Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Saket Kumar
Research Scholar, Structural Engineering, NIT Patna, Patna
ABSTRACT
Pounding is one of the major reasons of structural damages in buildings, constructed very near
to each other, when they are subjected to a strong ground motion during an earthquake. In
metropolitan cities where buildings have been constructed very near to each other due to high land
value and lack of awareness about pounding, pounding mitigation is very necessary for structural
safety and life safety.
This paper deals with the study of effect of pounding between adjacent buildings having
insufficient seismic gap after installation of friction dampers into taller building model. Time history
analysis has been done to evaluate the pounding effects for different models of building. The study
has shown the effect of pounding on global response of adjacent structures in terms of acceleration,
and impact force.
Key words: Pounding, Global response, Earthquake, Friction Dampers, Time History Analysis and
SAP 2000
Cite This Article: Dr. A.K. Sinha and Saket Kumar, Pounding Mitigation Using Pall Friction
Dampers. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 570578.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
1. INTRODUCTION
Experiences of past and recent earthquake-damages have well established pounding as one of the major
causes of structural damages in buildings, constructed very near to each other or without any gap at all [1, 2,
7]. Pounding, which is a collision between adjacent buildings during an earthquake, commonly occurs due
to their different dynamic characteristics, adjacent buildings vibrate out of phase and there is insufficient
seismic gap between them. This situation can easily be seen in metropolitan cities where buildings have been
constructed very near to each other due to very high cost of land and lack of knowledge about pounding and
its consequences [2].
In case of pounding, during strong ground motion, the acceleration at pounding level considerably
increases and generates extra pounding force which causes structural damages or sometime results into
building collapse [10]. And to avoid this situation of pounding, regulations of minimum seismic gap between
buildings have been formulated but it is often seen that these regulations are neither followed by landowners
nor strictly implemented by respective governments. This leads to a situation like Mexico City earthquake
(1985) where, 40% of 330 collapses or severely damaged buildings are cause of pounding only [7]. That is
the reason why proper mitigation for pounding in old adjacent buildings constructed very near to each other
is very necessary not just for structural safety, non-structural safety and life safety but for the making critical
buildings like hospital running operational.
Incorporating dampers into buildings are well established and reliable technique to control the response
of building, so Pall friction dampers have been used for the study. As the friction brake is widely used to stop
the motion of a moving body so by using the Pall friction dampers, the motion of a shaking building can be
slowed down by dissipating the energy in friction [11]. It is also the most effective, reliable and economical
way of dissipating kinetic energy in comparison to conventional methods like concrete shear walls or rigid
steel bracing.
= + (1)
= = + (3)
Where, , and are mean peak values of , ( ), ( ) and ( ) respectively. , is
correlation coefficient which depends upon the period ratio, = , as well as A and B, and is given by
(4)
! ! "! #$! %.$'.(
(')$ ) #*$! ! "'#$ %#*(! #! )$
Where, TA, A and TB, +B are natural periods and damping ratio of systems A and B, respectively.
Seismic gap calculated by using double difference combination (DDC) method was much more accurate
than that of square root of sum of squares (SRSS) method [4].
Where, k is spring constant, gap is the initial opening which must be positive or zero and d is the relative
displacement across the spring.
Generally stiffness of gap element (k) is recommended as one or two orders of magnitude greater than
equivalent adjacent springs. Here stiffness of gap element has been taken 4.776 105 kN/m.
Figure 2. A generalized force displacement curve for dampers to represent formulation of equation (10) and (11) for
linear dampers (dashed straight line) and for non-linear dampers (solid bilinear curve)
Where, F is the force and is the displacement and empirical expressions for = [ and \ [ depends upon
material properties and characteristics.
Four types of ground accelerations from 4 different earthquakes which are Petrolia (1992), Northridge
(1994), El Centro (1940), Loma Prieta(1989) have been applied to models of different cases to find response
of the models and to plot response envelope for acceleration and impact force of models. The peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of these ground motions varies from 0.22g to 0.883g.
Yield
Effective Effective Post yield Yielding
Link Type Mass Weight strength= slip
Stiffness* Damping stiffness ratio exponent
load
- (Kg) (KN) (KN/m) (=kl/n) (KN) - -
Plastic
429.32 4.2116 23772.853 0 700 0.0001 10
(Wen)
*Stiffness provided by damper brace system
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. (a) Plan view and (b) Elevation view of adjacent buildings, where floor levels are same, modeled in case I
4. NUMERICAL STUDIES
Global responses of buildings after pounding are given below in terms of acceleration for different cases
when buildings subjected to different ground motions.
BUILDING A
8
7 NORTHRIDGE (0.8g)
6
5 PETROLIA(0.6g)
Storey
4
3 ARRAY
2
1 Elcentro
0
-50 0 50 100 150
Acceleration
6 BUILDING B
5 NORTHRIDGE (0.8g)
4
PETROLIA(0.6g)
Storey
3
2 ARRAY
1 Elcentro
0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Acceleration
3
2 Y=7
1 Y=11.5
0
-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
Impact force
Figure 7 Response envelope of impact force of collisions between buildings during pounding for El Centro ground
motion.
Impact forces have been evaluated using gap elements, linking between adjacent buildings. These are
maximum at roof top of the building B i.e., building of lower height. Difference between the impact forces
at 1st floor and 2nd floor is very high. Impact forces at Y=3.5 and Y=7 are higher than impact forces at Y=0
and Y=11.5 plane of building throughout the whole length of the building B
Elcentro Array
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
E1 A1
2 2
E2 A2
1 1
0 0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 -2000 -1000 0
Impact Force (kN) Impact Force (kN)
(a) (b)
Petrolia Northridge
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
P1 N1
2 2
P2 N2
1 1
0 0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 -4000 -2000 0
Impact Force (kN) Impact Force (kN)
(c) (d)
Figure 8 Global responses of impact force between two buildings of two different cases when subjected to different
ground motions viz. (a) Elcentro, (b) Array, (c) Petrolia, (d) Norrthridge.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Global responses of adjacent structures in terms of acceleration, amplify in case of pounding between them
when they subjected to strong ground motion than in no-pounding case. For pounding mitigation, dampers
are very suitable and convenient technique to use over conventional methods.
It is observed that there are considerable reductions in impact forces due to installation of friction damper
in adjacent buildings which is highly promising for pounding mitigation
REFRENCES
[1] Anagnostopoulos, S. A., Spilliopoulos, K V (1992), An Investigation of earthquake induced ponding
between adjacent buildings, earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. Vol.21, No.4, and Pp.289-
302.
[2] Anagnostopoulos, S. A.,(1996), Building Pounding Re-examined : How Serious A problem is it? Paper
No. 2108, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1996.
[3] Arash Rezavani and A. S. Moghadam (2004), Using Shaking Table to Study Different Methods of
Reducing Effects of Building Pounding During Earthquake, 13th World Conference on earthquake
Engineering, paper No. 698, Canada.
[4] Bipin Shreshta (2013), Effects of Separation Distance and Nonlinearity on Pounding Response of
Adjacent Structures, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 3, No. 3.
[5] Chetan J. Chitte, Anand S. Jadhav, Hemraj R. Kumavat (2014), Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent
Building, IJRET; eISSN:2319-11631.
[6] Chenna Rajaram, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla (2012), Comparison of Codal Provisions on Pounding
between Adjacent Buildings, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, February 2012
P.P. 72-82.
[7] Gregory L. Cole, Rajesh P. Dhakal and Fred M. Turner, Building Pounding Damage Observed in the
2011 Christchurch earthquake, NZSEE Conference, 2010.
[8] IS 4326: 1993, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of
Buildings, New Delhi.
[9] IS 1893(part I): 2002, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, part I
General provisions and buildings, New Delhi.
[10] K. Kasai, V.Jeng, P. C. Patel and J.A. Munshi (1992), Seismic Pounding Effects Survey and Analysis,
ISBN 9054100605, Earthquake Engineering, 10th World Conference, Balkerna, Rosterdam, 1992.
[11] A. Malhotra et all, Friction dampers for seismic upgrade of St. Vincent Hospital, Ottawa, 13 WCEE,
Canada, 2004, Paper no.- 1952.
[12] S. S. Sanghai and S. N. Khante, Seismic Response of Unsymmetric Building with Optimally Placed
Friction Dampers. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 7288.
[13] A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh, Seismic Protection of RC Frames Using Friction Dampers. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 289299.
[14] A.K. Sinha and Sharad Singh (2017), Seismic protection of RC frames using friction dampers,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 289299.
[15] A.K. Sinha and Saket Kumar (2017), Effect of pounding on a global responses of buildings constructed
in a row, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 882890.