saf 2012;36:14–22.
[209] Abd-Elsalam S, Eraky A, Abd-El-Mottaleb H, Abdo A. Control of adjacent isolated-
buildings pounding using viscous dampers. J Am Sci 2012;8.
[210] Licari M, Sorace S, Terenzi G. Nonlinear modeling and mitigation of seismic
pounding between R/C frame buildings. J Earthq Eng 2015;19:431–60.
[211] Roshan A, Taleshian H, Eliasi A. Seismic pounding mitigation by using viscous and
viscoelastic dampers. J Fundam Appl Sci 2017;9:377–90.
[212] Rawlinson T, Marshall J, Ryan K, Zargar H. Design and; testing of a gap damper
device to mitigate rare earthquake pounding response in base-isolated buildings.
In Proceedings of the 10th US national conference on earthquake engineering;
2014.
[213] Pratesi F, Sorace S, Terenzi G. Analysis and mitigation of seismic pounding of a
slender R/C bell tower. Eng Struct 2014;71:23–34.
[214] Pratesi F, Sorace S, Terenzi G. Seismic pounding mitigation of a modern heritage
R/C bell tower. Struct Stud Repairs Maint Herit Archit XIII 2013;131:303.
[215] Sorace S, Terenzi G. Damped interconnection-based mitigation of seismic
pounding between adjacent R/C buildings. Int J Eng Technol 2013;5:406.
[216] Mohebi B, Kazemi F, Yakhchalian M. Enhancing the seismic performance of ad-
jacent pounding structures using viscous dampers. In: Proceedings of the 16th
European conference on earthquake engineering; 2018.
[217] Abdeddaim M, Ounis A, Djedoui N, Shrimali M. Reduction of pounding between
buildings using fuzzy controller. Asian J Civil Eng 2016;17:985–1005.
[218] Abdeddaim M, Ounis A, Djedoui N, Shrimali M. Pounding hazard mitigation be-
tween adjacent planar buildings using coupling strategy. J Civil Struct Health
Monit 2016;6:603–17.
150
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 121 (2019) 135–150
[219] Abdeddaim M, Ounis A, Shrimali M. Pounding hazard reduction using a coupling
strategy for adjacent buildings. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on
earthquake engineering; 2017.
[220] Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM. Preventing the pounding of adjacent buildings with har-
mony search optimized tuned mass damper. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European
conference of civil engineering; 2012.
[221] Zhang P, Song G, Li H-N, Lin Y-X. Seismic control of power transmission tower
using pounding TMD. J Eng Mech 2012;139:1395–406.
[222] Zhang P, Li L, Patil D, Singla M, Li H, Mo Y, et al. Parametric study of pounding
tuned mass damper for subsea jumpers. Smart Mater Struct 2015;25:015028.
[223] Wang W, Hua X, Wang X, Chen Z, Song G. Optimum design of a novel pounding
tuned mass damper under harmonic excitation. Smart Mater Struct
2017;26:055024.
[224] Xue Q, Zhang J, He J, Zhang C, Zou G. Seismic control performance for pounding
tuned massed damper based on viscoelastic pounding force analytical method. J
Sound Vib 2017;411:362–77.
[225] Xue Q, Zhang J, He J, Zhang C. Control performance and robustness of pounding
tuned mass damper for vibration reduction in SDOF structure. Shock Vib
2016;2016. [article ID 8021690].
[226] Abdullah MM, Hanif JH, Richardson A, Sobanjo J. Use of a shared tuned mass
damper (STMD) to reduce vibration and pounding in adjacent structures. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2001;30:1185–201.
[227] Kim H-S. Seismic response control of adjacent buildings coupled by semi-active
shared TMD. Int J Steel Struct 2016;16:647–56.
[228] Ismail M, López-Almansa F, Benavent-Climent A, Pujades-Beneit LG. Finite ele-
ment code-based modeling of a multi-feature isolation system and passive alle-
viation of possible inner pounding. Int J Adv Struct Eng (IJASE) 2014;6:69.
[229] Ismail M. Inner pounding control of the RNC isolator and its impact on seismic
isolation efficiency under near-fault earthquakes. Eng Struct 2015;86:99–121.
[230] Ismail M, Rodellar J, Pozo F. Passive and hybrid mitigation of potential near-fault
inner pounding of a self-braking seismic isolator. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2015;69:233–50.
[231] Ismail M, Pozo F, Rodellar J. Near-fault hybrid pounding mitigation of RNC-iso-
lated structures. Seminar for advanced industrial control applications. Barcelona;
2011. p. 13–21.
[232] Ismail M. An isolation system for limited seismic gaps in near‐fault zones. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44:1115–37.
[233] Ismail M. Elimination of torsion and pounding of isolated asymmetric structures
under near‐fault ground motions. Struct Control Health Monit 2015;22:1295–324.
[234] Agarwal V, Niedzwecki J, Van de Lindt J. Earthquake induced pounding in friction
varying base isolated buildings. Eng Struct 2007;29:2825–32.
[235] Rawlinson TA, Marshall JD, Ryan KL, Zargar H. Development and experimental
evaluation of a passive gap damper device to prevent pounding in base‐isolated
structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44:1661–75.