Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 4931–4945 | Cite as

Probabilistic Evaluation of Structural Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings Subjected to Repeated Seismic Excitations

  • Fadzli Mohamed NazriEmail author
  • Mahmoud Ali Miari
  • Moustafa Moffed Kassem
  • Chee-Ghuan Tan
  • Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi
Research Article - Civil Engineering


This research investigates the effects of structural pounding (collision of structures) caused by insufficient gaps between adjacent buildings when subjected to repeated earthquakes. The structural performance of adjacent buildings experiencing structural pounding under the effect of moderate repeated ground motions is analyzed using incremental dynamic analysis. Fragility curves for different performance levels are developed to represent the capacity of the adjacent buildings. Two four-story and two ten-story frames, regular and irregular, are combined to represent nine different cases of structural pounding and subsequently analyzed under three artificial seismic sequences. Three gap cases that measure 1 mm (contact structures), 10 cm, and 1 m are assigned to consider possible pounding combinations. Analysis results show that structural damage is directly proportional to ground motion intensity and structural irregularity and inversely proportional to gaps between structures. A minimum spacing of 1 m is proposed for buildings in areas that experience repeated earthquakes to avoid structural pounding. In regular frames, main damage is concentrated in the bottom story beams. Meanwhile, damage in irregular frames is concentrated in top and bottom story beams. Hence, additional stiffness that corresponds to the height of short buildings should be assigned to beams (immediate above and bottom). Meanwhile, the damage is concentrated in ground floor columns. Therefore, to avoid soft story failure mechanism, additional stiffness should be added to columns at bottom stories, especially on the ground floor. Based on the obtained results, modern seismic design codes need to be updated to address these findings on structural pounding to reduce damage in adjacent buildings during moderate to major seismic events.


Structural pounding Repeated earthquake Nonlinear analysis Regular and irregular building IDA Seismic code ISDR 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This study was supported by the Universiti Sains Malaysia, under the Research University Individual (RUI) Grant Scheme (8014080) and Research Fund Assistance, University of Malaya (BK057-2015).


  1. 1.
    Holmes, W.: Evolution of building code seismic performance standards for new and existing buildings. In: EERI Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uniform Building Code (UBC).: In: International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenblueth, E.; Meli, R.: The 1985 Mexico earthquake. Concr. Int. 8(5), 23–34 (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anagnostopoulos, S.: Building pounding re-examined: how serious a problem is it. In: Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1996, Pergamon, Elsevier Science OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kasai, K.; Maison, B.F.: Building pounding damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Eng. Struct. 19(3), 195–207 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anagnostopoulos, S.A.: Pounding of buildings in series during earthquakes. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 16(3), 443–456 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shrestha, B.; Hao, H.: Building pounding damages observed during the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 32(2), 1–10 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, W.; Hua, X.; Wang, X.; Chen, Z.; Song, G.: Advanced impact force model for low-speed pounding between viscoelastic materials and steel. J. Eng. Mech. 143(12), 1–12 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fatahi, B.; Van Nguyen, Q.; Xu, R.; Sun, W.-J.: Three-dimensional response of neighboring buildings sitting on pile foundations to seismic pounding. Int. J. Geomech. 18(4), 1–25 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xue, Q.; Zhang, J.; He, J.; Zhang, C.; Zou, G.: Seismic control performance for pounding tuned massed damper based on viscoelastic pounding force analytical method. J. Sound Vib. 411, 362–377 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Favvata, M.J.: Minimum required separation gap for adjacent RC frames with potential inter-story seismic pounding. Eng. Struct. 152, 643–659 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kandemir-Mazanoglu, E.C.; Mazanoglu, K.: An optimization study for viscous dampers between adjacent buildings. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 89, 88–96 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sołtysik, B.; Falborski, T.; Jankowski, R.: Preventing of earthquake-induced pounding between steel structures by using polymer elements-experimental study. Procedia Eng. 199, 278–283 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tubaldi, E.; Freddi, F.; Barbato, M.: Assessment of seismic-induced pounding risk based on probabilistic demand models. In: 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chile (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karayannis, C.G.; Naoum, M.C.: Inter-story pounding and torsional effect due to interaction between adjacent multistory RC buildings. In: COMPDYN, 6th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Greece (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nishath, P.; Abhilash, P.: Seismic pounding effects on adjacent tall buildings: a review. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 4(2), 647–652 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Namboothiri, V.P.: Literature review on seismic pounding of adjacent buildings. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 4(2), 1770–1774 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kharazian, A.; López-Almansa, F.: State-of-the-art of research on seismic pounding between buildings with aligned slabs. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 24, 1–19 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zheng, Z.; Pan, X.; Bao, X.: Sequential ground motion effects on the behavior of a base-isolated RCC building. Math. Probl. Eng. 2017, 1–13 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hosseinpour, F.; Abdelnaby, A.: Effect of different aspects of multiple earthquakes on the nonlinear behavior of RC structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 92, 706–725 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rinaldin, G.; Amadio, C.; Fragiacomo, M.: Effects of seismic sequences on structures with hysteretic or damped dissipative behaviour. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 97, 205–215 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oyguc, R.; Toros, C.; Abdelnaby, A.E.: Seismic behavior of irregular reinforced-concrete structures under multiple earthquake excitations. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 104, 15–32 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hatzigeorgiou, G.D.; Liolios, A.A.: Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 30(10), 1010–1025 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herrera, R.G.; Soberon, C.G.: Influence of plan irregularity of buildings. In: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, China, pp. 53–60 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Varadharajan, S.; Sehgal, V.; Saini, B.: Fundamental time period of RC Setback buildings. Concr. Res. Lett. 5(4), 901–935 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Efraimiadou, S.; Hatzigeorgiou, G.D.; Beskos, D.E.: Structural pounding between adjacent buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part I: the effect of different structures arrangement. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 5(10), 1509–1528 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anagnostopoulos, S.A.; Spiliopoulos, K.V.: An investigation of earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 21(4), 289–302 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    CSI (Computers and Structures Inc.): SAP2000 v14 integrated finite element analysis and design of structures. CSI, Berkeley (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hatzivassiliou, M.P.; Hatzigeorgiou, G.D.: Three-dimensional reinforced concrete structures subjected to mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequences. In: 8th GRACM International Congress on Computational Mechanics (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yazdani, Y.; Alembagheri, M.: Seismic vulnerability of gravity dams in near-fault areas. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 102, 15–24 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karimi-Moridani, K.; Zarfam, P.; Ghafory-Ashtiany, M.: Seismic failure probability of a curved bridge based on analytical and neural network approaches. Shock Vib. 2017, 1–18 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kostinakis, K.; Fontara, I.-K.; Athanatopoulou, A.M.: Scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for assessing the seismic performance of structures: a review. J. Earthq. Eng. 22(4), 630–665 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    FEMA 306. Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings. ATC-43 Project (1998)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibrahim, Y.E.; El-Shami, M.M.: Seismic fragility curves for mid-rise reinforced concrete frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. IES J. Civ. Struct. Eng. 4(4), 213–223 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringUniversiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Earthquake Engineering, School of Civil EngineeringGraduate University of Advanced Technology (KGUT)KermanIran

Personalised recommendations