Vol.11, No.

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2012) 11: 343-358

September, 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s11803-012-0126-0

Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings

considering soil-structure interaction
Sadegh Naserkhaki1, Farah N.A. Abdul Aziz1 and Hassan Pourmohammad2
1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
2. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran

Abstract:

Many closely located adjacent buildings have suffered from pounding during past earthquakes because they
vibrated out of phase. Furthermore, buildings are usually constructed on soil; hence, there are interactions between the
buildings and the underlying soil that should also be considered. This paper examines both the interaction between adjacent
buildings due to pounding and the interaction between the buildings through the soil as they affect the buildings seismic
responses. The developed model consists of adjacent shear buildings resting on a discrete soil model and a linear viscoelastic contact force model that connects the buildings during pounding. The seismic responses of adjacent buildings due to
ground accelerations are obtained for two conditions: fixed-based (FB) and structure-soil-structure interaction (SSSI). The
results indicate that pounding worsens the buildings condition because their seismic responses are amplified after pounding.
Moreover, the underlying soil negatively impacts the buildings seismic responses during pounding because the ratio of their
seismic response under SSSI conditions with pounding to those without pounding is greater than that of the FB condition.

Keywords: adjacent buildings; underlying soil; pounding; seismic response; fixed-based (FB); structure-soil-structure
interaction (SSSI)

1 Introduction
Pounding is the impact of the adjacent buildings
on each other when they vibrate out of phase and the
separation gap between them is less than the minimum
distance required for them to vibrate freely due to
earthquake excitation. This phenomenon has caused
building damage during most destructive earthquakes.
For instance, pounding-incurred building damage
happened during the 1985 Mexico City and 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquakes, as reported by Rosenblueth and
Meli (1986) and Kasai and Maison (1997), respectively.
Even for recent earthquakes, there are several reports
of building damage due to pounding despite great
improvements in building codes (Wang, 2008; GRM,
2008, 2009).
Building codes in earthquake-prone areas typically
assign preventive provisions to avoid pounding between
the adjacent buildings (TBC, 1997; INBC, 2005; IBC,
2009). Despite these building code provisions, the risk
of building pounding is still high because:

Building codes do not consider the out of

Correspondence to: Sadegh Naserkhaki, Department of Civil
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra
Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Tel: +98-26-34425876; Fax: +98-26-34425876
E-mail: snkhaki@gmail.com

Research Assistant; Senior Lecturer; Assistant Professor

Received November 22, 2011; Accepted May 30, 2012

phase responses of the adjacent buildings (Kasai et al.,

1996; Hao and Shen, 2001), and changes of the phase
difference of seismic responses due to the underlying
soil (Jeng and Kasai, 1996).

Building displacements can be larger than the

displacements considered by building codes due to the
underlying soil (Savin, 2003).
Many researchers have attempted to elucidate the
effects of pounding on the seismic responses of the
adjacent buildings, but many aspects of the subject are
yet to be determined. The primary notable contributions
in the study of pounding of the adjacent buildings are the
studies conducted by Anagnostopoulos (1988), Maison
and Kasai (1990), Anagnostopoulos and Spiliopoulos
(1992) and Maison and Kasai (1992). Numerical models
of the pounding of the adjacent buildings have been
developed, and the effects of different parameters have
been investigated. Pounding significantly amplifies the
seismic responses of the adjacent buildings, particularly
by increasing the story shear, which could lead to
building damage. The most important conclusion from
these studies is that neglecting pounding effects could
result in inappropriate building design where the
pounding potential is high.
More recent studies have attempted to account for
different factors involved in the pounding of the adjacent
buildings. Studies on the effects of the mass distribution
on pounding structures (Cole et al., 2011), pounding
of seismically isolated buildings (Ye et al., 2009;

344

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Polycarpou and Komodromos, 2010), eccentric building

pounding (Wang et al., 2009), heavier adjacent building
pounding (Jankowski, 2008), mid-column building
pounding, (Karayannis and Favvata, 2005) and corner
building pounding (Papadrakakis et al., 1996) are some
examples. Although these studies significantly contribute
to the field, they did not account for the influence of the
underlying soil on building pounding.
It is apparent that the underlying soil affects the
seismic responses of buildings, whereas there are a
limited number of studies on seismic pounding that
consider the soil effects. The underlying soil affects
the pounding of the adjacent buildings in two ways:
spatially varying earthquakes and the soil-structure
interaction (SSI). Hao et al. (2000) and Hao and Gong
(2005) investigated the seismic responses of the adjacent
buildings subjected to pounding due to spatially varying
earthquakes. The attenuation of waves propagating
through the soil and the associated time lag cause the
buildings to experience different seismic responses.
However, the influence of the spatial variation of
earthquake ground motions is of secondary importance
compared to the SSI because the adjacent buildings are
close to each other.
The SSI and its influence on the pounding of the
adjacent buildings have been studied by Rahman et al.
(2001), Chouw (2002) and Shakya and Wijeyewickrema
(2009). Rahman et al. (2001) studied the pounding
behavior of two 6-story and 12-story moment-resistant,
reinforced concrete frame structures while considering
the soil effects. In their studies, the adjacent buildings
and underlying soil were modeled using the FEM-BEM
method with the RUAUMOKO software package; the
seismic responses to the El-Centro earthquake were
obtained via an inelastic dynamic analysis, and the Hertz
contact force model was used to represent the pounding
between the adjacent buildings. Rahman et al. (2001)
found that the shift of period due to the underlying
soil altered the time at which the first impact occurred,
which had consequences on the subsequent poundings.
However, they conservatively did not draw a unique
conclusion; they instead recommended each case be
evaluated individually for its particular configuration,
site condition and expected seismic hazard.
Chouw (2002) went further by stating that poundings
could amplify the induced floor vibrations, while the SSI
suppressed the induced vibrations. Amplifying the floor
vibrations referred to higher mode vibrations, which
significantly influenced the secondary structures. Unlike
previous studies, this research did not determine how
the pounding affects the buildings structural members.
Chouw (2002) also claimed that both the soil and longperiod pulses in the ground excitation could increase the
pounding potential of buildings.
Shakya and Wijeyewickrema (2009) analyzed nonequal story height buildings considering the underlying
soil effects to study the mid-column pounding of the
adjacent buildings. They used the SAP 2000 software

Vol.11

to model the adjacent buildings and the underlying soil.

The buildings were connected by a combination of the
Gap element and the Kelvin-Voigt model. The authors
asserted that pounding forces, interstory displacements
and normalized story shears were generally decreased
when the underlying soil was considered.
The seismic responses of the adjacent buildings are
generally subjected to several uncertainties in addition
to the unknown characteristics of the earthquake. With
one configuration of the adjacent buildings, three
fundamental periods are found: two for either building
and one for the pounded buildings. Thus, more studies
are necessary to create a more reliable conclusion. This
research first elucidates the effect of the underlying soil
on the fundamental period of individual and pounded
adjacent buildings. Then it develops an analytical model
to analyze the seismic responses of the adjacent buildings
resting on the soil subjected to earthquake induced
pounding. Sinusoidal ground accelerations with a wide
range of periods as well as real earthquake accelerations
are applied to the model, and the resulting responses
are analyzed and discussed. A parametric study is
performed, and the effects of the underlying soil on the
seismic responses of the adjacent buildings subjected to
earthquake induced pounding are investigated.

2 Development of the analytical model

The analytical model comprises two sub-models:
(1) the adjacent buildings resting on the soil, vibrating
individually and freely, and (2) pounding forces, which
are combined to create the analytical model for the
pounding of the adjacent buildings resting on the soil.
2.1 Analytical model of the adjacent buildings resting
on the soil
The adjacent buildings and underlying soil are
modeled as shear buildings and discrete soil, respectively,
with a concentrated mass, a viscous damper and a linear
spring, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The analytical model of
the adjacent buildings resting on the soil is shown in Fig.
1(b). The building and the underlying soil are connected
through interaction forces with equal magnitudes but
opposite directions. These interaction forces come from
the inertial forces that correspond to the masses of the
building and the underlying soil, called the inertial
interaction (Clough and Penzien, 2003; Naserkhaki
and Pourmohammad, 2011). Moreover, the adjacent
buildings are coupled through the underlying soil, and
the response of each building affects the other because
they are located in near proximity, termed the structuresoil-structure interaction" or "SSSI" effect (Padron et
al., 2009; Naserkhaki and Pourmohammad, 2011). The
equation of motion for two adjacent buildings with the
SSSI effect consideration due to earthquake acceleration
of ug (t) is proposed by Naserkhaki and Pourmohammad
(2011) as:

No.3

Sadegh Naserkhaki et al.: Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction

345

ulf+Hnul +uln
ulf+Hmul +ulm

urf+Hmur +urm

ulf+Hiul +uli

urf+Hiur +uri

ulf+H1ul +ul1

urf+H1ur +ur1

Hn

Hm

Hi

Iln
cln

kln

Ilm

mlm

Irm

mrm

clm

klm

crm

krm

Ili

mli

Iri

mri

cli

kli

cri

kri

Il1

ml1

Irl

mrl

cl1

kl1

crl

krl

H1
kl , klf

kbsb
kbsbf

mr, mrf
kr, krf

cl , clf

cbsb

cr , crf

ml , mlf

cbsbf

ug (t )
(a) Adjacent buildings resting on the soil

(b) Discrete model

Fig. 1 Analytical model of adjacent buildings resting on the soil

M bsbUbsb + C bsbU bsb + K bsbU bsb = ( M bsb vbsb + vfbsb ) ug (t)

(1)
where Mbsb, Cbsb and Kbsb are the mass, damping and
stiffness matrices, respectively. Ubsb , U bsb , Ubsb, vbsb and
vfbsb are the acceleration, velocity, displacement and
the influence vectors of the buildings and underlying
soil, respectively. This equation consists of two sets of
equations corresponding to the two buildings, while
these two sets of equations are coupled by the offdiagonal SSSI components of stiffness and damping
matrices. The first set includes n+2 coupled equations;
n for the NDOF for the left building and 2 for the 2DOF
for the underlying soil. Similarly, the second set includes
m+2 coupled equations; m for the MDOF for the right
building and 2 for the 2DOF for the underlying soil
(n>m).
A more tractable version of Eq. (1) is created by its
expansion, Eq. (2). The definitions of the variables in
Eq. (1) are still valid for Eq. (2), while the subscripts l
and r stand for the left and right buildings, respectively;
b and s denote the building and underlying soil,
respectively; and, bs (sb is the transpose of bs) and bsb
indicate the SSI and the SSSI, respectively. The seismic
responses of the adjacent buildings resting on the soil
subjected to earthquake acceleration are obtained by

Eq. (2); however, the pounding between the adjacent

buildings is not yet involved in this equation.
mls
m
lsb
0

mlbs
mlb
0
0

cls
0
+
cbsb

0
kls
0
+
kbsb

0
mls

m
lsb
0

0

mlbs
mlb
0
0

0
0
mrs
mrsb

ls
0 u

lb
0 u

rs
mrbs u

rb
mrb u

cbsb
0
crs
0

0 u ls
0 u lb

0 u rs

crb u rb

kbsb
0
krs
0

0 uls
0 ulb
=
0 urs

krb urb

0
clb
0
0
0
klb
0
0

0
0
mrs
mrsb

(2)

0 0 vls

0 vlb 0
+
u (t )
mrbs 0 vrs g

mrb vrb 0

346

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

The matrices and vectors of Eq. (2) corresponding to

the left building are introduced in the following (those
corresponding to the right building are the same as those
for the left building, except that the subscripts l and n are
replaced by r and m, respectively).
0
0
ml1

0
mlb =
SYM.
mln
kl1 + kl2

klb =

kl2
kl2 + kl3

kl3

kl3 + kl4

SYM.

0
0
0

kl(n -1) + kln

(3)

0
0
0

kln

kln

(4)
mli and kli are mass and stiffness of ith floor of the left
building. clb is Rayleigh damping matrix of the left
building proportional to mass and stiffness matrices.
lbT = {ul1 uln }
u

(5)

u lbT = {ul1 uln }

(6)

u = {ul1 uln }

(7)

vlbT = {1 1}

(8)

T
lb

uli , uli and uli are acceleration, velocity and displacement

of ith floor of the left building.
ml + n H i2 mli + I li
i =1
mls =
n

i =1 H i mli

H i mli

n
mlf + i =1 mli
n

i =1

H m H n mln
T
mlbs = mlsb
= 1 l1

ml1 mln
cl
cls =
0
kl
kls =
0

0
clf
0
klf

(9)

(10)
(11)

(12)

Hi is the height of ith floor from the center of gravity

of the underlying soil and Ili is mass moment of inertia
of the ith floor. Mass components of the discrete soil
model (ml and mlf) are virtual masses of underlying soil
plus mass of the rigid foundation (subscripts and f are
the notation for rocking and horizontal components of
soil deformation, respectively). Damping (cl and clf)
and stiffness (kl and klf) coefficients of the discrete soil
model are frequency dependent parameters that can be

Vol.11

described in the time domain by the basic constants

of soil including its shear modulus (G), shear wave
velocity (Vs) and Poissons ratio () and the width of the
foundation (a).
lsT = {ul
u

ulf }

(13)

u lsT = {ul

ulf }

(14)

ulsT = {ul

ulf }

(15)

vlsT = {0 mlf }

(16)

where ul , ul and ul are acceleration, velocity and

displacement corresponding to rocking deformation of
the underlying soil, respectively, and ulf , ulf and ulf are
acceleration, velocity and displacement corresponding
to the horizontal deformation of the underlying soil,
respectively
cbsb
cbsb =
0

0
cbsbf

(17)

kbsb
kbsb =
0

0
kbsbf

(18)

Values of SSSI damping (cbsb and cbsbf) and stiffness

(kbsb and kbsbf) coefficients can be obtained from basic
constants of soil as proposed by Mulliken and Karabalis
(1998).
2.2 Analytical model of the pounding
Pounding of the adjacent buildings can be simplified
as pounding of different masses corresponding to each
building at the same level. The stereomechanical and
contact force models are two available pounding models
in structural analysis. The momentum conservation
principle is used in the former method by considering
the coefficient of restitution to model the pounding.
One of the significant influence factors is the duration
of pounding, which is ignored in this method, thereby
preventing force from being derived by this method.
However, the contact force model provides the
advantages of considering the pounding duration
and pounding force that has been used widely in the
numerical analysis of pounding of the adjacent buildings.
In this force-based model, a spring and a viscous
damper are introduced to model the pounding force.
The characteristics of the associated spring and viscous
damper could be either linear or nonlinear; depending
on the linearity and damping, four models have been
proposed: (i) linear elastic; (ii) linear visco-elastic; (iii)
nonlinear elastic; and iv. nonlinear elastic with nonlinear
damping. Additionally, eliminating damping from the
linear visco-elastic and nonlinear elastic with nonlinear
damping models reduces them to the linear elastic
and nonlinear elastic models, respectively. Studies by

Pounding force

No.3

Sadegh Naserkhaki et al.: Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction

Linear elastic
Linear visco-elastic
Separation gap

Relative displacement

Fig. 2 Pounding force-displacement relationship (Naserkhaki, 2011)

347

Jankowski (2005) and Muthukumar and DesRoches

(2006) revealed that the differences between different
contact force models were not significant; however,
the nonlinear elastic with nonlinear damping, and
after that, the linear visco-elastic models, gave more
accurate results. Note that there is a general agreement
among researchers that the contact force model does not
significantly affect the seismic responses of a building.
The advantages of the linear visco-elastic contact
force model are as follows: it is efficient and practical
and provides the pounding force while considering the
energy dissipation during pounding, thus, it is used in
this research. The relationship between the pounding
force and displacement is shown in Fig. 2. Its only

Separation gap
ksgm
csgm

usgm
ksgm(ulf+Hmul +ulm(urf+Hmur +urm+usgm))
csgm( u lf+Hm u l + u lm( u rf+Hm u r + u rm))

usgi

ksgi
csgi
ksg1

ksgi(ulf+Hiul +uli(urf+Hiur +uri+usgi))

csgi( u lf+Hi u l + u li( u rf+Hi u r + u ri))

usg1

ksg1(ulf+Hlul +ull(urf+H1ur +ur1+usgi))

csg1( u lf+Hl u l + u li( u rf+H1 u r + u r1))

csg1

(a) Linear visco-elastic pounding model

(b) Free body diagram of pounding forces

Fig. 3 Analytical model of pounding

deficiency is that it provides tension forces at the end of

pounding with no physical meaning, which is ignorable.
The linear visco-elastic contact force model consists
of a linear spring representing the stiffness of the
contact and a viscous damper representing the energy
dissipation during pounding. Figure 3(a) demonstrates
the analytical model of the adjacent buildings connected
by the linear visco-elastic contact force model. The
contact force model is inactive when the buildings
vibrate individually and freely; however, it is activated
when the separation gap is closed, causing the adjacent
buildings to pound together. Pounding forces develop
immediately after pounding by the relationship:
Fpi = ksgi ui + csgi ui

(19)

where ui and ui are the relative displacement and

relative velocity at the ith floor, respectively, and ksgi and
csgi are the contact stiffness and damping of the ith floor,
respectively. The relative displacement is given by

ui = ( ulf + H i ul + uli ) ( urf + H i ur + uri + usgi )

(20)

where usgi is the separation gap at the ith floor. In a

similar way, relative velocity is calculated from:

ui = ( ulf + H i ul + uli ) ( urf + H i ur + uri ) (21)

Contact stiffness is a term without a special calculation
procedure. It has been proposed to be proportional to
the axial stiffness of the pounded diaphragm by some
authors (Maison and Kasai, 1990; Maison and Kasai,
1992; Zhu et al., 2002; Ruangrassamee and Kawashima,
2003; Muthukumar and DesRoches, 2006). Although
other researchers believe that this parameter is better
described by the lateral stiffness of the pounded floor,
e.g., values equal to 50-100 times and 20 times the
lateral stiffness of the pounded floor were proposed
by Anagnostopoulos (1988) and Naserkhaki (2011),
respectively.
Luckily, a rational method exists to acquire the
contact damping value. It can be determined from the
mass and stiffness of the building in the pounding state,
given by Eq. (22) (Anagnostopoulos, 1988):
csgi = 2 ksgi

mli mri
mli + mri

(22)

348

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

where:

=-

ln e

(23)

2 + ln e2

e is the coefficient of restitution, the ratio of the contact

and separation velocities (i.e., the start and end velocity)
of the pounding:

( ul ur )start
e=
( ul ur )end

(24)

The coefficient of restitution (e) ranges between 1

(pure elastic) and 0 (pure plastic poundings). Typical
values in various applications for metals are between
0.6 and 1.0 (Nguyen et al., 1986). Rajalingham and
Rakheja (2000) found the coefficients of restitution
less than 1.0 and greater than 0.49 are acceptable in
decreasing pounding force while values less than 0.3
are undesirable in constructive engineering applications.
For typical building material, an interval of 0.5<e<0.75
recommended by Anagnostopoulos and Spiliopoulos
(1992), although a smaller value e=0.4 has been used by
Zhu et al. (2002). Naserkhaki (2011), Jankowski (2008)
and Anagnostopoulos (1988) chose a value of e=0.65,
which seems to be a reasonable value for the coefficient
of restitution.
The pounding force acts at the pounding point and
is equal in both buildings but in opposite directions. The
free body diagram for the pounding forces developed
between the adjacent buildings is shown in Fig. 3(b). The
whole system should be in equilibrium at any instant; the
equilibrium of pounding forces is then satisfied by:
C pU bsb + K pU bsb = K pU sg

(25)

where Cp and Kp are the damping and stiffness matrices

for the contact force model, respectively, and Usg is the
separation gap vector. The matrices and vector of the
contact force model can be written as:
kp1 kp12 0 kp1

kp 2
0 kp 21

0
0
Kp =

kp1

SYM .

H k
i =1
kp1 = m

i =1 H i ksgi
m

2
i sgi

kp12
kp 2
0

kp12
kp 2

H i ksgi

k
i =1 sgi

i =1

ksg1 0

kp2 =
0 ksgm

(26)

(28)

H 1 ksg1 H m ksgm
T
kp12 = kp21
=
ksgm
ksg1

(29)

U sgT = 0 0 usg1 usgm

(30)

0 0

Cp is similar to Kp except that ksgi is replaced by csgi.

These matrices and vectors for the contact force
model in Eq. (26) to Eq. (30) provide the pounding
forces when all floors are pounded together. However,
all floors do not necessarily pound together at the same
time. Pounding is more likely to occur at the top floor
of the shorter building and the corresponding floor of
the adjacent taller building. Subsequently, lower floors
could be subjected to pounding one by one during
the excitation. The possibility of pounding should be
checked to determine whether other combinations
of pounding occur. Thus, pounding forces are only
developed at the pounded floors, and the components
of the matrices and vectors of the contact force model
corresponding to pounded floors are effective and the
others are equal to zero.
2.3 Analytical model of the pounding of the adjacent
buildings resting on the soil
The equations of motion of the adjacent buildings
resting on the soil (Eq. (1)) and the equation of pounding
forces (Eq. (25)) were developed separately in previous
sections. By linear superposition of these two equations,
the equation of motion for the adjacent buildings resting
on the soil subjected to earthquake induced pounding
is:
M bsbUbsb + ( C bsb + C p ) U bsb + ( K bsb + K p ) U bsb =
( M bsb vbsb + v fbsb ) ug (t ) + K pU sg

(31)

Before using Eq. (31), two states of building

responses must be diagnosed: the no-pounding and
pounding states. The boundary between these two states
is defined by the following condition for the ith floor:

(u
(u

(27)

Vol.11

lf

+ H i ul + uli ) - ( urf + H i ur + uri + usgi ) < 0

(32a)

lf

+ H i ul + uli ) - ( urf + H i ur + uri + usgi ) 0

(32b)

When the adjacent buildings do not pound during

an earthquake and the separation gap is open, the nopounding state condition is satisfied, and therefore, the
matrices of the contact force model (Cp and Kp) in Eq.
(31) should be eliminated; the equation reduces to Eq.
(1). However, if the pounding state condition is satisfied
during an earthquake, the separation gap is closed and
the terms and parameters of Eq. (31) are effective.
Buildings with both FB and SSSI conditions can be
analyzed using Eq. (31).

No.3

Sadegh Naserkhaki et al.: Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction

Numerical study

Obtaining the seismic responses of the adjacent

buildings during an earthquake requires solving a second
order linear ordinary differential equation (Eq. (31)).
However, this equation is conceptually nonlinear
because its characteristics are changed periodically from
the no-pounding to the pounding states and vice versa
during the analysis. The step by step Newmark (1959)
method, which makes use of integration from the initial
to the final condition for each time step with a linear
acceleration history, is employed for the solution. The
equations and solutions were implemented by a written
computer program code to assist with the analyses.
Different time steps were taken during the analyses to
ensure the computational efficiency of the computer
program code; for the no-pounding state, time steps
were 0.02 s, 0.01 s and 0.005 s, depending on the time
step for which the earthquake acceleration was recorded;
and for the pounding state, the time step was equal to
0.001 s, which guarantees the accuracy of the results.
The underlying soil primarily affects the dynamic
properties of the buildings and thus alters the seismic
responses of the buildings. The dynamic properties of
the buildings and the seismic responses of the buildings
are studied for four cases:
(1) N-FB, adjacent buildings with FB condition do
not pound together.
(2) P-FB, adjacent buildings with FB condition
pound together.
(3) N-SSSI, adjacent buildings with SSSI condition
do not pound together.
(4) P-SSSI, adjacent buildings with SSSI condition
pound together.
The results are presented and discussed in the
following subsections.
3.1 Dynamic properties of the adjacent buildings
All dynamic characteristic factors of the studied
buildings including height, material, stiffness and mass
are combined into the most significant dynamic property
of the building called the building period, which helps
to predict the buildings seismic behavior during the
earthquake. The underlying soil essentially causes an
elongation of the building period. Finding the building
period requires solving the matrix eigenvalue problem:
K = M

(33)

where M and K are the mass and stiffness matrices,

respectively. Moreover, and are eigenvalues and
eigenvectors, respectively. The eigenvalues i are the
roots of the characteristic equation:
f ( ) = det [ K M ] = 0

(34)

where f() is a polynomial of order equal to the number

349

of DOFs of the building/buildings. The solution method

for the eigenvalue problem must be iterative in nature
because it requires finding the roots of the polynomial
f(). The inverse vector iteration method is used in this
study to obtain the fundamental period of the building.
Higher modal periods, which contribute less in building
vibration than the fundamental period, are not presented
in this study. The underlying soil increases both the
fundamental and 2nd modal periods, while the rate of
change for the fundamental period is greater than that of
the 2nd modal period (Naserkhaki and Pourmohammad,
2011).
Each building configuration possesses three distinct
fundamental periods: (1) the fundamental period of
the left building, (2) the fundamental period of the
right building and (3) the fundamental period of the
pounded buildings. To obtain the fundamental period
of the left and right buildings in the no-pounding state,
M and K are replaced by Mbsb and Kbsb, respectively. In
the no-pounding state, the adjacent buildings with the
FB condition are vibrating individually and freely, and
the fundamental period of each building is not affected
by the other building. The adjacent buildings with the
SSSI condition are coupled through the soil, so they
have interaction through the underlying soil during the
vibration and the fundamental period of each building is
slightly affected by the other building. In the pounding
state, regardless of the FB or SSSI condition, the adjacent
buildings interact together through the pounded floors,
so the vibration and the fundamental period of each
building is substantially affected by the other building.
When the adjacent buildings are pounded together, M is
again replaced by Mbsb, while K is replaced by (Kbsb+Kp).
To obtain the fundamental period of the pounded
buildings, all components of Kp are effective, meaning
that all adjacent floors collide together. The fundamental
period of pounded adjacent buildings is almost equal
for both cases of collision between all adjacent floors
and the collision between only the top floor of the short
building and the adjacent floor of the tall building (i.e.,
the difference is minor).
The buildings under study here are residential
buildings with a mass of 100 tons per story and a
lateral stiffness in compliance with INBC (2005). The
fundamental period of the buildings can be found from
their mass and stiffness. Additionally, a wide range of
soil types are chosen, from soft to hard soils, with a shear
wave velocity ranging from 140 to 750 m/s.
The variation of the fundamental periods of three
configurations of the adjacent buildings (i.e., 10-story
vs. 8-story, 10-story vs. 6-story, and 10-story vs. 4-story)
are shown in Fig. 4. In the figure, there are three lines
corresponding to each configuration; the upper and the
lower lines indicate the variation of the fundamental
periods of the no-pounding state of individual buildings,
and the middle line indicates the variation of the
fundamental periods of pounding states in the pounded
buildings.

350

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Vol.11

buildings fundamental period shifts toward the rigid

zone, while the short buildings fundamental period
shifts toward the flexible zone. However, the effect
of this period shift is smaller for the tall building than
for the short building, particularly if the latter building
is too short. The nearer the fundamental period of
pounded buildings is to the fundamental period of the
tall building, the more the tall building dominates the
seismic responses of buildings during pounding.
3.2 Seismic responses of the adjacent buildings to
sinusoidal excitations

Fig. 4 Variation of fundamental periods of adjacent buildings

with soil shear wave velocity

Figure 4 indicates that longer fundamental periods

are obtained for buildings resting on softer underlying
soils with lower shear wave velocities, while the longest
fundamental period is referred to the softest underlying
soil. Furthermore, the rate of the fundamental period
increment is higher for the taller buildings, with the
maximum (25%) increment being that of the 10-story
building.
Figure 4 also indicates that the fundamental period
of pounded buildings in the pounding state falls between
the fundamental periods of the individual buildings in
the no-pounding state, regardless of the foundations
condition. In the pounding state, pounded buildings
are combined into a new structural system with a new
fundamental period that is stiffer than an individual tall
building but is more flexible than an individual short
building. This result shows that, after pounding, the tall

This section discusses the effects of the underlying

soil on the seismic responses of the configuration of a
10-story building adjacent to a 5-story building due to
ground accelerations without and with pounding. The
buildings are residential buildings with a mass of 100
tons per story and a lateral stiffness of 171 MN/m. These
properties are adopted from INBC (2005), which gives
the fundamental periods as tabulated in Table 1. These
building properties provide a relatively flexible behavior
for a 10-story building, whereas a 5-story building
exhibits a relatively stiff behavior; thus, the 10-story
building is called the flexible building and the 5-story
building is called the stiff building.
The contact stiffness is equal to 10,000 MN/m, and
the coefficient of restitution is taken as 0.65. When the
SSSI condition is considered, the underlying soil has a
shear wave velocity equal to 140 m/s, a shear modulus
equal to 32.34 MN/m2 and a Poissons ratio equal to
0.35. The ground excitations applied to these models are
artificial sinusoidal ground accelerations with periods
ranging from 0.1 s to 10 s. This range of excitation
period is wide enough to capture the buildings responses
due to any real earthquake (the seismic responses of
the adjacent buildings due to real earthquakes will be
discussed in the next section).
Figures 5 and 6 show the results spectrum of seismic
induced maximum displacements and story shears of
the top floors of the buildings, respectively, because
the top floors experience the most critical condition.
Additionally, the peak displacements and story shears
of the top floors of the buildings are summarized in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively, for comparison. The peak
response (displacement/story shear) of each case is
the largest response among all maximum responses of
that case and occurs in the resonance period. The peak
responses of the buildings occur within the ground
acceleration periods ranging between 0.5 s and 1.5 s.
Meanwhile, the local peak responses occur at smaller
ground acceleration periods, corresponding to the higher
modes of vibration but with minor, negligible effects for
structural members.
Note that the shift in the peak responses toward
the flexible zone due to the underlying soil effect is
visible in both figures. In the no-pounding cases, the
peak responses of the buildings with the SSSI condition

No.3

Sadegh Naserkhaki et al.: Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction

351

Table 1 Fundamental periods of the buildings with different conditions

Fundamental period (s)
10-story individual building

Pounded adjacent buildings

5-story individual building

FB

1.02

0.95

0.53

SSSI

1.27

1.11

0.61

Displacement (m)

0.7

N-FB

0.6

P-FB

0.5

N-SSSI

0.4

P-SSSI

0.3
0.2
0.1

Displacement (m)

0.1

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.1

1
Period (s), logarithmic scale
(a) Top floor of 10-story building

10

N-FB
P-FB
N-SSSI
P-SSSI

1
Period (s), logarithmic scale
(b) Top floor of 5-story building

10

Fig. 5 Maximum displacement of the top floor of the buildings against ground acceleration periods under sinusoidal excitation

3.5

N-FB

Story shear (MN)

3.0

P-FB

2.5

N-SSSI

2.0

P-SSSI

1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0.1

1
Period (s), logarithmic scale
(a) Top floor of 10-story building

Story shear (MN)

3.0

10

N-FB

2.5

P-FB

2.0

N-SSSI

1.5

P-SSSI

1.0
0.5
0

0.1

1
Period (s), logarithmic scale
(b) Top floor of 5-story building

10

Fig. 6 Maximum story shear of the top floor of the buildings against ground acceleration periods under sinusoidal excitation

352

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

occur for periods 25% and 15% longer than the period
in which the peak responses of the buildings with the
FB condition occur for the individual flexible (Figs.
5(a) and 6(a)) and stiff buildings (Figs. 5(b) and 6(b)),
respectively. For the pounding cases, the peak response
of both buildings occurs at periods 17% longer for the
SSSI condition than for the FB condition (Figs. 5 and
6).
Furthermore, Figs. 5 and 6 show that pounding
causes a shift in the peak response toward the rigid
zone for the flexible building, whereas it shifts toward
the flexible zone for the stiff building. The shift of the
peak responses due to pounding is less remarkable for
the flexible building compared to the stiff building. The
peak responses of the flexible building for the pounding
case occur in periods 7% (FB) and 13% (SSSI) shorter
than the no-pounding case, while for the stiff building,
the peak responses for the pounding case occur at
periods 79% (FB) and 82% (SSSI) longer than the nopounding case because the flexible building shares larger
mass during pounding than the stiff building.
In addition to the shift in the peak responses,
pounding causes the buildings to experience different
values of responses due to seismic excitations (Figs.
5 and 6; Tables 2 and 3). The peak displacements
are reduced 0.41-fold (FB) and 0.56-fold (SSSI) in
the flexible building due to pounding (Fig. 5(a)). The
comparison between the SSSI and FB conditions reveals
that the underlying soil causes larger displacements
in the building; the increment is up to 1.16-fold and
1.57-fold for the no-pounding and pounding cases,
respectively. The larger displacements of the SSSI
buildings are due to the additional displacements
imposed on the flexible building by the underlying soil,
mostly due to the rocking component of the underlying

Vol.11

soil for upper stories. Unlike the flexible building, the

peak displacements of a stiff building are increased
1.17-fold (FB) and 1.55-fold (SSSI) due to pounding
(Fig. 5(b)). The peak displacements of the stiff building
are 1.10-fold and 1.46-fold larger for the no-pounding
and pounding cases, respectively, when considering
the underlying soil. While the underlying soil causes
larger displacements in all cases, the rate of increment is
greater for the pounding cases.
The effect of pounding on the story shears of both
buildings is incremental where the buildings experience
larger story shears due to pounding (Fig. 6). The peak
story shear is increased 1.34-fold (FB) and 2.00-fold
(SSSI) for the flexible building and 2.14-fold (FB) and
2.89-fold (SSSI) for the stiff building due to pounding. It
is notable that the underlying soil develops contradictory
effects on building story shears for the no-pounding and
pounding cases. The story shear is reduced 0.74-fold for
the flexible building and 0.77-fold for the stiff building
for the no-pounding case, whereas for pounding case,
it is increased 1.11-fold for the flexible building and
1.03-fold for the stiff building. The reduction of the
story shear for the top floors of the buildings in the nopounding cases is due to a reduction of the story drift of
the top floors because of the rocking component from
the underlying soil. However, pounding suppresses the
rocking effect and causes the buildings to experience
larger story drifts and, thus, larger story shears.
The effects of pounding on the seismic responses of
other floors of the buildings in terms of displacement
ratio and story shear ratio are shown in Figs. 7 and 8,
respectively (displacement/story shear ratio of each floor
refers to the ratio of its peak displacement/story shear in
the pounding case compared to its peak displacement/
story shear in the no-pounding case). In general, the

Table 2 Peak displacements of the top floor of the buildings

Displacement of 10-story (m)
No-pounding

Pounding

FB

0.564

SSSI
Ratio of
SSSI to FB

Displacement of 5-story (m)

No-pounding

Pounding

0.233

Ratio of
pounding to Nopounding
0.413

0.089

0.104

Ratio of
pounding to nopounding
1.168

0.653

0.365

0.559

0.097

0.151

1.554

1.157

1.567

1.098

1.460

Table 3 Peak story shears of the top floor of the buildings

Story shear of 10-story (MN)

Story shear of 5-story (MN)

No-pounding

Pounding

FB

2.165

2.893

Ratio of
pounding to nopounding
1.336

No-pounding

Pounding

1.227

2.628

Ratio of
pounding to nopounding
2.142

SSSI
Ratio of
SSSI to FB

1.608

3.216

1.999

0.941

2.716

2.887

0.743

1.112

0.767

1.033

Sadegh Naserkhaki et al.: Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction

10
8
7

-2.5

-1.5

10

FB
SSSI

Floor level

9
8
7

-0.5
0.5
Displacement ratio
(a) 10-Story

1.5

2.5

-2.5

-1.5

0
-0.5
0.5
Displacement ratio
(b) 5-Story

353

FB
SSSI

Floor level

No.3

1.5

2.5

Fig. 7 Displacement ratios of the buildings after pounding

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-2.5

-1.5

Floor level

10
9

all floors of the flexible building. When the adjacent

buildings pound together, through-pounding floors in
the flexible building are prevented from moving further
by the adjacent building, while its above-pounding
floors move freely, which causes a sudden jump between
the displacements of the through-pounding and abovepounding floors. While the relative displacements of
the through-pounding floors are reduced, this sudden
jump causes a sharp increment of relative displacement
in the above-pounding floors, which is like a whiplash
behavior.
Because the story shears are produced due to relative
displacements, the story shears of the flexible building
are decreased in the through-pounding floors, while they
are dramatically increased in the above-pounding floors
(Fig. 8(a)). The story shear ratios of the flexible building
are greater for the SSSI than for the FB condition, which
means that if the flexible building is pounded to the
adjacent building, then it experiences larger story shears
because of the underlying soil. Therefore, the underlying
soil is again unfavorable for the flexible building.
For the stiff building, both the displacement ratios
and story shear ratios of all floors are greater than unit

FB
SSSI

-0.5
0.5
Story shear ratio
(a) 10-story

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-0.5
0.5
Story shear ratio
(b) 5-story
Floor level

results show that the seismic responses of the buildings

can be categorized into following three types, depending
on the building floor whose response is of concern:
(1) Above-pounding floors for the flexible building
with the extreme condition at the top floor,
(2) Through-pounding floors for the flexible
building with the extreme condition at the mid floor,
(3) Through-pounding floors for the stiff building
with the extreme condition at the top floor.
As shown in Fig. 7(a), the displacement ratios for
the flexible building are less than one, so it experiences
smaller peak displacements after pounding. The
displacement reduction due to pounding is justified
through all floors of the flexible building and is
approximately half of that in the no-pounding case.
Although both the FB and SSSI conditions demonstrate
a similar pattern, the SSSI condition has greater
displacement ratios than the FB condition, meaning that
the underlying soil causes larger displacements in the
flexible building in the pounding case, which does not
favor the flexible building during pounding.
Despite reducing the displacements, the relative
displacements (i.e., story drifts) are not reduced through

1.5

2.5

-2.5

-1.5

Fig. 8 Story shear ratios of the buildings after pounding

FB
SSSI

1.5

2.5

354

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

(Figs. 7(b) and 8(b)), meaning that they are amplified

after pounding. The stiff building is pushed away by
the flexible building during pounding, which not only
produces larger displacements but also creates larger
story drifts and, consequently, larger story shears.
Furthermore, the SSSI condition has greater displacement
and story shear ratios than the FB condition. Therefore,
the underlying soil is also detrimental to the stiff building
because it causes it to experience larger displacement
and story shears in the pounding case.
In summary, pounding causes smaller displacements
but larger story shears for the flexible building.
Considering the underlying soil effect (SSSI condition),
the displacements and story shears produced in the
flexible building due to pounding are both larger than
those in the FB condition. For the stiff building, the
displacements and story shears both are larger in the
pounding case than in the no-pounding case. Both
the displacements and story shears produced in the
stiff building due to pounding are amplified when the
underlying soil is considered. Thus, pounding worsens
the adjacent buildings conditions because their
responses are amplified due to the pounding and the rate
of amplification is higher by considering the underlying
soil. The effects of pounding should be considered in
the building design and the adjacent buildings should be
modeled together with the underlying soil to maximize
the safety of the building design.
3.3 Responses of the adjacent buildings to real
earthquakes
The acceleration records of real earthquakes are
applied to the building configuration to investigate their
seismic responses. The characteristics of the earthquake
records are summarized in Table 4. The results are
shown in terms of envelopes of maximum displacements
and story shears of the buildings, the dominant factors
in building seismic design. The structural elements are
then designed to resist the story shear from earthquake
excitation and their displacements are checked to remain
in allowable limits.
The envelopes of maximum displacements and
story shears of the buildings produced due to different
earthquakes are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively.
Figures 9 (a), (c), (e) and (g) show that the maximum
displacements of the flexible building are reduced
throughout all floors during pounding. The changes in
the story shear are not the same as the changes in the

Vol.11

displacements due to earthquake induced pounding.

While the story shears of the flexible building are
reduced in the through pounding floors, they are
increased dramatically in the above pounding floors
(Fig. 10 (a), (c), (e) and (g)) due to the whiplash effect.
For the stiff building, the critical condition happens in
the no-pounding side of the building where both the
displacements (Fig. 9 (b), (d), (f) and (h)) and story
shears (Fig. 10 (b), (d), (f) and (h)) are increased because
the flexible building pushes the stiff building away
during pounding. The patterns of seismic responses are
similar for both the FB and SSSI conditions; however,
Figures 9 and 10 show that the SSSI condition provides
larger values of responses, particularly after pounding.
Though the patterns of seismic responses for the
buildings are similar, each building demonstrates a
unique response to each earthquake with different
values and ratios of responses. The top floor of the
flexible building on the pounding side and the top floor
of the stiff building on the no-pounding side suffer the
most from earthquake induced pounding, leading to a
discussion of these floors responses in the following
paragraphs.
The top floor of the flexible building with the FB
condition experiences the largest displacement of 0.12
m after pounding under the El Centro earthquake while
it experiences the largest displacement of 0.18 m after
pounding under the Kobe earthquake if its condition
is changed to SSSI. The maximum displacement ratio
of the top floor of the flexible building with the FB
condition is 0.73 under the Victoria earthquake, while
for the SSSI condition this ratio is 0.74 under the El
Centro earthquake. The largest story shear produced at
the top floor of the flexible building after pounding is
2.22 MN for the FB condition and 2.52 MN for the SSSI
condition, both under the El Centro earthquake. The
maximum story shear ratio of the top floor of the flexible
building is 3.36 for the FB condition and 4.88 for the
SSSI condition under the Victoria earthquake and the El
Centro earthquake, respectively.
The Loma Prieta earthquake causes the largest
displacement of 0.10 m for the FB condition and 0.13
m for the SSSI condition at the top floor of the stiff
building after pounding. The maximum displacement
ratio of the top floor of the stiff building is 1.17 for the
FB condition under the El Centro earthquake and 1.39
for the SSSI condition under the Kobe earthquake. The
largest story shear of the top floor of the stiff building is
1.63 MN for the FB condition after pounding, which is

Table 4 Characteristics of records of earthquakes

Earthquake

Year

Record/Component

PGA (g)

Site condition (USGS)

Kobe

1995

KOBE/KAK090

0.345

D
C

El Centro

1940

IMPVALL/I-ELC180

0.313

Victoria, Mexico

1980

VICT/CPE315

0.587

Loma Prieta

1989

LOMAP/G01090

0.473

Sadegh Naserkhaki et al.: Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5
0.5
Displacement (m)
(c) El Centro (10-story)

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5
0.5
Displacement (m)
(e) Victoria (10-story)

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5
0.5
Displacement (m)
(g) Loma Prieta (10-story)

1.5

2.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5
0.5
Displacement (m)
(b) Kobe (5-story)

1.5

2.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5
0.5
Displacement (m)
(d) El Centro (5-story)

1.5

2.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5
0.5
Displacement (m)
(f) Victoria (5-story)

1.5

2.5

-2.5

-1.5

-0.5
0.5
Displacement (m)
(h) Loma Prieta (5-story)

1.5

2.5

1.5

2.5

1.5

2.5

1.5

2.5

Floor level

-0.5
0.5
Displacement (m)
(a) Kobe (10-story)

N-FB
P-FB
N-SSSI
P-SSSI

Floor level

Floor level
-1.5

Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

-2.5

Floor level

No.3

Fig. 9 Envelopes of maximum displacements of the buildings under different real earthquakes

355

-6

-3

-6

-3

0
Story shear (MN)
(a) Kobe (10-story)

-6

-3

0
Story shear (MN)
(b) Kobe (5-story)

0
3
Story shear (MN)
(c) El Centro (10-story)

-6

-3

0
Story shear (MN)
(d) El Centro (5-story)

-6

-3

0
Story shear (MN)
(f) Victoria (5-story)

0
3
Story shear (MN)
(g) Loma Prieta (10-story)

-6

-3

Floor level
Floor level

Floor level
Floor level

0
Story shear (MN)
(e) Victoria (10-story)

N-FB
P-FB
N-SSSI
P-SSSI

Floor level

-3

Floor level

-6

Vol.11

Floor level

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Floor level

356

-6

-3

0
3
Story shear (MN)
(h) Loma Prieta (5-story)

Fig. 10 Envelopes of maximum story shears of the buildings under different real earthquakes

No.3

Sadegh Naserkhaki et al.: Earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction

produced under either the El Centro earthquake or the

Loma Prieta earthquake. The largest story shear of the
top floor of the stiff building with the SSSI condition is
1.98 MN after pounding under the El Centro earthquake.
The maximum story shear ratio of the top floor of the
stiff building is 1.88 for the FB condition and 3.44 for
the SSSI condition, both under the Kobe earthquake.
Not only do the values of the maximum
displacements and story shears increase but the ratios
also increase when the underlying soil is considered.
These increments happen for all earthquakes, although
the rate of increment is different for each earthquake.
Although the pattern of the earthquake induced response
of buildings is the same, the underlying soil has a
unique effect for each building configuration. Each
case possesses three distinct fundamental periods (i.e.,
two for either individual building and one for pounded
buildings); the underlying soil shifts each fundamental
period to a new one. Thus, different responses are
expected under the same earthquake because of different
foundation conditions (i.e., FB and SSSI), which
increases the uncertainty of the problem. Therefore,
each case must be evaluated specifically considering
the buildings together with the underlying soil since
ignoring the underlying soil can underestimate the
design and lead to detrimental consequences.

Conclusions

This study develops a numerical model of the

adjacent buildings resting on the soil with the buildings
connected by the visco-elastic contact force model during
pounding. The contact force model is activated when the
buildings pound together. The dynamic properties of the
adjacent buildings as well as their seismic responses are
presented and discussed in this paper.
Each building configuration possesses three distinct
fundamental periods; two for either building and one for
the pounded buildings where the fundamental period
of the pounded buildings falls between the individual
fundamental periods of the buildings, closer to the
tall and flexible building. The underlying soil causes a
lengthening of all three fundamental periods.
The seismic responses of the adjacent buildings
subjected to sinusoidal ground accelerations as well as
the accelerations of different earthquakes are calculated.
The results show that pounding causes smaller
displacements but larger story shears in the flexible
building, while the displacements and story shears are
increased in the stiff building due to pounding. The
underlying soil (SSSI) increases the displacements and
story shears produced in both buildings due to pounding
compared to those seen under the FB condition. In
conclusion, pounding worsens the adjacent buildings
conditions, which is amplified by the underlying soil.
Pounding effects should be considered in the building
design and the buildings should be modeled together
with the underlying soil to create the safest design

357

profile; ignoring the effects of the underlying soil may

result in unrealistic and unconservative designs with
detrimental consequences.

References
Anagnostopoulos SA (1988), Pounding of Buildings in
Series During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 16: 443456.
Anagnostopoulos SA and Spiliopoulos KV (1992), An
Investigation of Earthquake Induced Pounding between
Adjacent Buildings, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 21: 289302.
Chouw N (2002), Influence of Soil-structure Interaction
on Pounding Response of Adjacent Buildings Due
to Near-source Earthquakes, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, JSCE, 5: 543553.
Clough RW and Penzien J (2003), Dynamics of
Structures, 3rd ed, Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Berkeley, California, USA.
Cole G, Dhakal R, Carr A and Bull D (2011), An
Investigation of the Effects of Mass Distribution on
Pounding Structures, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 40: 641659.
GRM (2008), 2008 Sichuan Earthquake Disaster
Chronicle: Through the Eyes of the First Foreign
Engineers Onsite, Global Risk Miyamoto, Sacramento,
California, USA.
GRM (2009), 2009 M6.3 LAquila, Italy, Earthquake
Field Investigation Report, Global Risk Miyamoto,
Sacramento, California, USA.
Hao H and Gong L (2005), Analysis of Coupled
Lateral-torsional-pounding
Responses
of
Onestorey Asymmetric Adjacent Structures Subjected
to Bidirectional Ground Motions, Part II: Spatially
Varying Ground Motion Input, Advances in Structural
Engineering, 8(5): 481496.
Hao H, Liu XY and Shen J (2000), Pounding Response
of Adjacent Buildings Subjected to Spatial Earthquake
Ground Excitations, Advances in Structural
Engineering, 3(2): 145162.
Hao H and Shen J (2001), Estimation of Relative
Displacement of Two Adjacent Asymmetric Structures,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30:
8196.
IBC (2009), International Building Code, International
Code Council Inc., Country Club Hills, Illinois, USA.
INBC (2005), Loading Chapter: Iranian National
Building Code, Building and Housing Research Center,
Tehran, Iran.
Jankowski R (2005), Non-linear Viscoelastic
Modelling of Earthquake-induced Structural Pounding,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34:
595611.

358

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

Jankowski R (2008), Earthquake Induced Pounding

between Equal Height Buildings with Substantially
Different Dynamic Properties, Engineering Structures,
30: 28182829.
Jeng V and Kasai K (1996), Spectral Relative Motion of
Two Structures Due to Seismic Travel Waves, Journal
of Structural Engineering, 122(10): 11281135.
Karayannis CG and Favvata MJ (2005), Earthquake
Induced Interaction between Adjacent Reinforced
Concrete Structures with Non Equal Heights,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34:
120.
Kasai K, Jagiasi AR and Jeng V (1996), Inelastic
Vibration Phase Theory for Seismic Pounding
Mitigation, Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(10):
11361146.
Kasai K and Maison BF (1997), Building Pounding
Damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake,
Engineering Structures, 19(3): 195207.
Maison BF and Kasai K (1990), Analysis for Type of
Structural Pounding, Journal of Structural Engineering,
116(4): 957977.
Maison BF and Kasai K (1992), Dynamics of Pounding
When Two Buildings Collide, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 21: 771786.
Mulliken JS and Karabalis DL (1998), Discrete
Model for Dynamic Through the Soil Coupling of 3D
Foundations and Structures, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 27: 687-710.
Muthukumar S and DesRoches R (2006), A Hertz
Contact Model with Non-linear Damping for Pounding
Simulation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 35: 811828.
Naserkhaki S (2011), Pounding of Adjacent Buildings
Considering Soil Effects, MSc Thesis, University Putra
Malaysia, Malaysia.
Naserkhaki S and Pourmohammad H (2011), SSI And
SSSI Effects in Seismic Analysis of Twin Buildings:
Discrete Model Concept, Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management, In Press.
Newmark NM (1959), A Method of Computation
for Structural Dynamics, Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, 85: 6794.
Nguyen DT, Noah ST and Kettleborough CF (1986),
Impact Behaviour of an Oscillator with Limiting
Stops, Part I: a Parametric Study, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 109(2): 293307.
Padron LA, Aznarez JJ and Maeso O (2009), Dynamic
Structure Soil Structure Interaction between Nearby
Piled Buildings under Seismic Excitation by BEM-FEM
Model, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
29: 10841096.

Vol.11

Papadrakakis M, Apostopoulou C, Zacharopoulos A and

Bitzarakis S (1996), Three Dimensional Simulation of
Structural Pounding during Earthquakes, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 122(5): 423431.
Polycarpou PC and Komodromos P (2010), Earthquake
Induced Poundings of a Seismically Isolated Building
with Adjacent Structures, Engineering Structures, 32:
19371951.
Rahman AM, Carr AJ and Moss PJ (2001), Seismic
Pounding of a Case of Adjacent Multiple-story Building
of Differing Total Heights Considering Soil Flexibility
Effects, Bulletin of New Zealand Society of Earthquake
Engineering, 34(1): 4059.
Rajalingham C and Rakheja S (2000), Analysis of
Impact Force Variation During Collision of Two Bodies
Using a Single Degree of Freedom System Model,
Journal of Sound and vibration, 229(4): 823835.
Rosenblueth E and Meli R (1986), The 1985
Earthquake: Causes and Effects in Mexico City,
Concrete International, ACI, 8(5): 2336.
Ruangrassamee A and Kawashima K (2003), Control
of Nonlinear Bridge Response with Pounding Effect
by Variable Dampers, Engineering Structures, 25:
593606.
Savin E (2003), Influence of Free Field Variability
on Linear Soil-structure Interaction (SSI) by Indirect
Integral Representation, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 32: 4969.
Shakya K and Wijeyewickrema AC (2009), Midcolumn Pounding of Multi-story Reinforced Concrete
Buildings Considering Soil Effects, Advances in
Structural Engineering, 12(1): 7185.
TBC (1997), Seismic Provisions: Taiwan Building Code,
Construction and Planning Administration Ministry of
Interior, Taiwan.
Wang YY (2008), Lessons Learned from the 512
Wenchuan Earthquake: Evaluation of Earthquake
Performance Objectives and the Importance of Seismic
Conceptual Design Principles, Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration, 7(3): 255262.
Wang LX, Chau KT and Wei XX (2009), Numerical
Simulations of Nonlinear Seismic Torsional Pounding
between Two Single-story Structures, Advances in
Structural Engineering, 12(1): 87101.
Ye K, Li L and Zhu Hongping (2009), A Modified
Kelvin Impact Model for Pounding Simulation of Baseisolated Building with Adjacent Structures, Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(3): 433446.
Zhu P, Abe M and Fujino Y (2002), Modelling
Three-dimensional Non-linear Seismic Performance
of Elevated Bridges with Emphasis on Pounding of
Girders, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31: 18911913.