Three dimensional analysis of pounding between adjacent buildings

by

Chenna Rajaram, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla

in

Journal of Structural Engineering

Report No: IIIT/TR/2014/-1

Centre for Earthquake Engineering

International Institute of Information Technology
Hyderabad - 500 032, INDIA
July 2014
Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 41, No. 2, June - July 2014  pp. 1-11 No. 41-17

Three dimensional analysis of pounding between adjacent buildings

Chenna Rajaram*, and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar**
 Email: [email protected]

*Computer Aided Structural Engineering, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, INDIA.
**Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, INDIA.

Received: 18 May 2011; Accepted: 15 January 2013

During past earthquakes many buildings suffered severe structural damage. Besides damage due to inadequate design
and execution, buildings and building components suffered damage due to pounding also. Pounding is defined as
collision between two buildings or different parts of the same building leading to severe damage or even sometimes
complete collapse. In addition to simple lateral collision, buildings may also collide in torsion mode arising due to
eccentricity of mass and stiffness, causing severe damage to adjacent building. In this paper two single storey reinforced
concrete buildings are considered. To study the torsional effects due to pounding, buildings with different setbacks and
unequal storey levels are analyzed using SAP 2000. The effect of collision is more when structures are kept at extreme
levels of setback. At different elevation levels, the pounding response changes significantly than the structures at same
elevation levels. More collision force is generated at mid height of column level than other height levels because of shear
amplification.

Keywords: Vulnerable; pounding; setback; earthquake; SAP 2000.

In metropolitan areas, sometimes due to increasing due to lack of adequate separation distance between
population and land values reinforced concrete (RC) them. During 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, pounding
buildings have been constructed with inadequate damage was observed in Hanwang town (Fig. 1) where
separation distance between them. Even though seismic two storey building collided with adjacent 3 storey
pounding between adjacent structures is considered building. Collision occurred just below the slab level.
during design of buildings in developed countries, the Inspite of having separation distance, two structures
practice of construction is still a problem in developing collided due to torsional vibration. During 2009
countries. L’Aquila earthquake, pounding damage was observed
between buildings of unequal heights. Collision was
During past earthquakes many buildings suffered
mainly due to insufficient separation distance (Fig. 2)
severe structural damage. Besides damage due to
and large eccentricity in the building plan. Pounding
inadequate design and execution, buildings and
damage was also observed in bridges where two bridge
building components suffered damage due to pounding
decks collide and cause severe structural damage.
also. Pounding is defined as collision between two
Overall pounding damage in structures can arise due to
buildings or different parts of the same building
following reasons:
leading to severe damage or even sometimes complete
collapse. This phenomenon was observed during 2007 1. Adjacent buildings with same heights and same
Niigata earthquake (M6.8, 2007)1, Wenchuan (M7.9, floor levels (Fig.3a).
2008)2 and L’Aquila (M6.3, 2009)3. Moderate damage 2. Adjacent buildings with same floor levels but
was observed during 2007 Niigata earthquake where a different heights (Fig.3b).
two storey school building collided with adjacent two 3. Adjacent buildings with different total height and
storey building at different elevation. Damage occurred

Journal of Structural Engineering 161

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 different floor levels (Fig.3c). a row may experience impact from both sides. He
4. Buildings situated in a row (Fig.3d). concluded that the displacement of exterior structures
may be amplified, while interior structures may
5. Adjacent buildings with different dynamic
experience amplification or de-amplification, depending
characteristics.
on the ratio of their natural periods. Papadrakakis et al.5
6. Adjacent buildings with unequal heights, pounding developed a three-dimensional finite element model
may occur in columns. to simulate pounding between adjacent buildings. He
7. Adjacent buildings with unequal distribution of observed that during pounding, the response of stiff
mass and/or stiffness (Fig. 3e). structure is more, particularly when the excitation
felt by stiff structure is more compared to the flexible
structure [The response of stiff structure is more when
the fundamental frequency of structure is closer to the
predominant frequency range of ground motion. If it is
not, the response of flexible structure is more]. Also it is
stated that an increase in strain energy is observed due
to pounding in addition to the sum of strain energies
of individual buildings in the absence of pounding.
Leibovich et al.6 studied the effect of impact eccentricity
on two sets of symmetric and asymmetric models
aligned with respect to each other for several gap widths
Fig. 1 Pounding occurred between two and three storey structures and torsional eccentricity to lateral frequency ratios.
during 12 Dec 2008, Wenchuan earthquake (Photo: Khalid The amplifications of asymmetric buildings are higher
M Mosalam) than that of symmetrical buildings. Chau and Wei7
performed shake table test to study pounding between
two structures. Chaotic motions dominated when there
was a large difference in the natural frequencies of the
structures. The experimental results were compared
with results from analytical model where impact was
modeled using the nonlinear Hertz contact law. They
discovered that the stand-off attains maximum when
the excitation frequency is close to that of the more
Fig. 2 Pounding between new and old building during 6 Apr
2009, L’Aquila earthquake flexible building. Gong and Hao8 studied the torsional
pounding between an asymmetric and a symmetric
In all the above-mentioned cases of structural one-storey structure subjected to bi-directional ground
pounding, damage can be avoided or significantly motion. Increasing torsional stiffness of asymmetric
reduced if minimum separation distance is maintained. adjacent structure will reduce torque of both structures,
Hence it is important to calculate the safe separation but its effect is not very pronounced on shear forces.
distance between adjacent structures. In this paper, Reducing the eccentricity of the asymmetric structure
focus is on 3-dimensional pounding and literature will substantially reduce torque, but has little effect
review related to the same is given below. on shear forces of both structures, and on torque of
adjacent symmetric structure.
To understand the pounding between adjacent
structures, large number of studies has been conducted. From the above observations, it is clear that torsional
Anagnostopoulos4  examined the case of several pounding is evident during earthquakes. Hence it is
adjacent buildings in a row subjected to pounding. necessary to study the torsional pounding between
During seismic excitation exterior structures are adjacent structures. To study the same, two single storey
subjected to one sided impact while buildings inside structures are considered with different setback levels
(1.5 m, 3.0 m and 6.0 m) subjected to El-centro ground

Journal of Structural Engineering 162

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 (a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)
Fig. 3 Representation of different places where pounding occurs

motion. Also the analysis is carried out with different and y directions. Torsion is generated by introducing
floor heights. eccentricity due to uneven distribution of mass. This
is done by putting an additional load of 4kN/m2 on one
MODELING OF STRUCTURES slab panel of structure-B (Fig. 4). The centre of mass
(CM) and centre of stiffness (CS) for structure-B are
Two single storey structures (Structure A and Structure (2.7 m, 3.3 m) and (3.0 m, 3.0 m) respectively.
B) of two bays in each direction were considered in
this study. Structure A is with symmetric configuration Structure-A
Structure-B Setback(S)
and Structure B is with asymmetric configuration. Plan
3.0 m 2kN/m2 2kN/m2
dimension of both the buildings is 6  6 m, height is 4kN/m2 2kN/m2
3m, slab thickness is 0.12 m and all columns are of 0.24 3.0 m Plan
2kN/m2 2kN/m2
 0.24m. Material properties considered in the study 2kN/m2 2kN/m2
are as follows: 3.0m 3.0m
Gap element Gap 3.0m 3.0m
Grade of concrete: M25 (fck = 25 N/mm ) 2

Grade of steel for reinforcement: Fe415 (fy= 415N/mm2)

3.0m Elevation
Poisson’s ratio: 0.2
Live load considered = 2 kN/m2
In order to study torsional behavior of structures due Fig. 4 Plan and elevation views of single storey symmetric and
to pounding an eccentricity offset is provided both in x asymmetric structures

Journal of Structural Engineering 163

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION Structure-A
Structure-B Setback(S)
The general dynamic equation for a structure is given 3.0 m 2kN/m2 2kN/m2
4kN/m2 2kN/m2
in Eq. (1).
3.0 m 2kN/m2 2kN/m2 Plan
{} {} { } (1)
[M ] U&& + [C ] U& + [K ]{U}= Δf (t ) − [M ] U&& g 2kN/m2 2kN/m2
3.0m 3.0m
where [M] is mass matrix; [C] is damping matrix; [K] is Gap element Gap 3.0m 3.0m
nonlinear stiffness matrix; ∆f(t) is incremental applied
load vector ∆U and its derivatives are the incremental
displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors 3.0m Elevation
respectively. The above equation is solved numerically
using Newmark’s β method9.
Fig. 4 Plan and elevation views of single storey symmetric and
For mass matrix the slab elemental mass is assumed
asymmetric structures
lumped at the joints. The mass matrix is given in Eq. (2).
k open
M1  D tρ 
2
i j
   2 
  M2  =  D tρ  (2)
M   D2 
tρ
 3  
Fig. 5 Gap-joint element from SAP 2000
where D is the element size; t is element thickness and
ρ is the density of material. From the above equation it The mass contributed by the link or support element
is noticed that [M1], [M2] and [M3] are the masses in X, is lumped at the joints i and j and half of the mass is
Y and Z directions. Mass matrix is a diagonal matrix. assigned to the three translational degrees of freedom at
No mass moments of inertia are produced by rotational each joint. No inertial effects are considered within the
degrees of freedom. The damping matrix is calculated element itself. During nonlinear analysis, the nonlinear
from the first mode as follows: force-deformation relationships are used at all degrees
C = 2  M  n (3) of freedom for which nonlinear properties are specified.
For all other degrees of freedom, the linear effective
where  is damping ratio and n is the first natural stiffness is used. The results of linear analyses are based
frequency of the structure. on linear effective stiffness and damping properties.
The force-deformation relationship is as follows:
GAP ELEMENT MODEL
f =  k (d + open ), if (d + open ) < 0 
Modeling of structures is done using SAP 200010. In   (4)
SAP 2000, each node is assumed to be composed of  0, Otherwise 
six separate springs with six deformational degree
of freedom (DOF) as shown in Fig. 6. Every DOF where, k is spring constant, ‘open’ is the gap opening
has linear effective stiffness and damping properties. which must be positive or zero and d is the relative
To model the collision between buildings, gap joint deformation across the spring.
element is used. Gap joint element is an element which
connects two adjacent nodes to model the contact. This NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS OF POUNDING
gets activated when structures come closer and gets
deactivated when they go away from each other. The To study the effect of torsional pounding between the
stiffness of gap element is 477.6 MN/m11. A collision structures, different setbacks i.e., 1.5, 3.0 and 6.0m
force is generated when they come closer. From Fig. 5, and different storey heights, i.e., 2/4th and 3/4th of
it is shown that, the gap element will activate if ‘open’ column height are considered in this analysis. Both the
is equal to zero. structures are subjected to El-Centro ground motion.
The fundamental natural periods of structure-A & B are

Journal of Structural Engineering 164

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
0.176 and 0.217 sec respectively which are far from 0.06
Structure-A
predominant period range i.e., 0.45-0.87 sec12 of the El- 0.05 Structure-B
Centro ground motion.
0.04
Uj,1 Ui,1 0.03

Displacement (m)
Rj,1 Ri,1
Rj,2 Ri,2 0.02
Ui,2 0.01
Uj,2
0
Uj,3 Rj,3 Ui,3 Ri,3 Structure-A
-0.01 Structure-B Setback(S)

Fig, 6 Link element internal forces and moments at the joints

-0.02
-0.03
CASE-I: DIFFERENT SETBACK 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec
At setback of 1.5 m
Fig. 7 Response of structures in x-direction at location Ct with
The analysis is carried out with 1.5m setback setback of 1.5 m
distance between structures. Both the structures were
subjected to El-centro ground motion in x-direction 60
only. However, the responses were observed along
50
both x and y directions. This is because of presence
of eccentricity due to un-even distribution of mass in Collision force in kN 40
Structure B. The displacement responses for structure-
A & B in x-y directions and collision forces are shown 30
from Fig. 7-9. Pounding occurred at location Ct and the
maximum responses at location Ct for structure A and 20
B are 0.0351m and 0.043m respectively. Responses Structure-A
Structure-B Setback(S)

would be more if structures natural period is near to 10

the predominant period of ground motion. During
vibration, the response of structure-A in y-direction 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
is amplified due to collision. The maximum pounding Time in sec
responses for structure-A and B in y-direction are Fig. 8 Pounding force between structures with setback of 1.5 m
0.00138 m and 0.0073 m respectively. From results, it
can be clearly observed that the responses for stiffer × 10-3
structure get amplified due to collision. Also, structure- 20
Structure-A
B’s period of vibration increases due to reduction of Structure-B
15
stiffness. The maximum pounding force between them
is 53.16 kN.
Displacement (m)

10
Due to unsymmetrical mass property of structure-B,
Structure-A
there is a possibility of occurrence pounding at Cb Structure-B Setback(S)
5
also. From the results, the maximum responses of
structure-A & B in X and Y directions are 0.0344 m,
0
0.033 m, 0.00138 m and 0.0073 m respectively. It is
clearly shown that the maximum pounding responses
-5
at Ct and Cb are same in Y-direction. The displacement 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
responses for structure-A & B in x-y directions and Time in sec
collision forces are shown from Fig. 10-11. Fig. 9 Response of structures in y-direction at location Ct with
setback of 1.5 m

Journal of Structural Engineering 165

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 0.05 is observed that the collision force has increased as the
Structure-A
0.04 Structure-B setback level increases.
0.03
Displacement (m)

0.06
Structure-A
0.02 0.05 Structure-B
0.01 0.04
0 0.03

Displacement (m)
-0.01 Structure-A
Structure-B Setback(S)
0.02
0.01
-0.02
0
-0.03 Structure-A

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -0.01 Structure-B Setback(S)

Time in sec
-0.02
Fig. 10 Response of structures in x-direction at location Cb with -0.03
setback of 1.5 m 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec

× 10-3 Fig. 12 Response of structures in x-direction at location Ct with

20 setback of 3.0 m
Structure-A
Structure-B
15 80
Displacement (m)

70
10
Structure-A
Collision force in kN 60
Structure-B Setback(S)
5 50
40
0
30 Structure-A
Structure-B Setback(S)
-5 20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec 10
Fig. 11 Response of structures in y-direction at location Cb with 0
setback of 1.5 m 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec
Fig. 13 Pounding force between structures with setback of 3.0 m
At setback of 3.0 m

Analysis is repeated by keeping the setback distance × 10-3

20
of 3.0m between the structures. The displacement Structure-A
responses for structure-A & B in x-y directions and 15
Structure-B

collision forces are shown from Figs. 12-14. The

Displacement (m)

maximum pounding responses observed at location 10

Ct for Structures A and B are 0.0347m and 0.0432m Structure-A

respectively. Response of flexible structure is more 5

Structure-B Setback(S)

compared to stiff structure, because of non-dominant

period of ground motion. In the earlier case, more 0
response is observed at location Ct than at Cb. This is due
to torsion resulting from uneven distribution of mass. -5
Due to torsion, Structure-B collides with a magnitude 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec
of 73.7 kN and amplifies motion of structure-A. The
maximum pounding responses for structure-A and B in Fig. 14 Response of structures in y-direction at location Ct with
setback of 3.0 m
y-direction are 0.00428 m and 0.0090 m respectively. It

Journal of Structural Engineering 166

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 Due to unsymmetrical mass property of structure-B, structure-A & B and collision forces are shown from
there is a possibility of occurrence pounding at Cb Fig. 19-20. From the analysis, it is observed that the
also. Responses at location Cb are less compared at maximum pounding response of structure-A and B
location Ct because of uneven distribution of mass for in X-direction are 0.21 m and 0.120 m respectively.
structure-B. The responses are similar at location Ct and Due to unsymmetrical mass of structure-B, they have
Cb in Y-direction. The maximum pounding responses responses in both directions. Because of non-dominant
for structure-A and B in x-direction are 0.0344 m and period of ground motion, the response of flexible
0.0376 m respectively. The displacement responses for structure is more than stiff structure. The responses of
structure-A & B in x direction are shown from Fig. 15. structure-A and B in Y-direction are 0.052 m and 0.025
m respectively. The maximum collision force between
0.05 them is 1244 kN.
Structure-A
0.04 Structure-B
0.05
0.03 Structure-A
0.04 Structure-B
Displacement (m)

0.02
0.03
0.01

Displacement (m)
0.02
0 0.01
Structure-A

-0.01 Structure-B Setback(S)

0
Structure-A

-0.02 -0.01 Setback(S)

-0.03 -0.02 Structure-B

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.03
Time in sec
-0.04
Fig. 15 Response of structures in x-direction at location Cb with 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
setback of 3.0 m Time in sec
Fig. 16 Response of structures in x-direction at location Ct with
At setback of 6.0 m
setback of 6.0 m
Analysis is repeated by further increasing the setback
distance i.e., 6.0m between the structures. In this case it Table 1 shows responses and collision forces for
is observed that pounding has occurred at one location different setback distances. From the observation of all
only. The displacement responses for structure-A & B results, it is clearly seen that the number of collisions is
in x-y directions and collision forces are shown from same for all the cases; however, the maximum pounding
Fig. 16-18. From the results, the maximum pounding forces are increasing as the setback level increases.
responses for structure-A and B are 0.0344m and
Table 1
0.0432m respectively. Because of non-dominant period
Response Details of both structures at differ-
of ground motion, response of flexible structure is
ent levels
more compared to stiff structure. The maximum force
Staggered Level
generated between them is 169.4 kN.
Response (m)
Position Force (kN)
CASE-II: DIFFERENT HEIGHT LEVELS Structure-1 Structure-2

Level-1 Top 0.0351 0.043

At (3/4)th height of structure 53.16
(1.5 m) Bottom 0.0344 0.033
The analysis is carried out with different floor heights.
Level-2 Top 0.0347 0.0432
Height of Structure A is 3m and height of structure B 73.7
(3.0 m) Bottom 0.0344 0.0376
is kept as ¾ of Structure A. Both the structures were
subjected to El-centro ground motion and responses Level-3
Top 0.0344 0.0432 169.4
(6.0 m)
were observed. The displacement responses for

Journal of Structural Engineering 167

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 180 1400
160 1200
-B
cture
140 cture
-A Stru

1000 Stru
Collision force in kN

120

Collision force in kN
100 800

80 600
Structure-A
60 Setback(S) 400
40 Structure-B

200
20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec Time in sec

Fig. 17 Pounding force between structures with setback of 6.0 m Fig. 20 Pounding force between structures with (3/4)th height of
structure

× 10-3
20
Structure-A 0.2
Structure-B Structure-A
15 0.15 Structure-B
Displacement (m)

0.1
10 Displacement (m)
Structure-A
0.05
Setback(S)
5 Structure-B
0
-B
cture
Stru

0 -0.05 Stru
c ture
-A

-0.1
-5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -0.15
Time in sec 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec
Fig. 18 Response of structures in y-direction at location Ct with
setback of 6.0 m Fig. 21 Response of structures at location Cb with (3/4)th height of
structure
0.25
Structure-A 800
0.2 Structure-B
700
0.15
600 Stru
cture
-B
Collision force in kN
Displacement (m)

-A
0.1 500
Stru
cture

0.05 400
0 300
-B
cture
-A Stru
-0.05 Stru
cture
200
-0.1 100
-0.15 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec Time in sec

Fig. 19 Response of structures at location Ct with (3/4)th height of Fig. 22 Pounding force between structures with (3/4)th height of
structure structure

Journal of Structural Engineering 168

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 The maximum pounding response of structure-A 6000
and B in X and Y direction are 0.126 m, 0.170 m, 0.016
m and 0.062 m respectively. The maximum pounding 5000

Collision force in kN
force generated between them is 777 kN. It is clearly 4000
shown that, the pounding forces are high where mass -A
Stru
cture
-B

cture
is more. If we change the mass concentration to other 3000
Stru

location (top right corner of structure-B), the responses

and collision forces change. The displacement 2000
responses for structure-A & B and collision forces are
1000
shown from Figa. 21-22.
0
At (2/4)th height of structure 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in sec
The analysis is repeated by changing the floor height Fig. 24 Pounding force between structures with (2/4)th height of
of Structure B. Height of Structure A is 3m and height structure
of structure B is kept as 2/4 of Structure A. Both the
structures were subjected to El-centro ground motion The maximum pounding response of structure-A
and responses were observed. The displacement and B in X and Y direction are 0.20 m, 0.127 m, 0.005
responses for structure- A & B and collision forces m and 0.022 m respectively. The maximum pounding
are shown from Figs. 23-24. From the results, it can force generated between them is 3493 kN. From results,
be observed that the maximum pounding response of the maximum pounding force at location Ct is more
structure-A and B in X and Y direction are 0.20 m, 0.168 than at Cb. This is because of uneven mass distribution
m, 0.0053 m and 0.02 m respectively. The response of resulting torsional effect. The displacement responses
flexible structure is more than stiff structure due to non- for structure-A & B and collision forces are shown
dominant period of ground motion. The collision force from Fig. 25-26.
between them is 5350 kN. This force is more than the
force when structures are kept at (3/4)th height. From 0.15
Structure-A
the results, we can conclude that the collision force 0.1 Structure-B
at mid height level is more than (3/4)th height level.
Depending on the response of structures, this collision 0.05
Displacement (m)

force changes at different levels. 0

0.2 -0.05 -B
cture
Stru
Structure-A Stru
cture
-A

0.15 Structure-B -0.1

0.1 -0.15
0.05
Displacement (m)

-0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
Time in sec
-0.05
Stru
cture
-B Fig. 25 Response of structures at location Cb with (2/4)th height of
-0.1 cture
-A
structure
Stru

-0.15
-0.2 From the results, the pounding response changes
significantly as the height of structure decreases. At
-0.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (2/4)th height of structure, the collision force is more
Time in sec compared to (3/4)th height. It can be concluded that as
Fig. 23 Response of structures at location Ct with (2/4)th height of the height of structure increases, the collision force
structure decreases.

Journal of Structural Engineering 169

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 3500 structures with increasing the frequency ratio.
3000 0.038

0.037
2500
Collision force in kN

-B
cture
Stru

Maximum response in mts

Stru
cture
-A 0.036
2000
0.035
1500 0.034

1000 0.033

500 0.032

0.031
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.03
Time in sec 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95
ΩR (Ratio of rotational to lateral frequency)
Fig. 26 Pounding force between structures with (2/4)th height of
structure Fig. 27 Variation of maximum response of structure-B with
frequency ratio

To understand the relationship between response of

CONCLUSIONS
the structure and ratio of lateral to torsional frequency13,
an analysis has been carried out on single storey In this study, a 3D analysis of pounding between adjacent
structure. Different column sizes (0.23  0.23m, 0.24 structures is carried out. Structure A is considered to
 0.24m, 0.25  0.25m, 0.27  0.27m, 0.3  0.3m and be symmetrical and Structure B is considered to have
0.32  0.32m) has chosen for structure-B to introduce un-even distribution of mass. Analysis is carried out
torsion. The right upper corner column for structure-B for two cases i.e., for different setback distances and
is changed. The torsional stiffness is calculated by also for different floor heights. The separation distance
using the following equation; between two structures kept as 0.01m and they were
N M subjected to El-centro ground motion. From results
K θR = ∑ k yi ( x i − e ) + ∑ k xi y i 2
2
(5) of different setback distances, it is observed that the
i =1 i =1
collision force is increasing as the setback distance is
where, M and N are the number of resisting planes in increasing, however number of collisions remain same.
N
Also, the response of flexible structure is more than stiff
x and y-directions, K y = ∑ k yi is the total stiffness
i =1 structure. From the results of different floor heights, it
in the y-direction, kxi and kyi are the elastic stiffnesses is observed that more damage is caused if the collision
for ith plane parallel to x and y axis respectively. e is is occurring at mid-height rather that at ¾ of height.
the eccentricity from centre of mass. The rotational Lastly, it is observed that as the ratio of rotational to
KθR lateral frequency increases, the maximum response of
frequency is calculated as ω θ = , where r is
m r2 structure-B reduces because of increase in the lateral
the radius of gyration. The calculated frequency ratios stiffness of structure-B.
are 1.79, 1.83, 1.84, 1.87, 1.92 and 1.95. The same
analysis is carried out for this analysis and finds out REFERENCES
the displacement responses are shown in Fig. 27. From 1. Global risk Miyamoto, Reconnaissance Report on
the analysis it is shown that; as the ratio of rotational 2007 Niigata Chuetsu-Oki Japan Earthquake.
to lateral frequency increases, the maximum response
2. Bidur Kafle, Alireza Mohyeddin-Kermani, Ari
of structure-B reduces because of increase in the lateral
Wibowo, Ray Su, Hing Ho Tsang, Nelson Lam
stiffness of structure-B. Also, the maximum response
and John Wilson, “A report on the visit to he region
of structure-A is same as non-pounding response. It
stricken by the Wenchuan Earthquake”, Intl. Elect.
is observed that there is no pounding between two
Jl. of Struct. Engg. (eJSE) 2008, Special Issue.

Journal of Structural Engineering 170

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
3. Mehmet Çelebi, Paolo Bazzurro, Lauro Chiaraluce, 8. Gong, L. and Hao, H., “Analysis of coupled
Paolo Clemente, Luis Decanini, Adriano DeSortis, lateral-torsional-pounding responses of one-
William Ellsworth, Antonella Gorini, Erol Kalkan, storey asymmetric adjacent structures subjected
Sandro Marcucci, Guiliano Milana, Fabrizio to bi-directional ground motions Part I: Uniform
Mollaioli, Marco Olivieri, Roberto Paolucci, Dario ground motion input”, Advances in Struct. Engg.,
Rinaldis, Antonio Rovelli, Fabio Sabetta, and Vol. 8, No. 5, 2005, pp 463–479.
Christopher Stephen, “Recorded Motions of the 9. Chopra A.K., Dynamics of structures – Theory
6 April 2009 Mw 6.3 L’Aquila, Italy, Earthquake and application to earthquake engineering (2nd
and Implications for Building Structural Damage: edition.), Pearson Education, Inc, 2001.
Overview’ Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 26, No. 3,
10. CSI Analysis Reference Manual, “Computers and
2010, pp 651–684.
Structures”, 2007, Inc.
4. Anagnostopoulos S A., “Pounding of Buildings
11. Susender M and Reginald D., “A Hertz Contact
in Series during Earthquakes”, Earthquake Engg.
Model With Nonlinear Damping for Pounding
and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 16, 1988, pp 443–456.
Simulation”, Earthquake Engg. and Struct. Dyn.,
5. Papadrakakis, M., Apostolopoulou, C., Vol. 35, 2006, pp 811–828.
Zacharopoulos, A. and Bitzarakis, S., “Three-
12. Rajaram C. and Pradeep Kumar R., “Pounding
dimensional simulation of structural pounding
between adjacent buildings: Comparison of codal
during earthquakes”, Jl. of Engg. Mech., ASCE,
provisions’, Indian Conc. Jl., 82, Vol. 86, No. 8,
Vol.122, 1996, pp 423–431.
2012, pp 49–59.
6. Leibovich, E., Rutenberg, A. and Yankelevsky,
13. Jag Mohan H and Praveen K, “A new look at
D.Z., “On eccentric seismic pounding of symmetric
the torsion design provisions in seismic building
buildings”, Earthquake Engg. and Struct. Dyn.,
codes” Proc. on 12th World Conf. on Earthquake
Vol. 25, 1996, pp 219–233.
Engg. 2000.
7. Chau, K.T. and Wei, X.X., “Pounding of structures
modeled as nonlinear impacts of two oscillators”, (Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
Earthquake Engg. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 30, 2001, September 31, 2014)
pp 633–651.

Journal of Structural Engineering 171

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014