Compurers & Srrucrures Vol. 66. No. I, pp.

79-92, 1998

Pergamon 0 1997 Ekvier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain
PII: soo45-7949(97)ooo45-x 004s7949/98 $19.00 + 0.00

LINEAR AND NONLINEAR POUNDING OF STRUCTURAL

SYSTEMS

C.P. Pantelides? and X. Mat

TDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Utah, 104 Energy and Minerals Research office
Building, Salt Lake City, UT, U.S.A.
SSkilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc., Seattle, WA, U.S.A.

(Received 19 December 1996; accepted 18 April 1997)

Abstract-Structural pounding occurs frequently during strong earthquakes between two buildings or
different parts of the same building. Structural pounding can also occur in bridges in the longitudinal
direction at the abutments or at expansion hinges, and laterally between narrowly separated superstruc-
tures. The dynamic behavior of a damped single-degree-of-freedom (SDF) structural system with one-
sided pounding during an earthquake is examined. The structural response of the SDF structure with
either elastic or inelastic structural behavior is analyzed. The pounding phenomenon is modeled as a
Hertz impact force, which represents the behavior of two colliding bodies during a completely elastic
impact. Artificial, as well as actual earthquake excitations, and realistic parameters for the pounding
model are used in numerical evaluations of the seismic response. The effects of separation distance and
inelastic structural behavior on the magnitude of the pounding force are examined. An increase in the
damping energy absorption capacity of the pounding structure results in the reduction of the pounding
forces. The present model and method of analysis can be used in investigations of pounding between
buildings or pounding which occurs in bridges during strong earthquakes. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Key words-Elridges, Buildings, Earthquakes, Nonlinear pounding, Pounding force, Seismic gap

IVTRODUCTION more bridges; and (3) when adjacent buildings with

Structural pounding of buildings
quakes is a well-documentedphenomenon. In the
Alaska earthquake of 1964, the tower of the
Anchorage Westward hotel was damaged by pound-
ing with an adjoining three-story ballroom portion
of the hotel [ 11. Pounding damage was also observed
in Caracas during the Venezuela earthquake of
1967 [2]. In the San Fernando earthquake of 1971,
the second story of the Olive View hospital struck
the outside stairtower; in addition, the first floor of
the hospital hit against a neighboring warehouse [3].
In the 1972 Managua earthquake [4], the 1977
Romania earthquake [5], the 1977 Thessaloniki
earthquake [6], and the 1981 Central Greece earth-
quakes [7], many b’uildings were damaged because
of structural pounding. In the 1985 Mexico City
earthquake, in at least 15% of the 330 collapsed or
severely damaged buildings, collapse and damage
were directly caused by pounding [8]. In the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake, extensive building damage
and collapse due to structural pounding were
observed [9].
Structural pounding damage in buildings can
arise from at least three situations: (1) when adja-
cent units of the same building are separated
through expansion or construction joints; (2) when
units of the same building, or adjacent different
buildings, are far apart but are connected by one or
during earth- different structural characteristics are separated by
a small enough distance so that pounding can
occur. The resulting damage from structural pound-
ing can be divided into four categories: (1) major
structural damage; (2) failure and falling of building
appurtenances creating a life-safety hazard; (3) loss
of building function due to failure of mechanical,
electrical, or fire protection systems; and (4) archi-
tectural, nonstructural, and/or minor structural
damage.
In bridges, impact between decks and abutments
had been observed in the 1971 San Fernando earth-
quake. In the 1994 Northridge earthquake at the
Interstate 5 and State Road 14 interchange, which
was located approximately 12 km from the epicen-
ter, significant pounding damage was observed at
expansion hinges and abutments of standing por-
tions of a number of bridges [lo]. In the 1995
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake in Kobe, Japan,
longitudinal movements of the elements of the
Hanshin Expressway superstructure reached 0.30 m
and caused considerable pounding damage at
expansion joints [ 111.
Structural pounding is a serious seismic hazard
and deserves further study of its characteristics and
consequences. Most studies on structural pounding,
model the pounding phenomenon using a linear
elastic spring which is placed at the contact point
79
80 C. P. Pantelides and X. Ma

between the colliding structures [12,13]. In bridges, 00

the effect of pounding between the deck and abut-
ment on the bridge design was presented in Ref.
[14]. The effects of impact energy losses occurring
between the abutment and deck have also been stu-
died [15]. A new model of the impact between two
structural systems was used by Davis, who
employed a nonlinear spring in an impact oscillator
that was subjected to a harmonic excitation[l6].
In the present paper, the model proposed by
Davis is utilized to examine the behavior of a
damped SDF structural system with one-sided
impact during earthquakes. Both elastic and inelas-
(b)
tic material behavior of the SDF structure are con-
sidered. Realistic structural parameters, I--------1 &-I
representative values of the nonlinear stiffness for
colliding concrete bodies, and ground accelerations
from both historical and artificial earthquakes are
used to study the structural pounding phenomenon.

NONLINEAR POUNDING MODEL

Physical models for pounding in buildings and

bridges which are subjected to a horizontal earth-
quake are shown in Fig. 1. In all three cases, a sim- (cl
plified SDF idealization of the damped inelastic
structural system undergoing one-sided structural
t-9
pounding is made. It should be noted that the one-
sided pounding model produces more severe effects
than two-sided pounding. In the present paper,
attention is focused on the effects of pounding as
they relate to the flexible structure in Figs 1 and 2.
The rigid structure in Figs 1 and2 is assumed to
remain stationary: x(t) is the lateral displacement of
the flexible structure relative to the ground, a is the Fig. 1. Structural pounding: (a) adjacent buildings; (b)
separation distance between the flexible and rigid horizontal pounding at expansion joints in bridges; (c) lat-
structure, and R,(t) is the earthquake ground accel- eral pounding at bridge piers.
eration. The inelastic behavior of the SDF system is
modeled using an elastoplastic force-displacement renders Equation (1) as nonlinear and makes poss-
relationship for the structural stiffness. The ible the evolution of chaotic response. The chaotic
equation of motion for the flexible structure in behavior of the linear SDF system has been studied
Fig. 2 is extensively by Davis [16]. In the present paper, the
effects of using Equations (2aHb) to represent the
mji(t) + cli(t) + /@)x(t) + F(t) = --m&(t), (1) pounding model are investigated for both elastic
and inelastic structures.
where an overdot denotes time derivative; m, c, k(t)
denote the mass, damping, and inelastic stiffness of
the SDF model of the structure; F(t) is the impact
POUNDING OF ELASTIC STRUCTURE
force between the SDF system and the neighboring
rigid structure modeled through a Hertz nonlinear The effect of the earthquake excitation’s fre-
spring [16]. In this model, the impact force can be quency on the response of pounding elastic struc-
expressed as tural systems is examined in this section. In
F(t) = R[x(t) - u]3’2, x(t)>a addition the effects of the separation distance and
(2a)
damping of the flexible elastic structure on the mag-
F(f) = 0, x(t)<a, nitude of the pounding force are investigated.
(2b)
where R is the impact stiffness parameter, which Pounding of elastic structure during artificial sinusoi-
depends on the material of the two structures that dal earthquake
come in contact, as well as the contact surface geo- This example examines the possibility that
metry [17]. The presence of the Hertz coefficient 3/2 pounding may or may not occur depending on the
 Linear and nonlinear pounding of structural systems 81

(a) sidered in this example [18]. The record has a

duration of 53.73 s and a peak acceleration of
Flexible
0.3488. A SDF structural system is used in one-
x(t) Z-a-1 Rigid sided pounding with a period T = 1 s, damping
ratio of 2% critical, a = 25 mm, and impact stiff-
ness parameter R = 80 kN mmP3j2.
Effect of natural period. The response of the elas-
tic structure with period T = 1 s defined above is
compared to that of another SDF structural system
with period To= 3 s, damping = 2% critical,
a = 25 mm and R = 80 kN rnrne312 for the 1940 El-
Centro earthquake. Whereas pounding occurs for
the structure with period T as well as the structure
with period To, some differences exist as shown in
Fig. 5. The peak displacement of the more flexible
structure with period To is approximately 2.3 times
Flexible that of the structure with period T [Fig. 5(a)]. How-
ever, the peak acceleration, and peak pounding
force of the structure with period r, are approxi-
mately 79% of the structure with period T
[Fig. 5(b)]. These results indicate that structures
with different periods of vibration may sustain
different levels of damage under identical pounding
conditions during the same earthquake.
Fig. 2. One-sided pounding in a building: (a) before EfSect of damping. An elastic structural system
pounding [x(t) < Q]; (b) during pounding [x(t) 2 a].
with period T = 1 s is considered in this example.
The separation distance is assumed as a = 25 mm,
excitation frequency. The properties of the SDF
and the impact stiffness parameter
elastic structure are as follows: mass m = 350 Mg,
R = 80 kN mmP312. Two damping ratios are con-
elastic stiffness k = 10.5 kNmm-‘, damping
sidered: 5, = 2 and t2= 8% of critical. The latter is
5 = 2% of critical; the period of the structural sys-
chosen to represent the damping capacity of a
tem is 1.15 s. The separation distance is assumed to
structure which is equipped with some form of pas-
be a = 25 mm and the value of the impact stiffness
sive control device such as a friction damper, met-
parameter is defined as R = 80 kN mmP3”. An arti-
allic damper, fluid damper or viscoelastic damper
ficial earthquake in the form of a sinusoidal exci-
[19], or with an active control system such as the
tation with a magnitude of O.lg is used as the
active bracing system or an active mass damper [20].
ground acceleration, and two cases of excitation fre-
Figure 6 shows the structural response comparison
quency are considered: fi = 2 Hz and fi = 0.67 Hz.
between the two damping cases for the 1940 El-
As shown in Fig. 3(a), when the excitation has a
Centro earthquake. For the case of increased damp-
frequency equal to fi the displacement never
ing, the peak displacement is reduced by 50%
exceeds 25 mm and no pounding develops.
[Fig. 6(a)], and the peak acceleration and pounding
However, when the excitation has a frequency equal
force are reduced by 65% [Fig. 6(b)]. In addition,
to f2, pounding is present. Figure 3(a) shows the
the number of pounding occurrences is reduced by
displacement of the SDF structure for the two exci-
Fig. 3(b) shows the acceleration, and 70%.
tations,
In order to examine the effect of damping on the
Fig. 3(c) shows tha pounding force in the case of
separation distance required to prevent pounding,
excitation f2. The peak acceleration when pounding
known as the seismic gap, a series of separation dis-
occurs (frequency js), is approximately seven times
tances were studied from a = 25 mm to where
that of the nonpounding case (frequency fi). The
pounding does not occur, at an interval of
value of the pounding force is approximately equal
12.5 mm. Three damping ratios were considered:
to 4.5 MN. This example shows the importance of
5,=2%, t2=8% and t3=20%. The results are
the excitation frequency as to the occurrence of
shown in Fig. 7: the horizontal axis is the separ-
structural pounding; in addition, it demonstrates
ation distance and the vertical axis is the maximum
that the pounding forces that can be developed are
significant. pounding force during the 1940 El-Centro earth-
quake. With the increase in damping, the peak
structural response is reduced. For ti=2%, no
Pounding of elastic structure during the Imperial Val-
pounding takes place when the separation distance
ley SOOE El-Centro earthquake of 18 May 1940
is greater than ait,,,= 175 mm; for t2 = 8% the seis-
The SOOE component of the El-Centro earth- mic gap is ali,,, = 100 mm, and for 53 = 20% the seis-
quake of 18 May 1940, shown in Fig. 4(a), is con- mic gap is aiim = 75 mm. These results are in general
82 C. P. Pantelides and X. Ma

(a)

40

z 20
E
z
B O
ii
“a
.z -20
n

-40

-6O~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,‘,“,,,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (set)
(b)
0.6

0
,M
c -0.2
.z
rj -0.4
z
2 -0.6
4
-0.8

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (set)

(c)
5.c
‘l-
4.5

4.0

z‘ 3.5
E
E 3.0

8 2.5
Et
s 2.0
s
0 1.5
a
1 .o

0.5

0 r
0

Time (set)

Fig. 3. Response of SDF elastic structure during artificial sinusodial earthquake: (a) displacement, (b)
acceleration, (c) pounding force; __- f, = 2 Hz, ---&=0.67 Hz.
 Linear and nonlinear pounding of structural systems 83

(a)
0.40

-0.40 ,,......,,,.........,.........,.........,.........,
0 IO 20 30 40 50
Time (set)
(b)
1.20

._8 0.60
2
2
e 0
::
2
: -0.60
tj

-1.20
0 10 20 30 40 SO

(cl
Time (xc)
0.50

Gl

._8
0.25

5
2
s a
::
‘CJ
z
0 -0.;15
6

-0.30 , . I.. . . . a.I.. I,, ., , , , ., , , , , ., , , , ., ,

10 20 30 )
Time (set)
(d)
I .oo ,
I
G
z
._
O.!iO

5
If!
e 0
::
P
z -O.!iO
6
-I .oo
0 20 30 40 50

Time (set)
Fig. 4. Historical earthquakes: (a) Imperial Valley SOOEcomponent of 1940 El-Centro; (b) S16E com-
ponent of 1971 San Fernando; (c) Channel 8 of 1989 Loma Prieta; (d) 90” component of the Santa
Monica record of 1994 Northridge.
 C. P. Pantelides and X. Ma

Time (set)

(b)

‘L -1
15 20 25 30
Time (set)

Fig. 5. Effect of the natural period on pounding of elastic structure: (a) displacement, (b) pounding
force; --- T = 1s, - TO=3 s.

agreement with more detailed studies using analyti-
cal models of viscoelastic dampers [21].
A response spectrum for a SDF elastic structure
with periods ranging from 0.1 to 3.0 s, at an inter-
val of 0.1 s, was constructed using three damping
ratios of 2, 8 and 20% of critical for the 1940 El-
Centro earthquake. The impact stiffness parameter
was assumed as R = 80 kN rnrne3”. The results are
shown in Fig. 8, where the horizontal axis indicates
the structure’s period and the vertical axis denotes
the maximum velocity over a separation distance
ranging from 12.5 mm to the particular seismic sep-
aration distance, atim, for that structure’s period
beyond which no pounding occurs. For stiff struc-
tures with a period less than 0.3 s the response is
affected only slightly with the increase in damping.
For flexible structures with a period longer than
0.3 s the response is reduced significantly with the
increase in damping. In addition, the increase from
2 to 8% of critical damping seems to be more effec-
 Linear and nonlinear pounding of structural systems 85

(a)
150

100

50

+2
& 0
z
l
m -50
2
6
-100

-150

-200
0 15 20 25 30
Time (set)
(b)
3

0
M
4

15 20 25
Time (set)

Fig. 6. Effect of damping on pounding of elastic structure: (a) displacement, (b) acceleration; ~
r = 2%, - 5 = 8%.

tive than the increase from 8 to 20% in reducing
the structure’s response.
Parametric study oJ separation distance
The value of the separation distance, a, between
two structures whilch is st&iciently large to prevent
pounding in an earthquake is known as the seismic
gap. Building Codes have recognized the existence
of a safe seismic separation distance. The Uniform
Building Code-UBC [22]-specifies that the separ-
ation distance between two buildings shall be at
least (0.375 x R,) times the displacement due to
seismic forces, where R, is a factor which defines
the lateral force resisting system. For bridges, the
AASHTO 1995 Interim Provisions specify minimum
support length requirements at the expansion ends
of all girders [23]. However, even though the pro-
visions encourage consideration of relative displace-
ments between different segments of the bridge,
they do not provide specific guidelines for separ-
ation distances to prevent pounding. Similarly, no

CAS 66/l-D
86 C. P. Pantelides and X. Ma

15 100 125

Separation distance (mm)

Fig. 7. Effect of damping on seperation distance and maximum level of pounding force: W 5 = 2%, 0
5 = 8%, A 5 = 20%.

provisions are given for prevention of lateral is the maximum pounding force during the earth-
pounding of the type shown in Fig. l(c). quake, and the horizontal axis is the separation dis-
A parametric study was undertaken to examine tance, a. Four earthquakes were examined as shown
the UBC code requirements for a structure modeled in Fig. 4: (1) the Imperial Valley SOOE component
as a SDF elastic structural system with period of the 1940 El-Centro; (2) the S16E component of
T = 1 s, damping ratio 4 = 2% of critical, and the 1971 San Fernando; (3) the Channel 8 of the
impact stiffness parameter R = 80 kN mmp3’*. A 1989 Loma Prieta; and (4) the 90” component of
series of separation distances were studied from the Santa Monica record of the 1994 Northridge
a = 25 mm up to where a was sufficiently large to earthquake [18]. As shown in Fig. 9, no pounding
prevent pounding, at an interval of 12.5 mm. The occurs when the separation distance is greater than
results are shown in Fig. 9 in which the vertical axis 175 mm for the El-Centro earthquake, 238 mm for

1.5

I.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Period (set)

Fig. 8. Effect of damping on velocity response spectrum for SDF elastic structure: + 5 = 2%, n
5 = 8%, A < = 20%.
 Linear and nonlinear pounding of structural systems 87

r
16

100 , 125 . 150

. 175 200 2i5 - 250
- 2;5 3do 3;s -
Separation distance (mm)

Fig. 9. Maximum pounding force as a function of seperation distance: + = 1940 El-Centro, n = 1971
San Fernando, A = 1989 Loma Prieta, l = 1994 Northridge.

the Northridge earthquake, 250 mm for the Loma
Prieta earthquaki: and 338 mm for the San
Fernando earthquake. Thus, assuming that the de-
sign earthquake was the 1940 El-Centro earth-
quake, and the basic structural system was a
bearing wall system with a concrete shearwall lat-
eral force resisting system (R,= 6), the separation
distance required by the UBC would be equal to
0.375 x (6) x (175) = 394 mm; this separation dis-
tance would be sufficient to prevent pounding from
occurring for any of the other three earthquakes. It
should be noted that the above results are not very
sensitive with respect to the value of the impact
stiffness parameter, R. The UBC code values for
the seismic separation distance to avoid pounding
are seen to be conservative, which is in agreement
with previous studies [24,25].
POUNDING OF INELASTICSTRUCTURE
For an economical seismic design, the inelastic
behavior of the structure must be considered. In
this paper, the elastoplastic shear-displacement re-
lationship [26] is used to model the inelastic beha-
vior of a SDF structural system with one-sided
pounding during a strong earthquake. Equation (1)
is used as the equation of motion and the inelastic
behavior of the structure is modeled by k(t) with
the elastic portion of the stiffness k, = 3.5 kN mm-‘,
and k,= 0 for the plastic portion. The behavior of
the SDF inelastic structure with or without pound-
ing is examined for appropriate levels of ductility.
A fourth-order Runge-Kutta integration algorithm
is used to solve Equation (1). Comparisons are
made between the response of a SDF structural sys-
tem with elastic or inelastic structural behavior
under the condition of one-sided pounding in terms
of the separation distance.
Pounding of inelastic structure during the Imperial
Valley SOOE El-Centro earthquake of 18 May 1940
In this section, the one-sided pounding of a SDF
structural system simulating a reinforced concrete
building with inelastic behavior is studied for the
1940 El-Centro earthquake. The properties of the
structure considered in this section are as follows:
mass = 87.55 Mg, elastic stiffness = 3.5 kN mm-‘,
plastic stiffness = 0, ductility = 4, damping = 2%
of critical; the period of the structure for elastic vi-
brations is T = 1 s. The value of the impact stiff-
ness parameter is assumed as R = 80 kN rnrne3’*.
Two cases are considered for the structure
described above. In the first case, the separation dis-
tance is sufficiently large so that pounding does not
occur; in the second case, the separation distance
a = 25 mm for which one-sided pounding does
occur. Figure 10 shows a comparison of the two
cases during the SOOE component of the 1940 El-
Centro earthquake. The peak displacement in the
no-pounding case is 127 mm, whereas for the one-
sided pounding case it is equal to -147 mm. The
one-sided nature of the pounding for the inelastic
SDF structure is evident. However, as Fig. 10(b)
demonstrates, the peak acceleration when pounding
88 C. P. Pantelides and X. Ma

(a)

-150

Time (s&c)

(b)

2
e -0.5
._0
;;r
;
z
-1.0
::
d

-1.5

5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (set)

15 20 25 30
Time (see)

Fig. 10. Response of SDF inelastic structure during the 1940 El-Centro earthquake: (a) displacement,
(b) acceleration, (c) pounding force; --- with pounding, -- without pounding.
 Linear and nonlinear pounding of structural systems 89

occurs is 1.6g, which is approximately four times
the peak acceleration of the no-pounding case. This
result shows that pounding must be considered in
seismic design. The pounding force is given in
Fig. IO(c); pounding occurs only twice in the
pounding case with a peak value of pounding force
equal to 1245 kN.
Comparison of pounding response for elastic and
inelastic structure
The response of the inelastic structural system
described above 4.1, is compared to that of an elas-
tic structure with the same mass, an elastic
stiffness = 3.5 kN mm-’ and a damping level of
5 = 2% of critical. In both cases a separation dis-
tance of = 25 mm is used. The time-histories of the
responses of the elastic and inelastic structures for
the four earthquakes used above are investigated.
The acceleration response for the elastic and inelas-
tic structure for the four earthquakes of Fig. 4 is
shown in Fig. 11. The inelastic structure has con-
siderably smaller accelerations as compared to the
elastic structure. The peak responses of the elastic
and inelastic structure for displacement, accelera-

’ ,
0

,M

z
4
lz
.EI
B
B

8
-1

-2

-3
P
-4

-5

-6 -I-
0 15

Time (set)

_ (b)

-12
5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (set)
Fig. ll(a, b).
90 C. P. Pantelides and X. Ma

(c)
1

-1

M
a -2
.o
5
2
2 -3
P

-4

-5

-6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (set)

(d)

-2

-a

-10

-12
15 20 25 30

Time (set)

Fig. 11. Comparison of accceleration response of SDF elastic and inelastic structure: (a) 1940 El-
Centro, (b) 1971 San Fernando, (c) 1989 Loma Prieta, (d) 1994 Northridge; --- elastic, -
inelastic.

tion, pounding force and number of pounding pounding occurrences are considerably less in the
occurrences are shown in Table 1. Even though the inelastic case as compared to the elastic case.
maximum displacement of the inelastic structure is These results indicate that the inelastic behavior
larger than that of the elastic structure, the maxi- of structures under pounding is less conservative
mum acceleration is considerably less. Moreover, than the elastic behavior assumption. This may help
the maximum pounding force and number of explain why adjoining buildings that have different
 Linear and nonlinear pounding of structural systems 91

Table 1. Maximum elastic and inelastic response of SDF Structure with pounding
Earthquake Displacement (mm) Acceleration (g) Pounding force (kN) Number of poundings
Elastic Inelastic Elastic Inelastic Elastic Inelastic Elastic Inelastic
1940 El-Centro 145 145 5.8 1.8 4670 1120 35 2
1971 San Fernando 248 598 10.1 1.4 8500 1080 21 1
1989Loma Prieta 192 198 5.5 1.5 4680 1240 25 1
1994 Northridge 206 456 11.3 5.0 9060 4020 24 1

periods and are not separated by a distance less
than the seismic <gap, and thus would be expected
to experience damage due to pounding, have shown
satisfactory response in past earthquakes [8]. The
behavior of inelastic structures during pounding is
an encouraging observation for efforts to consider
an alternative to the seismic separation gap pro-
vision in the design of structures to minimize the
effect of pounding. Many investigators have pro-
posed that building codes should consider alterna-
tive regulations other than the seismic gap, such as
including in the design and detailing of adjacent
buildings the possibility that pounding will occur
[9,24,27], or by linking the adjacent structures
through a link and beam system[28].
CONCLUSIONS
A realistic pounding model was used for studying
the response of an elastic or inelastic SDF struc-
tural system under the condition of structural
pounding during strong earthquakes. Numerical
simulations have shown that the pounding response
is not sensitive to the exact value of the impact stiff-
ness parameter. For structures with different natural
periods, the same earthquake excitation can pro-
duce different magnitudes of pounding force and
resulting structural response. For stiff structures
with a period less than 0.3 s the damping capacity
of the SDF structure does not affect the response of
the pounding structure considerably. For flexible
structures with a period longer than 0.3 s the re-
sponse of the pounding structure is reduced signifi-
cantly with the irrcrease in effective damping, which
could be achieved by using passive or active struc-
tural control devices.
Comparison of the pounding behavior of elastic
with inelastic structures for four earthquakes has
shown that for m’oderate damping levels the displa-
cement response is larger in the inelastic case.
However, the values for peak velocity, acceleration
and pounding force of the inelastic structure are
significantly less than those of the elastic structure;
in addition, the number of pounding occurrences
for the structure with inelastic behavior is less than
that of the elastic structure. This observation may
help explain why adjoining buildings with different
fundamental periods, which are not separated in ac-
cordance with the seismic separation gap and thus
would be expected to experience damage due to
pounding, respond in a satisfactory manner during
earthquakes.
The seismic gap required to prevent pounding
was compared to the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code using four earthquakes. It was found
that the code values for moderate damping are con-
servative as compared to the actual seismic separ-
ation distance found through analysis of SDF
structural systems. The value of the seismic gap is
reduced significantly as the damping capacity of the
pounding structure is increased. For flexible struc-
tures, for which providing the appropriate separ-
ation distance is not possible, such as existing
buildings, an increase in the damping capacity of
the pounding structure by means of passive or
active structural control and proper structural
detailing is an effective alternative for reducing
damage due to pounding. Building codes should
consider specifying a less conservative seismic gap
in such cases.
REFERENCES
1. National Academy of Sciences, The Great Alaska
Earthquake of 1964. Engineering, NAS Publication
1606, Washington, DC.
2. Hanson, R. D. and Degenkolb, H. J., The Venezuela
Earthquake-July 29, 1967. American Iron and Steel
Institute, New York, 1969.
3. Bertero, V. V. and Collins, R. Cl., Investigation of the
failures of the Olive View stairtowers during the San
Fernando earthquake and their implications on seismic
design. Report no. EERC 73-26, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, 1973.
4. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Managua,
Nicaragua Earthquake of December 23, 1972. Report
EP-12, Oakland, CA, 1973.
5. Tezcan, S.S., Yerlici, V. and Durgunoglu, H.T. A
reconnaissance report for the Romanian earthquake
of 4 March 1977. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 1978, 6, 379-421.
6. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Thessaloniki, Greece earthquake of June 20, 1978.
Reconnaissance Report, Report EP-32, Oakland, CA,
1978.
7. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, The
Central Greece earthquakes of February-March 1981.
Reconnaissance and Engineering Report, Report JP-
05, Oakland, CA, 1982.
8. Bertero, V. V., Observations on structural pounding,
Proc. Int. Conf. Mexico Earthquakes, ASCE, 1987,
pp. 264-278.
9. Astaneh, A., Bertero, V. V., Bolt, B. A., Mahin, S. A.,
Moehle, J. P. and Seed, R. B., Preliminary report on
the seismological and engineering aspects of the October
17, 1989 Santa Cruz (Loma Prieta) earthquake.
92 C. P. Pantelides and X. Ma

Report no. UCB/EERC-89/14, Earthquake practice in seismic energy dissipation, ATC 17-I.
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Proceedings of the Seminar on Seismic Isolation,
Berkeley, CA, 1989. Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active Control.
10. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Aonlied Technoloev Council. Redwood City, CA.
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994- 1993, pp. 4499471.--
Reconnaissance Report. Vol. 1. ed. J. F. Hall. 20. Soong, T. T. and Reinhorn, A. M., Case studies of
Earthquake Spectra; 95-03, Oakland, CA, 1995. active control and implementational issues, ATC 17-1,
11. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, The Proceedings of the Seminar on Seismic Isolation.
Hyogo-Ken Nonbu Earthquake of January 17, 1995- Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active Control.
Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, eds C. D. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA,
Comartin, M. Greene and S. K. Tubessing. 95-04, 1993, pp. 701-713.
Oakland, CA, 1995. 21. Kasai, K., Munshi, J. A. and Maison, B. F.,
12. Matson, B.F. and Kasai, K. Dynamics of pounding Viscoelastic dampers for seismic pounding mitigation.
when two buildings collide. Earthquake Engineering Proceedings of the Structures Congress 1993. ASCE,
and Structural Dynamics, 1992, 21, 771-786. Irvine, CA, 1993, pp. 730-735.
13. Anagnostopoulos, S.A. Pounding of buildings in series 22. International Conference of Building Oficials, Uniform
during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and
Building Code. Vol. 2. Section 1631.2.11. Whittier.
Structural Dynamics, 1988, 16, 443456.
CA, 1994.
14. Liu, W. D., Nobari, S. F. and Imbsen, R. A.,
23. AASHTO, Standard Spectfications for Highway
Dynamic response prediction for earthquake resistance
Bridges-Division I-A Seismic Design, 15th edn.
design of bridge structures, Proc. Structures Congress
Washington, DC, 1992.
1989. ASCE, eds C. A. Kircher and A. K. Chopra.
24. Anagnostopoulos, S.A. and Spiliopoulos, K.V. An in-
San Francisco, CA, 1989, pp. I-10.
vestigation of earthquake induced pounding between
15. Maragakis, E., Douglas, B. and Vrontinos, S.,
adjacent buildings. Earthquake Engineering and
Analysis of the effects of the impact energy losses
Structural Dynamics, 1992, 21, 289-302.
occurring between the bridge deck and abutments,
Proc. Second Workshop on Bridge Engineering 25. Kasai, K. and Jagiasi, A. R., Building separation rules
Research in Progress. University of Nevada, Reno, to avoid seismic pounding, Proceedings of the
NV, 1990, pp. 201-204. Structures Congress 1993. ASCE, Irvine, CA, 1993,
16. Davis, R.O. Pounding of buildings modeled by an pp. 199-203.
impact oscillator. Earthquake Engineering and 26. Blume, J. A., Newmark, N. M. and Corning, L. H.,
Structural Dynamics, 1992, 21, 253-274. Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for
17. Van Mier, J.G.M., Pruijssers, A.F., Rienhardt, H.W. Earthquake Motions. Portland Cement Association,
Monnier, T. Load-time response of colliding concrete Skokie, IL, 1961.
bodies. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 1991, 27. Stavroulakis, G.E. and Abdalla, K.M. Contact
117, 354-374. between adjacent structures. Journal of Structural
18. NISEE, Corrected Motion Records, Earthquake Engineering ASCE, 1991, 117, 2838-2850.
Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 1994. 28. Westermo, B.D. The dynamics of interstructural con-
19. Hanson, R. D., Aiken, I., Nims, D. K., Richter, P. J. nection to prevent pounding. Earthquake Engineering
and Bachman, R., State-of-the-art and state-of-the- and Structural Dynamics, 1989, 18, 687-699.