EVALUATION OF SEPERATION GAP BETWEEN

MULTISTOREY BUILDINGS SUBJECTED

TO DYNAMIC SEISMIC LOAD

Dr. G Sridevi1(0000-0002-5922-3132), Mr. Umesh Biradar 2*(0000-0003-0087-9433),

Mr. G Sudarshan 3(0000-0002-5129-5465) and , Mr. A Shivaraj 4(0000-0002-7437-1256)
1234
B V Raju Institute of Technology, Narsapur, India
sridevi.g@bvrit.ac.in
umesh.b@bvrit.ac.in
shivaraj.a@bvrit.ac.in
sudarshan.g@bvrit.ac.in

Abstract : During earthquake the structures are subjected to earthquake forces and
the adjacent structure may collide with each other due to different dynamic
characteristics. When building vibrates out of phase and separated gap between
buildings are not sufficient to accommodate their relative motions, this can cause
severe damage to the structures and it is known as seismic pounding. Many a times
maintaining sufficient pounding gap between adjacent buildings becomes difficult due
to site constraints. Present work evaluates the minimum separation gap required
between high-rise buildings. Two high-rise building of 10 storey and 15 storey are
modelled and analysed for dynamic time history analysis for the EI Centro ground
motions and minimum pounding gap between buildings has been discussed.

Keywords : Seismic Pounding, RC Building, ETABS, Time History Analysis.

1. Introduction

In recent years because of expanding population and land esteems, structures are
being built to close to each other. During a quake it is expected that, they will pound
against each other. This repeated collision activity is referred as seismic pounding.
Pounding of structures cause severe damage, as neighbouring structures with various
dynamic attributes vibrate out of phase and there is inadequate separation gap to
accommodate the relative movements of adjacent structures. This highly congested
construction system in the metropolitan cities is the major concern for the seismic
pounding. The most simple and viable method for controlling the issue and diminish
the harm caused by it is to give enough separation gap between the adjacent structures
so as to make the structures safe against seismic pounding.

2. Literature

Shehata (2006) [1] examined structure pounding response and proper seismic hazard
dissipation technique. Three categories of recorded earthquake excitation are used for
input. The effect of impact is studied using linear and nonlinear contact force model
for different separation distances and compared with nominal model without pounding
consideration. And it is concluded that, an increasing gap width is likely to be
effective to minimize the effect of seismic pounding.

Mizam Dogan et.al (2009) [2] carried stress examinations on outline models for various
effect focuses and investigation on pounding. It is concluded that pounding forces are
not totally absorbable on account of their high esteems but rather their consequences for
structure can be decreased by setting versatile materials between adjacent structures or
by strengthening basic frameworks.
Pushover is a static nonlinear analysis method to estimate seismic structural
deformations. It gives force displacement relationship of a structure or structural
element. Horizontal load is applied in a specified pattern in increments and for a given
applied shear force, associated displacement is found until it reaches its maximum
capacity of deformation. As the storey drift increases the columns are subjected to
additional moment leading to the failure of the structure. A B Kawade et.al [3] studied
the minimum gap to be provided between the adjacent buildings using push over
analysis. Response spectrum analysis was carried out by taking the data of EI Centro
earthquake on different models. The results indicated that the acceleration and shear
force produced because of pounding varies with the storey height and peak storey drift
depends on the ground excitation characteristics. The effect of pounding is observed to
be more predominate when floor levels of adjacent building are different constructing
separate buildings with equal floor heights is one of viable solutions to prevent seismic
structural pounding. It was also observed that the separation distance to be maintained
increases with the increase in peak ground acceleration values.

Jeng-Hsiang Lin et.al (2002) [4] investigated the probability of building affected by
seismic pounding in Taipei metropolitan area. The buildings with extremely close
proximity, pounding force is generated when the building collide each other under the
influence of strong ground motions. This becomes more significant when the two
structures have different geometry, size, height of floors and period of oscillation. The
building code (TBC’97) adopted to design the building provides poor estimate of
pounding distance for all the cases investigated in the study.

3. Motivation and Objectives of Study

 To study the dynamic behaviour of tall structures.

 To evaluate seismic pounding effect of adjacent buildings with consideration of
vertical geometrical irregularity.
 To study the influence of shear walls on seismic pounding effect.

4. Model Description

In present study total 3 models have been modelled to evaluate dynamic behaviour of high
rise buildings by considering vertical geometrical irregularities. Fig 1, Fig 2 and Fig 3
represent the building models in ETABS software.

Model 1 : A Plan which consists adjacent multi storey buildings one is 10 Storey and the
other one is 15 Storey with a separation of 100 mm with Masonry infill walls.

Model 2 : A Plan which consists adjacent multi storey buildings one is 10 Storey and the
other one is 15 Storey with a separation of 100 mm in this particular model all infill walls
are modelled and designed as shear walls.

Model 3 : A Plan which consists adjacent multi storey buildings one is 10 Storey and the
other one is 15 Storey with a minimum separation of 540 mm.
Fig 1 : Plan View of the Buildings

Fig 2 : Isometric View of ETABS Model

Fig 3 : Elevation of ETABS Model

5. Methodology
The principle objective is to evaluate the effects of seismic pounding between two
closely spaced multi-storey buildings, to understand the minimum seismic gap between the
buildings. Models were developed to study the response of buildings under pounding
during EI Centro earthquake.
In order to observe pounding effect between adjacent buildings, two RC buildings of
10 and 15 storey are considered. Both buildings have been modelled and analysed in
ETABS 2015 software. Based on the results obtained from analysis, the clear separation
distance is adopted. All the 3 models have been analysed for nonlinear time history analysis
to study dynamic behaviour of buildings.
In Time History Analysis, the ground motion records are given as input. The time
history analysis has the ability to perform linear as well as non linear analysis. The ability
of this method to account for bidirectional effects by applying three components of ground
motion enables in predicting the response more precisely. In the Linear analysis, it is
assumed that the displacement of whole structure does not exceed elastic limit under the
application of design forces. In the instances where the structure deforms more than elastic
limit, non linearity of the structure in terms of geometry or material are to be considered. In
the present study, maximum displacements of the different storeys have been discussed
with reference to behaviour of Mode Shape - I and Mode Shape - II.
As per IS code IS 4326 of Bureau of Indian Standards, a Separation distance should
invariably be provided between buildings to avoid collision during an earthquake. The IS
code provisions are mentioned in following Fig 4.
The seismic parameters that are considered are given in Table 1 and material
properties adopted are presented in Table 2. The section details of the structural members
are given in Table 3.

Fig 4 : Gap width for adjoining structure as per IS 4326

 Table 1 : Seismic Parameters
Soil Type Medium
Response Reduction Factor, R 5
Importance Factor, I 1.5
Zone IV

Table 2 : Material Properties

Concrete cube strength, fck 30 N/mm2 (M30)
Characteristics strength of reinforcing steel, fy 415N/mm2(Fe 415)
Modulus of elasticity of concrete, E 29.5 kN/mm2

Unit weight of concrete 25 kN/m3

Table 3 : Sectional Properties

Name of the Element Size in mm
Beam 1 300 * 400
Beam 2 300 * 500
Beam 3 350 * 600
Column 1 300 * 300
Column 2 300 * 400
Column 3 300 * 500
Column 4 300 * 600
Column 5 300 * 700
Slabs 125
Exterior walls,w1 300
Interior walls,w2 230

6. Results and Discussions

Dynamic Time History Analysis of considered models is performed in ETABS Software.

EI Centro Ground Motions were considered as Input Data for Analysis. Effect of Pounding
is studied with reference to storey displacement. Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 show the
storey displacement in both X and Y directions of Model 1, Model 2 and model 3
respectively. The variation of Storey Displacement with Storey Height graph is plotted to
understand the dynamic behaviour of Structure and are given in Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig.7 for
the Model1, Model 2 and Model 3 respectively.

Present work enlightens on minimum separation gap between buildings to avoid

damages caused due to the seismic pounding. This emphasizes the need to understand the
importance of building bye laws.
Storey displacement in X and Y directions of model 1, model 2 and model 3 are presented
in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.
 Table 4 : Storey Displacement in mm for Model 1

Storey X Direction Y Direction

15 23.294 12.809
14 22.879 11.379
13 22.498 10.876
12 21.388 12.379
11 20.855 15.676
10 19.708 13.974
9 18.077 13.895
8 225.212 14.022
7 294.703 14.526
6 356.699 11.977
5 416.348 29.392
4 476.678 31.88
3 529.883 30.461
2 29.44 20.705
1 6.581 6.386

Storey Displacement for Model 1

16
14
X Direction
12
No. of Storey

Y Direction
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Displacement in mm

Fig 5 : Storey Displacement Curve for Model 1

 Table 5 : Storey Displacement in mm for Model 2

Storey X Direction Y Direction

15 661.517 10.741
14 607.251 11.316
13 534.617 9.315
12 477.381 8.397
11 417.274 5.676
10 335.173 3.974
9 282.693 3.895
8 218.212 3.148
7 2.871 1.492
6 14.731 5.838
5 5.351 5.727
4 3.261 5.428
3 12.039 5.734
2 0.664 2.741
1 0.16 1.019

Storey Displacement for Model 2

16
X Direction
14
Y Direction
12
No. of Storey

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 200 400 600 800
Displacement in mm

Fig 6 : Storey Displacement Curve for Model 2

 Table 6 : Storey Displacement in mm for Model 3

Storey X Direction Y Direction

15 23.294 12.809
14 22.879 11.379
13 22.498 10.876
12 21.388 12.379
11 20.855 15.676
10 19.708 13.974
9 18.077 13.895
8 225.212 14.022
7 294.703 14.526
6 356.699 11.977
5 416.348 29.392
4 476.678 31.881
3 529.883 30.461
2 29.44 20.705
1 6.581 6.386

Storey Displacement for Model 3

16
14 X Direction
12 Y Direction
No. of Storey

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Displacement in mm

Fig 7 : Storey Displacement Curve for Model 3

7. Conclusions

1. Stiffness of building has a great influence on displacements in respective

directions.
2. In Model - I separation gap between adjacent buildings are 100 mm.
Displacement observed was 509.883 mm in X direction and 31.881 mm in Y
direction.
3. When masonry walls are replaced with shear wall, lateral displacement reduced in
considerable amount to 36.74 % and 80.8 % in X and Y direction respectively.
4. Effect of pounding can be reduced by providing safe separation gap. From the
result of Model - I it can be conclude that minimum safe separation gap between
building is 540 mm.
5. Stiffness of building can be enhanced by adopting shear wall to reduce the
pounding effect.

References

1. Shehata E. Abdel Raheem, (2014) Mitigation measures for earthquake induced

pounding effects on seismic performance of adjacent buildings, Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, August 2014, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 1705–172.
2. Mizam Dogan and Ayten Gunaydin, (2009) “Pounding of Adjacent RC Buildings
During Seismic Loads”, Journal of Engineering and Architecture, Vol: XXII, No:
1.
3. A.B. Kawade , Mr. Abhijeet A. Sahane “Seismic pounding effect in building”
Amrutvahini college of engineering, Sangamner.
4. Jeng-Hsiang Lin, Cheng-Chiang Weng, (2002) “A Study on Seismic Pounding
Probability of Buildings In Taipei Metropolitan Area”, Journal of the Chinese
Institute of Engineers, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 123-135.