See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306106945

SEISMIC POUNDING OF THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS WITH DIFFERENT

HEIGHTS

Article · November 2015

CITATIONS READS

9 2,219

2 authors, including:

Durga Chaitanya Kumar Jagarapu

Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation
83 PUBLICATIONS 369 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Durga Chaitanya Kumar Jagarapu on 15 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

ISSN 2319-5991 www.ijerst.com

Vol. 4, No. 4, November 2015
© 2015 IJERST. All Rights Reserved

Research Paper
SEISMIC POUNDING OF THE ADJACENT
BUILDINGS WITH DIFFERENT HEIGHTS
M Phani Kumar1* and J D Chaitanya Kumar2

*Corresponding Author: J D Chaitanya Kumar  [email protected]

This project aims at studying seismic pounding effect between adjacent buildings by linear and
nonlinear dynamic analysis using ETABS (Non Linear) computer program. A detailed parametric
study is carried out to investigate the effect of various parameters on the structural pounding by
Response Spectrum (Linear Dynamic) Analysis for medium soil at zone V and Time History
(Non-Linear Dynamic) Analysis for Bhuj earthquake recorded excitation on different models with
varying separation distances. Pounding produces acceleration and shear at various storey levels
that are greater than those obtained from the no pounding case, while the peak drift depends on
the input excitation characteristics. Also, increasing gap width is likely to be effective when the
separation is sufficiently wide practically to eliminate contact. Finally the results are observed to
study the effect of structural displacements and pounding forces between two adjacent buildings.

Keywords: Seismic pounding, Separation distance, Seismic gap, Adjacent buildings, Storey
displacements, Pounding force

INTRODUCTION Pounding is very complex phenomenon. It

could lead to infill wall damage, plastic
The term “structural pounding” is used to describe
deformation, column shear failure, local crushing
collisions between adjacent buildings during
and possible collapse of the structure. Adjacent
earthquakes. This is common when there is
structures with different floor levels are more
insufficient separation distance between the
vulnerable when subjected to seismic pounding
adjacent buildings. The pounding phenomenon
due to additional shear forces on the columns
has been the main cause for the initiation of
causing more damage and instability to the
collapse in many recorded earthquakes. The
building.
severe damage caused by pounding can be
noticed easily when strong earthquakes strike The patterns of the damage vary from minor
metropolitan cities and densely populated urban and architectural damages to major structural
areas. damages to even total loss of the building function

1
M.Tech Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, MVR College of Engineering and Technology, Vijayawada Rural, 521180.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, KL University, Green Fields, Vaddeeswaram, Guntur Dst-522502.

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

350
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

and its stability. In other words, pounding The powerful 2001 Bhuj earthquake (Jain et
phenomena in adjacent buildings can be al., 2001) has been most damaging earthquake
catastrophic and more dangerous than the effect in the last five decades in India. Reinforced
of earthquake on a single building. concrete buildings suffered the heaviest damage
during the earthquake because of poor design
CHARACTERISTICS OF and construction practices. Pounding of adjacent
POUNDING structures was evident at Ajodhya apartments in
Structural pounding happens because of swaying Ahmadabad with significant damages. The Sikkim
of adjacent buildings with different mode shapes earthquake (Kaushik et al., 2006) on February 14,
and periods under seismic loads which are not 2006 of 5.3 magnitude caused damage to a nine
storey masonry infill RC frame hostel building at
separated from each other properly. During
Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences
earthquakes, structure’s mass and rigidity affect
(SMIMS) Tadong, Gangtok which caused severe
seismic behavior. It is nearly impossible to
damages in walls and columns. Pounding
construct a building which has similar seismic
damages were observed two long wings in the
behavior to another building.
building and corridors connecting the wings.
Poundings may occur because of structural The only road link between Kutch and
irregularities. For example eccentricity between Saurashtra areas is the road bridge at Surajbadi,
mass rigidity centers cause torsion in the which was damaged. Pre-stressed concrete
structure. If pounding is regular an impact surface girder bridge spans sustained substantial damage
can be formed between two adjacent buildings. like pounding of the deck slab, horizontal
The structural behavior of the pounding effect in movement of girder, and damage at the bottom
various places are shown in Figures 1 to 3. of girders (Mistry et al., 2001). In Diglipur (Rai et

Figure 1: Seismic Behaviour of Adjacent Buildings

a) Before earthquake b) Similar Seismic behaviour c) Different seismic behaviour

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

351
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

Figure 2: Pounding of Regular and Irregular Adjacent Buildings

al., 2003) harbor pounding damage was observed Seismic pounding occurs when the separation
at the intersection of the approach segment and distance between adjacent buildings is not enough
the main berthing structure. During Sumatra to accommodate the relative motion during
earthquake (Rai et al., 2005) of December 26, earthquake events. Seismic codes and
2004, pounding damage at junctions was noticed regulations worldwide specify minimum
at the same top ends of piles of the approach separation distances to be provided between
jetty, which were covered up. adjacent buildings, to preclude pounding, which

Figure 3: Pounding Damage at the Intersection of Approach

to main jetty at Diglipur Harbor During Diglipur Earthquake

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

352
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

is obviously equal to the relative displacement Collisions between adjacent structures due to
demand of the two potentially colliding structural insufficient separation gaps have been witnessed
systems. For instance, according to 2006 edition in almost every major earthquake since the
of the International Building Code and in many 1960’s.
seismic design codes and regulations worldwide,
Jeng-Hsiang Lin and Cheng-Chiang Weng
minimum separation distance (Lopez Garacia,
(2001) The need to investigate the level of seismic
2004) are given by ABSolute Sum (ABS) or
pounding risk of buildings is apparent in future
Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS) as
building code calibrations. In order to provide
follows:
further insight into the pounding risk of adjacent
S = UA + UB ABS (1) buildings, this study develops a numerical
S = √(UA2 + UB2) SRSS (2) simulation approach to estimate the seismic
pounding risk of adjacent buildings separated by
where S = Separation distance and UA, UB = Peak
a minimum code-specifed separation distance
displacement response of adjacent structures A
during a certain period of time.
and B, respectively.
Hong et al. (2003), A separation distance
Previous studies have shown that they give
between adjacent buildings is provided to reduce
poor estimates of S, especially when the natural
the risk of pounding of adjacent buildings under
periods of the adjacent structures are close to
seismic excitations.
each other. In these cases, the ABS and SRSS
rules give excessively conservative separation Robert Jankowski (2004) During sever
distances, which are very difficult to effectively earthquakes, pounding between neighboring,
implement because of maximization of land inadequately separated with different dynamic
usage. characters has been observed repeatedly. It can
lead to considerable damage or can be even the
Bureau of Indian Standards clearly gives in its
reason of structure’s total collapse. Shehata E
code IS 4326: 1993 that a Separation Gap is to
Abdel Raheem (2006) investigations of past and
be provided between buildings. Separation of
recent earthquake damage have illustrated that
adjoining structures or parts of the same structure
the building structures are vulnerable to severe
is required for structures having different total
damage and/or collapse during moderate to
heights or storey heights and different dynamic
strong ground motion.
characteristics. This is to avoid collision during
an earthquake. Agarwal et al. (2007) the earthquake induced
upper story pounding response of two buildings
LITERATURE REVIEW in close proximity is investigated. The formulation
Jeng et al (1998) Taipei City, with its high models each building as two degree of freedom
seismicity, soft soil condition, and many tall oscillators and allows for impact at mid-level and
buildings without proper seismic separation, is top-level elevations. Warnotte Viviance (2007)
vulnerable to seismic pounding destruction similar adjacent buildings subjected to seismic
to that occurred in Mexico City during the 1985 excitations collide against each other when the
earthquake. Amar M Rahman et al (2000) separation distance is not large enough to

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

353
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

accommodate the displacement response of the · Comparison of effect of shear walls over brick
structures relative to one another. infill walls on pounding forces between 9-
storey and 15-storey adjacent buildings.
Anagnostopoulos and Karamaneas (2008) the
use of collision shear walls, acting transversely SEISMIC ANALYSIS
to the side subjected to pounding as a measure
PROCEDURES
to minimize damage of reinforced concrete
Various methods of differing complexity have been
buildings in contact, is investigated using 5-storey
developed for the seismic analysis of structures.
building models. Abdel-Mooty et al (2009) studied
The three main techniques currently used for this
the factors affecting seismic pounding of adjacent
analysis are:
buildings and critically examined. The formulation
and modeling of pounding phenomenon is 1. Linear Procedures.
introduced. Parametric study on seismic · Linear Static Analysis (Seismic Co-
pounding phenomenon is conducted to examine efficient Analysis).
the effects of various factors on seismic pounding. · Linear Dynamic Analysis (Response
Structural pounding is a complex phenomenon Spectrum Analysis).
which involves local damage to structures during 2. Nonlinear Procedures.
earthquake. It is necessary to study the seismic · Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis (Time
pounding effect between adjacent buildings. The History Analysis).
principal objectives of the study are as follows:
· Comparison of displacement profiles for 9- ANALYTICAL MODELING
storey and 15-storey adjacent buildings by AND ANALYSIS
linear and non-linear dynamic analysis. Building Geometry
· Comparison of effect of shear walls over brick The analysis considers two nine storey and fifteen
infill walls on displacement profiles to study storey adjacent buildings with full brick infill walls
the minimum seismic gap to be provided. and mixed brick infill and shear walls. The details
· Comparison of effect of separation distances of the structures are shown below.
on pounding forces between 9-storey and 15-
storey adjacent buildings. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 4: Plan Elevation of Nine and Fifteen Storey Adjacent Buildings with Brick Infill Walls

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

354
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

Figure 5: Plan Layout of Nine and Fifteen Storey Adjacent

Buildings with Mixed Brick Infill Walls and Shear Walls

Table 2: Material and Member Properties

M25- Grade of concrete and Fe415- Grade of steel are considered

Member property

Thickness of slab 150 mm

Column size for eight storey building 400 mm x 700 mm

Column size for fourteen storey building 550 mm x 800 mm

Beam size 400 mm x 600 mm

Thickness of brick wall 230 mm

Thickness of R.C.C wall 230 mm

Table: 3 Loads for the Building

LOADS

Gravity loads Earthquake loads

Floor finishes as uniform area load on slabs = 1.50 kN/m2 Zone factor, Z = 0.36 (zone-V)
Live load on typical floors = 3kN/m2 Importance factor, I = 1.0
Live load on roof = 2kN/m2 Response reduction factor, R = 5.0 (SMRF)
Type of soil = Type II (Medium soil)

Table 4: Time Period

TIME PERIOD

X-direction - 0.443 Sec X-direction - 0.739 Sec

Y-direction - 0.496 Sec Y-direction - 0.826 Sec

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

355
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

Table 5: Base Shear

BASE SHEAR

FOR 9-STOREY BUILDING FOR 15-STOREY BUILDING

Sesimic coefficient

X-Direction, Ah = 0.09Y-Direction, Ah = 0.09 X-Direction, Ah = 0.066Y-Direction, Ah = 0.059

Seismic weight W = 89831.00 kN Seismic weight W = 155230.00 kN

Seismic weight as per IS-1893:2002

In X-Direction, Vb = 8085.00 kNIn Y-Direction, Vb = 8085.00 kN In X-Direction, Vb = 11015.00 kNIn Y-Direction, Vb = 9856.00 kN

The results are plotted below. The response In this chapter the results of the nine storey and
of the displacement is plotted in Figures 6 to 9). fifteen storey buildings for rigid floor diaphragm

Fig:6 Maximum Storey Displacements For 9-storey and

15-storey Buildings With Brick Infill Walls In X and Y Direction

9-Storey
15-Storey 9-Storey
16 15-Storey
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
STOREY

8
STOREY

8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DISPLACEMENT (mm) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 7: Maximum storey displacements for 9-storey and 15-storey buildings

with mixed brick infill walls and shear walls in x and Y -directions

9-Storey 9-Storey
15-Storey 15-Storey
16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10
STOREY
STOREY

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
DISPLACEMENT (mm) DISPLACEMENT (mm)

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

356
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

Figure 8: Maximum Storey Displacements For 9-storey And 15-storey

Buildings With Brick Infill Walls In X And Y Directions

9-Storey
9-Storey 15-Storey
15-Storey 16
16
14
14
12
12
10

STOREY
10
8
STOREY

8
6

6
4

4
2

2
0

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100 DISPLACEMENT (mm)

DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 9: Maximum Storey Displacements For 9-storey And 15-storey Buildings

With Mixed Brick Infill Walls and Shear Walls In X And Y Directions

9-Storey
15-Storey 9-Storey
15-Storey
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
STOREY

STOREY

8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80 100
DISPLACEMENT (mm)
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

are presented and discussed in detail for Linear 1893(Part 1):2002. The displacement values for
Dynamic (response spectrum) and Non-linear each floor of the two adjacent buildings have been
Dynamic (time history) analysis. The analysis and tabulated as below.
design for the two adjacent buildings is performed
Response spectrum results for pounding case
using ETABS (Non-linear) computer program. The
are observed. From the above results it have been
material properties are mentioned in Table 2, the
seen that the maximum storey displacements for
gravity and seismic load condition are listed in
9-storey and 9th storey of 15-storey building with
Table 3, the calculated time period values are
brick infill walls are 6.454 and 9.58 mm and with
listed in Table 4 and the Base shear values are
mixed brick infill wall and shear walls are 3.335
shown in Table 5.
and 7.165 mm. As per codal provisions the
Response Spectrum Analysis Results minimum seismic gap to be provided is sum
Response spectrum analysis has been carried of the peak displacements, i.e., 16.034 mm and
out as per the response spectra mentioned in IS 10.5 mm. Since we considered 20 mm physical

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

357
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

Figure 10: Distribution Of Pounding Forces Along The Building Height

With 20, 30 And 40 Mm Gap Between 9-storey &15-storey Buildings With Brick Infill Walls

8 9

8
7

7
6
STOREY

6
5

STOREY
5
4
4
3
3
2
2

1
1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100

MAX. POUNDING FORCE (kN) MAX. POUNDING FORCE (kN)

6
STOREY

0 20 40 60 80 100
MAX. POUNDING FORCE (kN)

Figure 11: Distribution Of Pounding Forces Along The Building Height With 20, 30 and 40 Mm
Gap Between 9-storey &15-storey Buildings With Mixed Brick Infill Walls And Shear Walls

6
STOREY

0 20 40 60 80 100 1 20

MAX. POUNDING FORCE (kN)

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6
STOREY
STOREY

5
5

4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80 100 MAX. POUNDING FORCE (kN)
MAX. POUNDING FORCE (kN)

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

358
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

Figure 12: Effect Of Shear Wall On Figure 13: Effect Of Separation Distance
Pounding Forces For 9-storey &15-storey On Pounding Forces For 9-storey &
Adjacent Buildings 15-storey Adjacent Buildings

9
9

8 8

7 7

6
6
STOREY

STOREY
5
5
4
4 40m m G ap
3 30m m G ap
Brick+Shear Wall 20m m G ap
3
Brick Wall 2

2
1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

M AX . P OUNDING FO RCE (k N) MAX. POUND IN G FORCE (kN)

gap between two adjacent buildings there will be earthquake records, dynamic and stiffness
no pounding between buildings. The response characteristics of the building. We can observe
of the maximum pounding is plotted in Figures that the pounding forces between two adjacent
10-13. buildings reducing by introducing shear walls and
also we can observe that the pounding forces
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS are reducing with increasing separation distance
Time history analysis has been carried out using between two adjacent buildings.
the Bhuj Earthquake record excitation. The
displacement values and pounding force for each CONCLUSION
floor of the two adjacent buildings have been In this thesis the factors affecting seismic
tabulated as below. pounding of adjacent buildings were identified and
critically examined. Parametric study on seismic
Time History results for pounding case are
pounding phenomenon is conducted to examine
observed. From the above results it have been
the effects of various factors on seismic pounding.
seen that the maximum storey displacements for
Pounding forces can be calculated using
9-storey and 9th storey of 15-storey building with
commercial software packages like ETABS where
brick infill walls are 87.387 and 65.111 mm and
nonlinear gap elements between the adjacent
with mixed brick infill wall and shear walls are
building floors are used to calculate pounding
85.287 and 56.119 mm. As per codal provisions
forces.
the minimum seismic gap to be provided is sum
of the peak displacements, i.e., 152.49 mm and Based on the observations from the analysis
141.40 mm. Since we considered 20 mm, 30 mm results, the following conclusions can be drawn.
and 40 mm physical gap between two adjacent Compared to the linear dynamic analysis the
buildings there will be pounding effect between storey displacements of the two adjacent
buildings. buildings increased 90 to 95% with non-linear
The figures show that the pounding forces are dynamic analysis. There is no pounding between
much affected by the characteristics of the two adjacent buildings when it is analyzed by

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

359
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

linear dynamic analysis because the Structural Engineering, American Society of

displacement are very small, but there is a Civil Engineers, Vol. 126, No. 4, pp. 482-
pounding effect when it is analyzed by non-linear 490.
dynamic analysis because the displacements
3. Agarwal V K, Niedzwecki J M and Van de
increased largely.
Lindt.J W (2007), “Earthquake induced
It is concluded that it is necessary to carry out pounding in friction varying base isolated
non-linear dynamic analysis to know the actual buildings”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29,
response of the structure. Elsevier Science Ltd.
· The displacements of the buildings decreasing 4. Anagnostopoulas S A and Karamaneas C
gradually by introducing shear walls over brick E (2008), “Collision shear walls to mitigate
infill walls at suitable locations. From this we seismic pounding of adjacent buildings”, 14th
can say that the minimum seismic gap can World Conference on Earthquake
be reduced by introducing shear walls when Engineering, Beijing, china.
the separation distance available is less.
5. Abdel-Motty M, Al-Atopy H and Ghouniem M
· The pounding forces are decreasing by 10 to (2009), “Modeling and analysis of factors
15% between two adjacent buildings as the affecting seismic pounding of adjacent multi-
separation distance is increasing with a storey buildings”, Earthquake Resistant
variation of 10 mm gradually. So, we can say Engineering Structures VII, WIT
that the pounding effect can be decreased with Transactions on the Built Environment, Vol.
increasing separation distance. 104.
· The pounding forces are also decreasing 6. ATC-40 (1996), Seismic evaluation and
gradually between two adjacent buildings by retrofitting of concrete buildings, Vol. 1,
introducing shear walls at suitable locations Applied Technology Council, Seismic Safety
compared to fully brick infill walls. So, we can Commission, State of California.
say that pounding effect can be mitigated by
7. Bertoro.V.V (1986), “Observations of
introducing shear walls over brick infill walls.
Structural Pounding”, Proceedings of the
REFERENCES International Conference: The Mexico
Earthquake-1985, American Society of Civil
1. Amar M Rahman, Athol J Carr and Peter J
Engineers.
Mass (2000), “Seismic pounding of a case
of adjacent multi-storey buildings of different 8. Barbara Borzi, Michael Hasson, Andrew
total heights considering soil flexibility Morrison, Dave Sanderson, Pushover
Analysis of RC Structures, Earthquake
effects”, Bulletin of the New Zealand National
Engineering International Ltd.
Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 34.
9. Chau K T and Wei X X (2001), “Pounding of
2. Anil K Chopra and Rakesh K Goel (2000),
Structures modeled as Non Linear Impacts
“Evaluation of NSP to estimate seismic
of two Oscillators”, Earthquake Engineering
deformation: SDF system”, Journal of
and Structural Dynamics.

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

360
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2015 M Phani Kumar and J D Chaitanya Kumar, 2015

10. Des Roches R and Muthukumar S (2002), 15. Jeng-Hsiang Lin and Cheng-Chiange Weng
“Effect of Pounding and Restrainers on (2001), “Probability analysis of seismic
Seismic Response of Multiple Frame pounding of adjacent buildings”, Earthquake
Bridges”, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Structural Dynamics. Taiwan.
11. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 16. Lin J H and Weng C C (2001), “Probability
Managua, Nicaragua Earthquake of Analysis of Seismic Pounding of Adjacent
December 23, 1972. Report EP-12, Buildings”, Earthquake Engineering and
Oakland, CA, 1973. Structural Dynamics.
12. Hao H and Zhang S (1999), “Spetial Ground 17. Robert Jankowski (2004), “Non-linear
Motion Effect on Relative Displacement of viscoelastic model of structural pounding”,
Adjacent Building Structures”, Earthquake 13 th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. Engineering, Canada.
28.
18. Shehata E Abdel Raheem (2006), “Seismic
13. Hong H P, Wang S S and Hong P (2003),
pounding between adjacent building
“Critical building separation distance in
structures”, Electronic Journal of Structural
reducing pounding risk under earthquake
Engineering.
excitation”, Structural Safety, Elseivier
Science Ltd. 19. Warnotte Viviance (2007), “Mitigation of
pounding between adjacent buildings in
14. Jeng V and Tzeng W L (1998), “Assessment
earthquake situations”, LESSLOSS Final
of seismic pounding hazard for Taipei city”,
Workshop, Risk mitigation for Earthquakes
Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, Elsevier
and Ladslides integrated project.
Science Ltd.

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

361
View publication stats