Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering (2024) 31:4269–4304

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-024-10114-6

REVIEW ARTICLE

Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent

Buildings and Available Mitigation Measures
Ahmed Elgammal1 · Ayman Seleemah2 · Mohammed Elsharkawy2 · Hytham Elwardany1

Received: 1 December 2023 / Accepted: 20 March 2024 / Published online: 30 April 2024
© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Seismic pounding has taken place in several earthquake events since adjacent structures that lack adequate separation distance
usually suffer from repetitive, severe collisions. These collisions result in considerable impact forces in addition to accelera-
tion spikes, thus dealing damage to both structural and non-structural elements. So, a meaningful effort has been widely
directed towards the investigation of that phenomenon, leading to a considerable number of publications that are related to
that field of study. A review of these publications has thus become a matter of interest. Accordingly, this paper mainly aims
to present a detailed state-of-the-art review concerned with seismic pounding between adjacent buildings. Firstly, general
definitions, types, and causes of seismic pounding are addressed. Later, facts and statistics of historical earthquake incidents
that reflect the scale of the threat caused by seismic pounding are clarified. Moreover, the effect of seismic pounding on
fixed-base and base-isolated buildings is discussed. Furthermore, the effect of soil-structure interaction is also presented.
Additionally, alternative mitigation methods for seismic pounding are presented. Their classification, types, efficiency, and
applicability are also discussed. Eventually, different impact analytical models that can be used to simulate seismic pound-
ing in theoretical studies are discussed. By the end of this paper, deficiencies in previous studies are clarified in order to be
taken into account throughout future studies.

1 Introduction architectural considerations. This leads to seismic pounding.

Small to null gap sizes increase the chances of interference
Seismic pounding (also known as earthquake-induced between adjacent buildings during ground excitations. Con-
pounding) is a phenomenon that occurs as a result of colli- sequently, these interactions result in high impact forces with
sions between adjacent buildings with insufficient gap dis- short-duration acceleration pulses, known as spikes, on each
tances. In detail, the sudden transition of the ground beneath structure. The problem that arises herein is that neither these
structures causes them to vibrate. However, structures do not forces nor accelerations were taken into account during the
freely vibrate since, in most cases, particularly in metropoli- structural design process. In other words, each structure has
tan cities, they are closely spaced because of financial and been individually designed to resist both gravity and lateral
loads, including earthquake loads, without paying attention
to the pounding scenario. Accordingly, improperly designed
* Ahmed Elgammal
ahmed.elgammal@deltauniv.edu.eg adjacent structures vulnerable to pounding commonly suffer
from both local and global damages.
Ayman Seleemah
seleemah@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg During earthquakes, adjacent structures may either
exhibit in-phase vibrations (Fig. 1a) or out-of-phase vibra-
Mohammed Elsharkawy
mohamed.elsharkawy1@f-eng.tanta.edu.eg tions (Fig. 1b). The latter is the general case since it is com-
mon for structures to have different dynamic properties such
Hytham Elwardany
drhythamelwardany@yahoo.com as fundamental period, lateral stiffness, damping ratio, etc.
In overall, seismic pounding is amplified in the case of out-
1
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, of-phase vibrations [1–3].
Delta University for Science and Technology, It is worth pointing out that seismic pounding does
Gamasa 11152, Egypt
not exclusively occur between adjacent buildings; it can
2
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, also take place on bridges. [4]. As is custom, bridges are
Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt

Vol.:(0123456789)
4270 A. Elgammal et al.

Fig. 1  Seismic vibration

response of adjacent structures

commonly provided with expansion joints to overcome ther- Cole et al. [5] indicated that several scenarios can accom-
mal change effects. Therefore, the whole bridge is divided pany the aforementioned types of pounding. For instance,
into several segments that are located at certain distances, a heavier building may collide with a lighter building
usually within a few centimetres, apart from each other. Dur- (Fig. 3a), or a taller building may collide with a shorter
ing earthquakes, collisions may occur between the decks in building (Fig. 3b). Moreover, they also demonstrated that
each segment or between the decks and the adjacent abut- colliding buildings are not always ideally aligned with each
ment. Nevertheless, seismic bounding between adjacent other, causing translational (symmetric) pounding (Fig. 3c),
bridge segments is out of the scope of this paper. but they may be eccentrically positioned, resulting in a
Due to the risk and serious consequences that come with particular type of pounding called torsional (asymmetric)
seismic pounding, numerous research papers and books have pounding, as depicted in Fig. 3d. As elucidated by Karayan-
been published considering this issue. In light of this, the nis and Naoum [6, 7], buildings subject to seismic vibrations
current review article aims to comprehensively highlight and and asymmetric restraints due to neighbouring structures
discuss the historical incidents in which seismic pounding often experience torsional oscillations. This particular phe-
was involved and provide a critical overview of the studies nomenon represents torsional (asymmetric) pounding. It
found in the literature related to that field. usually occurs in densely populated urban centres, where it
is typical to find large blocks comprising multistorey build-
ings closely situated to one another. It is noteworthy that
2 Types of Seismic Pounding Between the ownership and geometric layout of land within these
Adjacent Buildings blocks vary. Consequently, it is highly probable that adja-
cent structural systems within a block come into partial and
There exist two main types of seismic pounding. Typically, asymmetric contact. That phenomenon can also take place
slab-to-slab (floor-to-floor) pounding or slab-to-column in non-uniform shaped buildings such as L-plan buildings
(floor-to-column) pounding, as illustrated in Fig. 2. In the (Fig. 3d), which are particularly problematic. Owing to the
first one, the colliding buildings have equal storey heights. pronounced disparity in lateral stiffness along their two axes,
Thus, slabs of each building crash into one another. On the these buildings tend to sway differentially during seismic
other hand, corresponding stories in each building in the events. This discrepancy often results in structural dam-
case of slab-to-column pounding vary in height. Conse- age or complete failure, especially at the common corner
quently, the collision herein occurs between the slab of one juncture, under severe earthquake conditions. To address
building and the column of the other one. For sure the latter this issue, L-plan buildings are sometimes constructed as
case is more dangerous since the columns are subjected to two distinct entities in contact, thereby eliminating the con-
high shear forces somewhere through their height [1]. figuration problem. However, this leads to the occurrence

Fig. 2  Types of seismic pound-

ing
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4271

Fig. 3  Scenarios of seismic

pounding

of torsional (asymmetric) pounding. It is also noted that external stair tower of Olive View Hospital emphasised that
seismic oscillations induced by earthquakes in adjacent since it fully collapsed [11].
structural subsystems of a building complex can frequently The largest ever damage in history, caused by seismic
induce torsional oscillations in one another due to torsional pounding, dates back to 1985, when the Mexico earthquake
(asymmetric pounding) [8]. The last scenario of the seismic took place. In 15% of fully and partially collapsed buildings,
pounding is the external building pounding (Fig. 3e). seismic pounding was found to be involved [1, 12–15]. The
estimated number of people killed was about 10,000, while
50,000 were injured and 250,000 became homeless [2].
3 Historical Incidents, Facts, and Statistics Moreover, 40% of inspected buildings that were damaged
during the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 were found to be
Several field observation studies have been carried out pre- affected by seismic pounding [16].
viously to evaluate the damage that adjacent buildings have Several buildings were also affected by seismic pounding
suffered because of pounding. The most common factor during the Chi-Chi earthquake in 1999. These effects were
among these previous studies is that the adjacent buildings more obvious in school buildings, which had expansions
did not have sufficient separation distance. As an example, through building new adjacent ones. Surely, these adjacent
Doğan and Günaydin [9] reported that around only 36% of buildings differed in their dynamic properties. Thus, they
adjacent buildings in Eskişehir, Turkey, were provided with experienced an out-of-phase response. As a result of this,
adequate gap distance. around 2500 people were killed, whereas more than 53,000
Looking back, the vulnerability of adjacent buildings to buildings were subjected to damage [17].
pounding was first observed during the Alaska earthquake The city of Bhuj suffered catastrophic destruction in
in 1964 [10]. Afterward, the damage resulting from seismic 2001 due to a major earthquake claiming approximately
pounding has been seriously taken into design consideration. 20,000 lives, with 350 children perishing under the rubble
After the San Fernando earthquake in 1971, it was noted that of collapsed school buildings. Post-inspection data revealed
the buildings located at the end of a row of buildings were moderate damage in a significant number of school build-
the most vulnerable to seismic pounding; the collapse of the ings, while approximately 4–5% sustained severe damage.
4272 A. Elgammal et al.

These observations suggest various structural failures were heights, exhibited fragile behaviour. Of course, this threat-
responsible, with pounding identified as a key contribut- ened the integrity of the affected buildings. In that earth-
ing factor [18]. Combined survey and investigative efforts quake, pounding damage either took place in beams, col-
demonstrated widespread infill wall damage, column shear umns, or masonry walls.
failures, and a potential for pounding-induced collapse in Consequently, it is realised that seismic pounding damage
numerous closely spaced buildings [19]. Moreover, bridges that affected adjacent buildings ranged from local damage
experienced pounding-related damage alongside build- in non-structural elements (such as masonry walls) up to
ings, as they underwent failure of girder ends and damage extreme damage (such as column shear failure or complete
to bearings due to pounding between adjacent spans [20]. collapse). For that, seismic pounding is considered to be of
In addition, dislodgement of a significant portion of steel great importance. It should also be considered in the design
bearings at pier supports caused by the seismic pounding at process of adjacent buildings to avoid such damage.
deck joints was observed, which led to severe spalling of the
concrete coating and cover, particularly around joints [21].
Eccentric pounding, previously discussed in Sect. 2, was 4 Response of Adjacent Buildings Exposed
observed in the Kaliningrad earthquake in 2004. The build- to Seismic Pounding
ings that experienced that type of pounding displayed plaster
spalling because of the large torsion strains that developed Numerous investigations in the literature have been involved
throughout the contact region [22]. with the effect of seismic pounding on the response of adja-
Distinctive seismic pounding types and scenarios between cent buildings. In addition, several studies have examined
adjacent buildings were also noted in the Wenchuan earth- how the dynamic properties of the buildings (such as number
quake of 2008 [23]; this includes slab-to-column pounding, of storeys, mass, total height, etc.) influence the response of
pounding between taller and shorter buildings, and end- adjacent buildings subjected to seismic pounding (in terms
building pounding. of storey acceleration, storey displacement, inter-storey drift,
After the 2010 Darfield earthquake, most of the build- impact force, etc.). Those investigations can be classified
ings in Christchurch Central Business District suffered only into three main categories or aspects. The first one includes
low damage because of pounding [24, 25]. However, few studies concerned with buildings having fixed bases; the sec-
masonry buildings underwent moderate to severe dam- ond one considers buildings equipped with base isolation
age. Additionally, it was obvious that most of the pounding systems; and finally, studies that take soil-structure interac-
damage was concentrated in vertical elements. Christchurch tion into consideration fall under the third category.
Central Business District was again struck by another earth-
quake in 2011 called the Christchurch earthquake [26, 27]. 4.1 Buildings with Fixed Bases
Out of 376 surveyed buildings, 6% were severely damaged.
22% of the surveyed buildings, as well, displayed some signs Anagnostopoulos [39], and Anagnostopoulos and Spiliopou-
of pounding damage. It was also detected that even low-rise los [40] numerically explored the effect of different param-
buildings (definitely masonry ones) suffered from pounding eters on seismic pounding. Single-degree-of-freedom sys-
damage. With respect to the buildings that had their separa- tems were utilised in the first research, whereas the second
tion gaps filled with solid architectural flashings, they were involved multi-degree-of-freedom systems. They detected
vulnerable to seismic pounding. that, in a row of adjacent buildings, the pounding-induced
In the Lorca 2011 earthquake, several structural and non- response of the interior buildings was amplified when the
structural elements experienced damage due to pounding ratio of their fundamental period to that of the adjacent
[28]. One of the most significant cases that caused shear ones was less than unity. However, this amplified response
failure of the columns was slab-to-column pounding. Struc- was still lower than that of the outer buildings. On the other
tural elements were not the only ones affected by seismic hand, if the prementioned ratio exceeded unity, the interior
pounding; exterior masonry walls also suffered from appar- buildings noticeably exhibited reduced response. Further-
ent damage. more, significant differences in masses and heights of adja-
Pounding damage was later detected in the Gorkha earth- cent buildings also led to an increase in inter-storey drift,
quake in 2015 [29–34]. Damage in adjacent buildings ranged storey acceleration, and impact force.
from low to severe. In addition, some closely spaced build- Likewise, Abdel Raheem [41, 42], conducted a numerical
ings almost completely collapsed because of the insufficient study on two single-degree-of-freedom adjacent buildings to
gap size. assess their response due to pounding. Similar to the work
More recently, seismic pounding was also reported to in [39, 40], the results emphasised that the large difference
take place in the Sivrice-Elazığ earthquake in 2020 [35–38]. in the fundamental periods of adjacent buildings amplified
Adjacent buildings, especially those having different storey the pounding-induced response. He also found that storey
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4273

acceleration, storey displacement, and storey shear were addition, found to have higher storey acceleration and storey
increased in the case of pounding. displacement compared to the heavier one. So, it may be
Elwardany et al. [43] carried out a similar study to inves- more vulnerable to damage.
tigate the seismic pounding between four adjacent buildings In addition, the numerical simulations of Inel et al. [50]
with different fundamental periods. They demonstrated that on inadequately separated buildings subjected to pounding
the arrangement of adjacent buildings notably affected the showed that they had a high demand for storey displacement.
pounding-induced response. For instance, the existence of Jankowski [51, 52] presented the concept of the pound-
flexible buildings at the outer edges of the cluster caused an ing force response spectrum in order to facilitate the design
increase in the pounding forces. This is consistent with the process for pounding-related issues. The pounding force
findings in Ref. [40]. response spectrum is similar to typical acceleration response
Otherwise, Maniatakis et al. [44, 45] selected the central spectra, which are commonly used in seismic design. So, it
church of the Kaisariani Monastery as a case study. This can be defined as a plot of the maximum impact force caused
church has been built in two different constructional phases; by seismic pounding in terms of the fundamental periods
in the first one, during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, of the colliding buildings. The generated response spectra
the main building of the church had been built; in the sec- did not only act as a useful tool for the design of closely
ond phase, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a spaced buildings, but they also provided helpful remarks
narthex and a chapel were built. Thus, it can be regarded as regarding the pounding-induced response of those buildings.
two adjacent buildings, rather than a single one. They found For instance, variations in the gap size, fundamental period,
that pounding seemed to be significant even though the two damping coefficient, mass, etc. were found to considerably
buildings nearly had equal fundamental periods. affect the pound-induced response of the buildings.
Rojas and Anderson [46] carried out a numerical case To evaluate the influential parameters on seismic pound-
study on a ten-storey office building existing in Los Angeles ing, Crozet et al. [53, 54] conducted a sensitivity analysis
and the four-storey parking building next to it. These build- on adjacent buildings based on Monte Carlo simulations.
ings experienced seismic pounding during the San Fernando It was noticed that the ratio of the frequencies of adjacent
earthquake of 1971. The results proved that the effect of buildings was the predominant parameter in determining the
pounding on storey displacement and storey shear vanished impact force.
after about four storeys. Moreover, pounding was found to The numerical work of Karayannis and Favvata [55, 56]
limit the maximum storey displacement of the office build- demonstrated that the columns located around the contact
ing as the parking building tended to restrain it from further region exhibited an extensive increase in ductility require-
translation beyond it. ments to the extent of exceeding existing ones. In the case
In the same manner, Efraimiadou et al. [47] numerically of slab-to-column pounding of two non-equal-height build-
studied the pounding-induced response of a row of buildings ings, they deduced that the ductility and shear requirements
with different arrangements and parameters. They compared of the columns of the taller building could be reduced if a
pounding and no-pounding cases in terms of maximum and significant difference in storey numbers exists. Alternative
residual inter-storey drift, as well as maximum storey accel- numerical investigations conducted also by Karayannis et al.
eration. Of course, pounding was found to seriously det- [57, 58] revealed that non-equal storey heights resulted in
riment the response of the buildings. Nevertheless, it was an excess of the shear requirement in the case of torsional
found beneficial in some buildings that had their inter-storey pounding.
drift dropped. The latter remark is consistent with the find- To further analyse the effect of slab-to-column pound-
ings in [46]. ing, Dogan et al. [9] carried out numerical investigations on
This led Sołtysik and Jankowski [48], based on their buildings with distinctive heights. They demonstrated that
numerical work, to conclude that although pounding raises pounding near the end of the column was better for build-
the storey displacement and storey acceleration of one of the ing safety than taking place in the column at mid-height.
colliding buildings, it may play a vital role in lowering the Rajaram and Kumar [59], as well, confirmed the same
response of the second one. observation.
Seismic pounding between adjacent 3-D buildings was The experimental work in [60] besides the numerical
numerically investigated by Jameel et al. [49]. They observed work in Ref. [61–67] showed that, overall, a flexible build-
that the pounding-induced response of the buildings was ing pounded with another stiff one would be vulnerable to
mainly affected in the pounding direction. In contrast, the response amplification. Meanwhile, the response of the
response in the transverse direction was mostly insignificant. stiff building is only slightly influenced. The rationale
They also demonstrated, like [46–48], that pounding may behind this is that impact forces transfer from the building
reduce storey displacement as adjacent buildings block each with high stiffness to the flexible one. The same remark
other from translation. The lighter-weight building was, in was also emphasised in the prior case studies carried out
4274 A. Elgammal et al.

by Jankowski [68, 69] and the subsequent case studies of Nazri et al. [82] studied the pounding-induced response
Maniatakis et al. [44, 45]. of adjacent buildings subjected to repeated earthquakes. The
Speaking of which, Jankowski [68, 69] pointed his analysed buildings were either regular or irregular in their
attention to numerically investigating the pounding elevation. They noticed that in the regular buildings under
between Olive View Hospital and its adjacent stairway consideration, the damage was significant at the bottom
towers, which had been discussed earlier in Sect. 3. He floors. Meanwhile, irregular buildings exhibited consider-
confirmed that care should be taken to properly design a able damage to the floors near the bottom and top of the
weaker building that is located beside a stiffer one since buildings.
seismic pounding could be destructive to the weaker Moreover, Jing et al. [83] numerically analysed the
building. responses of adjacent buildings, that one of them experi-
On the contrary, in some reported cases, the pounding- ence collapse first then they collide into each other. This
induced response of the stiff building could be amplified. At was achieved through the placement of weak columns in dif-
the same time, this stiff building might limit the response of ferent locations throughout the building. They noticed that
the adjacent flexible building [70–73]. the impact force was minimised if the weak column was in
To settle this, Dimitrakopoulos et al. [74, 75], in their the bottom storeys. The impact force increased if the weak
dimensional analysis of single-degree-of-freedom systems, column was placed in a higher storey. This was because it
clarified that building response amplification was dependent got near the collision.
on the frequency range of the acting ground motion. Spe- Based on the work of Folhento et al. [84], it was deduced
cifically, the flexible structure was vulnerable to response that in the case of a collision between a taller and a shorter
amplification in the case of low-frequency ground excita- building, the response of the taller building in the region
tions. In contrast, the stiff structure response was amplified located below the height of the shorter one was decreased.
if the acting ground excitation had a high frequency range. In order to study the effect of the material of colliding
Moreover, Changhai et al. [76] conducted a dimensional buildings on the overall response, Jankowski [60] experi-
analysis of multi-degree-of-freedom systems. They indicated mentally tested four cases for the pounding-induced response
that the pounding-induced displacement and velocity of the of two adjacent frames. Each pair of frames per case differs
flexible system were directly proportional to the mass ratio. in their material of construction. To clarify, the first case
Along the same lines, Chenna and Ramancharla [77] was involved with the pounding of steel-to-steel frames; the
performed numerical investigations on adjacent buildings second case was involved with the pounding of concrete-
with equal and unequal heights. They revealed that the stiff to-concrete frames; and the third case was involved with
building had its pounding-induced response amplified if both the pounding of timber-to-timber frames. Finally, the fourth
buildings had a frequency that was comparable to the domi- case involved the pounding of ceramic-to-ceramic pounding.
nant frequency of the ground excitation, regardless of the The results illustrated that steel frames had the highest peak
heights of the buildings. The response of the flexible build- displacement. It was then followed by concrete, ceramic, and
ing, on the other hand, became amplified if the frequency of timber, respectively. Also, Favvata et al. [85] numerically
it as well as the stiff building were not comparable to that of carried out a similar study in which they analysed the pound-
the ground excitation. ing between a reinforced concrete building and an adjacent
As shown before, like in the discussion of [74, 75], the steel one subjected to slab-to-column pounding. The results
seismic pounding process is not only dependent on the indicated that the columns subjected to the hit had increased
characteristics of the buildings but also on the properties shear and ductility demands.
of the earthquake [78]. Chitte et al. [79] numerically made Although masonry infill has usually been neglected in
a comparison between near-field and far-field earthquakes most numerical studies, Elwardany et al. [86, 87] proved
in terms of their induced pounding. As precited, near-field that taking masonry infill into account can reduce the pound-
excitations caused impact force, acceleration, base shear, ing effect compared to bare buildings. This was attributed
and storey displacement to rise significantly in comparison to the fact that higher vibration mode shapes are involved
with far-field excitations. in the case of seismic pounding. At the same time, these
However, based on the experimental tests of Fujii and mode shapes were characterised by high deformation of the
Sakai [80], the general trend of flexible and stiff buildings’ storeys. So, infilled panels were, for sure, subjected to lower
responses to pounding is dependent on their heights. So, a deformations because of their higher stiffness compared to
flexible or stiff building might have its response amplified or bare panels. This is contradictory to most simple buildings,
limited in accordance with the height of the adjacent stiff or for which only their first vibration mode shape is dominant
flexible building. This is also coincident with the results of in no-pounding cases. Ismail et al. [88], in their numeri-
Abdel Raheem et al. [81]. Accordingly, no general conclu- cal study, also found similar findings. They even indicated
sion can be obtained herein. that the contribution of masonry infills to the reduction of
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4275

seismic pounding could be exploited by adopting a smaller high-frequency phenomena. Initial defects were introduced
seismic gap. to simulate asymmetric pounding and it was observed that
Despite this, the columns of infilled frames subjected to eccentric pounding transient computation provided more
slab-to-column pounding still have their shear requirements precise acceleration spikes compared to symmetric pounding
exceeding the existing capacity [89]. In the same vein, the computation, which tended to overestimate response spectra
numerical results of Favvata and Karayannis [90] illustrated due to abrupt acceleration spikes. Notably, the explicit CD-
that these shear requirements might be large to the extent of Lagrange approach obviated the need for contact parameters,
surpassing those of bare frames. and the number of time steps employed did not compromise
This prompts to now delve into the discussion regard- the relevance of the results. The authors underscored the
ing pilotis. Pilotis, or open storeys, can exacerbate seismic significance of appropriately tuning the Rayleigh viscous
pounding between buildings due to their lower stiffness com- damping matrix to mitigate spurious frequencies.
pared to upper storeys. This stiffness mismatch can amplify The potential for torsional pounding in buildings with
collision forces, leading to increased damage in columns, asymmetrical configurations was also acknowledged in the
shear walls, and connections. In their numerical study, Man- work of Karayannis and Naoum [57, 58], Fiore et al. [93],
oukas and Karayannis [8] meticulously explored the seismic and Wei et al. [94] with emphasis placed on its ability to
interaction between reinforced concrete buildings, focusing exacerbate collisions and elevate demands on displacement,
notably on structures with open first storeys (pilotis) and shear, torsion, and ductility. Rajaram and Kumar [59] stud-
the impact of asymmetric pounding. They demonstrated ied the torsional pounding of two reinforced concrete build-
that pilotis configurations significantly amplified the over- ings, numerically, with different setback levels. They found
all structural response, particularly evident in floor rotations that the impact force was directly proportional to the setback
which could increase by up to almost ten times. Notably, level. Many other studies also dealt with torsional pounding
asymmetric pounding, both slab-to-slab and slab-to-column [57, 93–96]. They generally reported that torsional pounding
pounding, exacerbated torsional vibrations and induced results in an increase in collision numbers, storey displace-
shear failures in columns, even surpassing maximum shear ments, and shear and torsion requirements.
strength by significant margins. Their findings underscored A critical aspect of pounding analysis involves the metic-
the critical importance of considering these factors in seis- ulous simulation of the nonlinear behaviour exhibited by
mic design and retrofitting strategies. A prior investigation members within interacting structures. Of particular sig-
by the same authors [91] explored the significant influence nificance are beam-column joints, pivotal structural com-
of infill panels on how structures respond during earthquake- ponents that significantly influence the seismic response
induced pounding events. This study distinguished itself by of framed buildings and serve as points of impact between
examining the impact of pilotis configuration compared to them. For this reason, Karayannis et al. [97] investigated the
structures with fully infilled frames. Additionally, it inves- impact of exterior joint capacity degradation on the failure
tigated the influence of the direction of seismic excitation mechanisms of reinforced concrete buildings. Employing a
on structural response, particularly regarding the shear specialised rotational spring element with a tailored behav-
behaviour of columns subjected to collisions. Furthermore, iour model, the study assessed the influence of exterior joint
Karayannis and Naoum [6] studied seismic-induced inter- damage on the seismic behaviour of bare and infilled framed
action between adjacent reinforced concrete buildings, buildings, including infilled frames without infills at the base
focusing on asymmetric pounding, where one building was storey (pilotis frame). It was demonstrated that neglecting
taller and symmetric while the other was shorter and asym- the local damage of exterior joints could yield erroneous
metric. They found that this interaction induced significant conclusions and compromise safety in design and seismic
torsional oscillations, especially as the height of the shorter evaluations. Notably, they emphasised that the degradation
structure increased. The severity of pounding was influ- of exterior joints significantly affects the behaviour of pilo-
enced by the period of the adjacent structure, with stiffer tis frames, which underscored the importance of consider-
adjacent structures inducing higher torsional moments. This ing the response of exterior beam-column joints in under-
asymmetric pounding led to high shear forces in columns, standing failure mechanisms and ensuring structural safety.
altering ductility requirements, particularly increasing the Favvata et al. [98] studied the seismic-induced interaction
demands on columns experiencing high displacement due between multistorey buildings with unequal storey heights,
to rotational movement. Moreover, Ambiel et al. [92] con- focusing on interstorey pounding while considering the
ducted a study focusing on earthquake-induced pounding local response of exterior beam-column joints. The results
within the framework of safety-related devices in nuclear revealed that while the local inelastic response of exterior
plants. They demonstrated the effectiveness of the explicit joints could sometimes benefit the seismic behaviour of the
CD-Lagrange scheme, a computational method grounded impacted column, it generally led to increased demands
in non-smooth contact dynamics, in accurately capturing for joint deformation and severe damages due to pounding.
4276 A. Elgammal et al.

Moreover, the presence of masonry infill panels emerged as et al. [78] revealed that the cracking of reinforced concrete
a crucial factor influencing the response of exterior beam- cross-sections considerably influenced the pounding forces.
column joints and the overall safety of the building. How- So, cross-sections should be modelled with an effective
ever, despite the presence of infills, excessive demands for moment of inertia in lieu of a gross moment of inertia.
shear and ductility of the impacted column persisted in all Mouzakis and Papadrakakis [78] studied the effect of fric-
examined interstorey pounding cases, indicating the need for tion forces that are induced during impact, despite the fact
further mitigation measures. that this latter did not receive much attention in previous
The damage index serves as a crucial metric and common investigations. They concluded that the effect of friction
method for assessing the structural integrity of buildings forces on the flexible building was significant, whereas it
following seismic events. It provides a quantitative measure was negligible for the stiff building. Additionally, Mania-
of the extent and severity of damage incurred by structural takis et al. [44, 45] demonstrated that response spectrum
elements. So, it offers valuable insights into the structural analysis is conservative for seismic pounding simulations.
performance and vulnerability of buildings [99]. Therefore, Consequently, nonlinear time history analysis should be
Jeng and Tzeng [100], based on a field survey, determined used instead. Neglecting the P-delta effect was also found
damage indices for existing buildings in Taipei City and used to underestimate the pounding-induced forces, according to
them to classify the damage level of the buildings located Kazemi et al. [105] and Mohebi et al. [106].
there. Hosseini et al. [101] conducted a study on nonlinear While previous studies predominantly relied on time-his-
damage detection in adjacent reinforced concrete buildings tory analysis to evaluate building response during seismic
considering seismic pounding effects using three different pounding, a recent shift has seen the adoption of fragility
damage indices. The results indicated that pounding between analysis as a complementary and powerful tool. Unlike the
the buildings led to the occurrence of nonlinear damage at detailed, event-specific nature of time-history analysis, fra-
lower seismic intensities. Increasing the separation distance gility analysis takes a probabilistic approach. It estimates
generally decreased the damage index, while shorter build- the likelihood of a building exceeding a pre-defined dam-
ings experienced more significant damage due to pounding, age state given a specific level of seismic excitation. This
with higher values of damage indices observed in shorter shift from deterministic assessment to probabilistic evalua-
buildings with smaller fundamental periods. Yang et al. tion offers several advantages. Firstly, it acknowledges the
[102] determined that the extent of damage from pounding inherent uncertainties in both ground motion and structural
does not diminish entirely as the separation distance between behaviour. Secondly, it allows for the development of fragil-
buildings increases. This conclusion was drawn from their ity curves, which visually depict the relationship between
examination of the variations in the damage index of a cer- seismic intensity and damage probability. These curves serve
tain beam-column element within the buildings. as valuable tools for decision-making, enabling engineers
In almost all studies, earthquake components are applied to assess the vulnerability of buildings across a range of
to buildings in orthogonal directions that are either paral- potential seismic scenarios and prioritize mitigation efforts
lel or perpendicular to their sides. Nonetheless, Polycarpou accordingly. In essence, fragility analysis provides a more
et al. [103] followed another way by numerically studying comprehensive and nuanced understanding of building per-
the effect of the ground motion orientation angle on the formance under seismic pounding, moving beyond single-
pounding-induced response of adjacent buildings. They event simulations to assess the overall resilience of struc-
emphasised that the arbitrary direction of the earthquake tures to earthquake threats.
should be considered in pounding-related simulations as it Sinha and Rao [107] recently investigated methodolo-
may result in a four-fold greater response. Unfortunately, the gies for developing fragility curves to assess the seismic
angle wherein the response was maximally amplified was performance of adjacent reinforced concrete buildings expe-
not always constant; it was dependent on the properties of riencing structural pounding. Their study focused on dis-
the building as well as the ground motion. placement-based fragility curves for critical slab-to-column
Moreover, most studies in the literature dealt with the interactions between an eight-storey frame and a three-storey
horizontal components of the earthquake. But Hatzigeorgiou frame with varying storey heights. The fragility curves were
and Pnevmatikos [104] numerically examined the effect of generated using multiple approaches, with the High Dimen-
the vertical component on the seismic pounding of adjacent sional Model Representation method emerging as highly
buildings. The vertical component was reported to have a suitable due to its consistent accuracy and remarkable com-
minor effect on the global response of colliding buildings. In putational efficiency compared to standard approaches. This
contrast, it meaningfully affected the local damage to struc- method is recommended for accurate fragility curve gen-
tural members. eration and the subsequent estimation of pounding risks in
Also, distinctive studies considered other parameters that adjacent reinforced concrete buildings. Flenga and Favvata
might affect seismic pounding. For instance, Abdel-Mooty [108] carried out a similar study considering five different
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4277

methodologies for constructing fragility curves. The study indicated that variations in earthquake magnitude and dis-
revealed discrepancies among methods. tance to rupture led to shifts in fragility curves, impacting
Adjacent six- and nine-storey moment-resisting steel the likelihood of exceeding performance levels, especially
frames were numerically analysed by Yazdanpanah et al. with the distance to rupture.
[109] to implement different approaches for fragility curves Ebrahimiyan et al. [114] focused on the seismic pound-
development. It was demonstrated that that fragility curves ing effects of neighbouring reinforced concrete buildings
obtained via the methods that consider contribution of higher with series arrangements and different heights (number of
modes, exhibited lower damage probabilities and greater storeys). Comparing results to single building analyses,
efficiency compared to the estimated fragility curves based they found that the series arrangement significantly affected
solely on the approaches that considered only the period of collapse capacity. Moreover, the fragility analysis showed
the first mode. Additionally, owing to the pounding phenom- improved performance levels for certain configurations,
enon, the six-storey moment-resisting frame experienced a particularly in arrangements with ascending height order,
higher likelihood of damage. while reduced performance levels were evident when shorter
Liu et al. [110] proposed a reliability-based method for buildings were between taller ones. They noted that even
assessing seismic pounding fragility and risk of nonlinear when allowable separation distances were considered, the
adjacent buildings using subset simulation. The method was impact of arrangement on performance remained significant.
tested on multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings with
varying storey heights and separation distances, compared
to an incremental dynamic analysis-based method. The 4.2 Buildings with Base Isolation Systems
study found that slab-to-column pounding cases generally
had higher fragility than slab-to-slab cases, which agrees To protect structures from earthquake ground motions, sev-
with the findings of Mohamed and Romão [111] who attrib- eral resisting methods have been proposed in past research.
uted this to the shear failure that occurs in the columns. For One of these methods represents the installation of a base
larger separation distances, the incremental dynamic analy- isolation system between the superstructure and the founda-
sis-based method yielded larger fragility estimates than the tions [115], as shown in Fig. 4a. Since the superstructure
subset simulation-based method. However, for small sepa- becomes isolated from its foundation, its fundamental period
ration distances, the difference between the fragility curves is increased. This causes a drop in the spectral accelera-
was minor. It was therefore suggested that the larger fragil- tion in accordance with a typical response spectrum (see
ity estimate of the two methods could be used for practical Fig. 4b). Therefore, a base-isolated building is subjected
purposes. to lower interstorey drifts and storey shear despite experi-
Bantilas et al. [112] used fragility analysis to investi- encing large displacements at the isolation level. However,
gate the impact of pounding on the seismic behaviour of these large displacements at the isolation level may lead to
multi-storey reinforced concrete buildings. It was indicated seismic pounding between the base-isolated building and its
that pounding led to higher seismic demands, particularly surroundings. These surroundings might be another base-
with taller adjacent buildings, smaller separation gaps, and isolated building, a fixed-base building, or a moat wall [116].
stronger ground motions. Based on the numerical studies in Refs. [117–119], iso-
Flenga and Favvata [113] investigated the influence of lated buildings exposed to pounding with moat walls expe-
earthquake magnitude and distance to rupture on the fra- rienced an increase in their acceleration, interstorey drift,
gility assessment of an eight-story reinforced concrete and base shear. Each of these response parameters was found
frame experiencing slab-to-slab structural pounding. They to be sensitive to the flexibility of the isolation system. As

Fig. 4  Base isolation system for

a typical building
Spectral acceleration

Fundamental period

(a) base-isolated building (b) typical response spectrum

4278 A. Elgammal et al.

the isolation system got more flexible, these parameters the shear requirement was amplified because of the slab-to-
increased. column pounding.
The experimental results of Masroor and Mosqueda [120] The numerical investigation of Uz and Hadi [130] pre-
also showed that impact forces were dependent on the stiff- sented an evaluation of the pounding-induced response of
ness of the moat wall into which the base-isolated building two isolated buildings with different weights. They reported
collide. It was, as well, deduced by Bao and Becker [121], that the response of the lighter building was considerably
based on their numerical study, that a stiff isolated build- influenced compared to the heavier one. This may cause per-
ing pounded with a moat wall had higher impact forces and manent deformation of that lighter building even after the
ductility requirements compared to a corresponding flexible excitation comes to an end.
isolated building. To compare distinctive base isolation systems, Liu et al.
To evaluate the effect of seismic pounding location on [131] studied the pounding of buildings with lead rubber
the response of isolated buildings, Polycarpou et al. [122] bearing isolators and friction pendulum isolators numeri-
carried out a numerical study on two cases as follows: (a) cally. They indicated that friction pendulum isolators caused
a building without a basement in which pounding occurred a higher amplification of the pounding-induced response of
at its base, and (b) a building with a basement that was sub- the building compared to lead rubber bearing isolators.
jected to pounding at its base in addition to the first storey. The study conducted by Masroor and Mosqueda [132]
In each case, lead rubber bearings were adopted as a base used fragility analysis to examine the collapse probability of
isolation system. The second case yielded higher accelera- different base-isolated reinforced concrete moment-resisting
tion accompanied by lower displacement than the first. framed and concentrically braced framed buildings con-
The numerical work of Mavronicol et al. [123] concen- sidering pounding to moat wall. The results showed that,
trated on pounding between a building isolated with lami- in the absence of the moat wall, the concentrically braced
nated rubber bearings and moat walls. The orientation angle framed building had a more conservative collapse probabil-
of the ground motion was found to noticeably affect the ity in comparison to the moment-resisting framed building.
pounding-induced response of the building. Thus, it should However, considering moat walls in the collapse evaluation
be considered to appropriately select the adequate gap size. analysis changed these collapse margin ratios considerably.
More recently, Mavronicola et al. [124] also confirmed the
same observations for buildings with lead rubber bearings. 4.3 Buildings with Soil‑Structure Interaction
To clarify the difference between the pounding of isolated Considered
buildings with moat walls and with fixed-base buildings,
Polycarpou et al. [125–127] conducted a numerical study in Though all the studies discussed earlier have neglected the
which the isolated building was installed with rubber isola- effect of soil, several investigations have considered the
tors. It was thus seen that pounding an isolated building with effect of soil-structure interaction on seismic pounding. The
a moat wall was less dangerous than pounding a fixed-base reason behind this is that neglecting soil-structure interac-
building. This was because impact occurred at the isolation tion is only valid for rock soils. Other types of soils, par-
level only in the case of moat walls, while it occurred at the ticularly soft ones, notably influence the pounding-induced
isolation level as well as in storeys in fixed-base building response of buildings [133].
cases. On this basis, the required gap between an isolated Buildings are located on different soil strata that have
building and a moat wall was less than that between an iso- variable properties. So, they evidently alter the character-
lated building and a fixed-base building. istics of the ground motion that passes through the strata to
Mahmoud and Janowski [128] numerically examined reach the ground surface [134]. This, in turn, modifies the
the pounding-induced response of isolated and fixed-base seismic response of buildings. Accordingly, the interaction
buildings. The isolated buildings were installed with high- between the building and the soil beneath it should be taken
damping rubber bearings. They illustrated that if an isolated into account [135].
building collided with another isolated or fixed-base build- During earthquakes, the underlying soil moves into trans-
ing, the storey response of the isolated building would be lational motion. This, of course, causes the foundations of
nearly constant along its height. Meanwhile, the fixed-base the building to also translate; thus, demolishing the general
building had its storey response vary throughout its height. idea that buildings are restrained at base level. Consequently,
In the numerical work of Pant and Wijeyewickrema [129], the stiffness of the building is actually lower, in the case
the performance of an isolated building, a fixed-base build- of considering soil-structure interaction, than the original
ing, and a moat wall subjected to slab-to-column pound- assumption [136].
ing was assessed. The adopted base isolation system was Naserkhaki et al. [137] performed numerical analysis
the lead rubber bearing. It was noted that columns of the on the pounding-induced response of adjacent buildings,
buildings failed due to flexure rather than shear, even though considering soil-structure interaction. Impact forces were
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4279

reduced in the case of considering soil-structure interaction motion intensities. Conversely, buildings on firmer soil
compared to the fixed base assumption. Nevertheless, this exhibited significantly lower susceptibility, even under
corresponded to higher storey displacement, which required strong quakes. This trend held true across all studied sce-
a larger seismic gap. It was also found that the pounding narios, highlighting the critical role of soil type in pound-
process had a short duration and low magnitude if the col- ing vulnerability. In simpler terms, buildings founded on
liding buildings had comparable heights. Unless the collid- soft clay soil were most susceptible to pounding damage,
ing buildings had an insignificant difference in height, the followed by stiff soil, very dense soil/soft rock, and rock/
pounding process lasted for a longer duration. Moreover, hard rock.
seismic pounding was most critical in the case where the Furthermore, Shakya et al. [146] confirmed that near-fault
height of one building was half that of the adjacent building. earthquake ground motions were more influential than far-
These findings are consistent with those reported by Ghandil fault earthquake ground motions. This is compatible with
and Aldaikh [138], who also investigated the damage index other studies that have neglected soil-structure interaction
of adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interac- (see Sect. 4.1). The results indicated that considering soil-
tion and revealed that the damage index exhibits a greater structure interaction caused a decrease in storey displace-
sensitivity compared to conventional structural response ment and storey shear while causing an increase in storey
parameters to seismic events, underscoring its importance acceleration. This is consistent with the study conducted by
in structural assessment and analysis. Furthermore, the Mahmoud et al. [139]. On the other hand, the results of other
numerical simulations found in [138–141] illustrated that studies showed that the pounding-induced response of the
the response of flexible buildings was more sensitive to seis- buildings was amplified when soil-structure interaction was
mic pounding than stiff buildings if soil-structure interaction considered [137, 138, 147–150].
was considered. Elwardany et al. [151] took on a rarely addressed topic
Fatahi et al. [142] numerically tested seismic pounding of focusing on the effect of soil-structure interaction on seismic
adjacent buildings resting on piles. Thus, a particular form of pounding between steel buildings with or without masonry
soil-structure interaction, called soil-pile-structure interac- infills. It was demonstrated that considering soil-structure
tion, was considered. They recommended that the combined interaction increased the flexibility of buildings with or
effect of seismic pounding and soil-pile-structure interac- without masonry infills. For instance, omitting soil-structure
tion should be considered, in practice, upon the design of interaction in the case of buildings with masonry infills was
adjacent buildings, as it had an evident effect on the results. accompanied by no interference between the buildings, and
To study the effect of soil type on the response of build- no pounding-involved response was observed. Taking soil-
ings prone to seismic pounding, Miarai and Jankowski structure interaction into account altered this observation,
[143] conducted shaking table experimental tests on two resulting in seismic pounding and a significant increase in
adjacent steel buildings with different separation distances the pounding-induced response.
under the effect of different earthquakes that were scaled In general, these contradictory results may be a result
such that their response spectra match up with the response of soil type, as it affects the pounding-induced response of
spectra found in [144] for different soil types (hard rock, the buildings. Typically, utilising flexible soil results in an
rock, etc.). It was demonstrated that soil type significantly increase in storey displacement, whereas stiff soil leads to a
affected the response of the adjacent buildings. Neverthe- decrease in storey displacement [116].
less, the results for different soil types varied depending For base-isolated buildings, Mahmoud and Gutub [152]
on the scenario of pounding and ground motion. So, it was studied their response in the case of pounding with moat
concluded that there is no specific soil type that amplifies walls while considering soil-structure interaction. The base
the response of the buildings when seismic pounding takes isolation system adopted in the studied buildings was the
place. The same authors [145] also investigated the impact rubber bearings. They detected that considering soil-struc-
of soil type on three buildings with varying heights (4, 6, ture interaction led to an increase in storey displacement,
and 8 storeys) subjected to earthquake-induced pounding storey acceleration, and the number of collisions. Mean-
using incremental dynamic and fragility analyses. Differ- while, the isolated base was subjected to lower accelera-
ent soil types were incorporated as per [144] that ranged tion. Also, they reported that the response of the building
from hard rock to soft clay. It was revealed that while gen- increased for soft soils.
erally detrimental, pounding can sometimes mitigate dam- Recently, Naseri et al. [153] investigated a rarely
age under specific circumstances. In addition, the fragility addressed issue. It is, typically, the effect of the earthquake
analysis revealed a stark connection between soil type and ground motion duration on the seismic pounding of adjacent
the likelihood of damage. The softer the soil, the more buildings. Of course, soil-structure interaction was consid-
vulnerable the building was to exceed various performance ered. It was obviously seen that as the duration of the seismic
levels, with probabilities reaching 100% at higher ground action got longer, the impact forces increased. Moreover, the
4280 A. Elgammal et al.

models subjected to longer excitations were found to require extensively discussed alongside other formulae suggested
a wider seismic gap. in the literature.
To calculate the sufficient seismic gap using the absolute
sum of the peak displacements method, the following for-
5 Mitigation Measures mulas can be used:

As it has been seen throughout the previous sections, seis-

S = U1 + U2 (1)
mic pounding has a dangerous effect on adjacent buildings. where S denotes the required seismic gap, while U1 and U2
Thus, several mitigation techniques have been proposed in denote the seismic peak displacement of each building when
the literature to reduce this effect. These mitigation measures separately analysed.
mainly aim to limit impact forces, thus keeping the whole That previous formula has been used in numerous codes,
building relatively safe. Generally, mitigation measures can such as the UBC [155]. Nonetheless, since it is not likely
be classified into four categories, as follows: that both buildings reach their peak displacements at the
same time, this method is regarded as conservative; it over-
(a) Providing a sufficient seismic gap. predicts the seismic gap.
(b) Installation of impact-absorbing materials. Accordingly, the seismic gap was proposed by Anagnost-
(c) Installation of earthquake-resisting systems. opoulos [39] to be calculated based on the method of square
(d) Coupling of buildings. root of the sum of the squares of the peak displacements as
follows:
Discussions on each method of mitigation are introduced in √
the upcoming subsections. S = U1 2 + U2 2 (2)

5.1 Seismic Gap Distance This equation was widely adopted in later prints of the
UBC [155], FEMA 356 [156], EN 1998–1 [157], ECP 201
In fact, providing a sufficient seismic gap between adjacent [158], NBCC [159], ASCE/SEI 7–10 [160], and IBC [161],
buildings does not only mitigate seismic pounding; it com- due to its relatively better accuracy compared to Eq. (1).
pletely eliminates it. So, the seismic gap should be large Note that in EN 1998–1 [157], the terms U1 and U2 are taken
enough to account for the peak displacements of each build- as qdc , where q is the behaviour factor provided in [157],
ing. The results of Gong and Hao [71], and Jameel et al. [49] while dc is the storey displacement, as calculated through
revealed that enlarging the seismic gap did not have a major a linear analysis using the design response spectrum. EN
effect on pounding unless the buildings were adequately 1998–1 [157] also allows to reduce Eq. (2) by a 30% in the
separated. Nonetheless, this is contradictorily to the results case of slab-to-slab pounding. ECP 201 [158] typically fol-
reported by Kamel [154], and Abdel-Mooty et al. [78] who lows the same approach of EN 1998–1 [157] except for the
indicated that the pounding force and number of collisions terms U1 and U2 , as they are taken herein as 0.7 Rdc , where
are significantly sensitive to the change in the seismic gap R is the response modification factor reported in ECP 201
distance. In general, the results revealed that amplifying the [158]. Otherwise, ECP 201 [158], as well, permits to reduce
seismic gap distance by eightfolds caused average change Eq. (2) by 30% in the case of slab-to-slab pounding. On the
in the peak pounding force and number of hits by 32 and other hand, in ASCE/SEI 7–10 [160] and IBC [161], the
93%, respectively. This illustrates the high sensitivity of the terms U1 and U2 are replaced with the inelastic maximum
number of collision to the seismic gap distance compared to response displacements (UM,1 and UM,2 ) which can be cal-
the peak pounding force. culated for each building as the following:
Consequently, several studies have provided distinctive
formulas to predict the required seismic gap between adja- Cd Δmax,e
(3)
UM =
cent buildings. In addition, many seismic codes have dealt I
with the same topic. However, there are various techniques
where Cd , Δmax,e , and I represent deflection amplification
that can be adopted to determine the sufficient seismic gap.
factor, maximum elastic displacement, and importance fac-
The absolute sum of the peak displacements, the square root
tor, respectively.
of the sum of the squares of the peak displacements, and the
Yet, the numerical work of Pantelides and Ma [162], and
double difference method (complete quadratic combination
Kumar and Kumar [163] indicated that this technique was
method) all represent examples of seismic gap calculation
still conservative and somehow overpredicted the required
techniques. Table 1 summarises the formulae provided by
seismic gap. On the other hand, this technique became
several worldwide code of practice for seismic gap distance
unconservative, and it underpredicted the required seismic
calculations. Throughout this section, these formulae are
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4281

Table 1  Requirements of worldwide codes of practice for seismic gap distance

Code of practice Seismic gap distance Comments

Early prints of UBC [155] U1 + U2 It is improbable that both structures will experience
U : seismic peak displacement their maximum displacements simultaneously,
making this approach considered conservative as
it tends to overestimate the seismic gap distance
√
Later prints of UBC [155], FEMA This approach is conservative and somewhat tends
U1 2 + U2 2
356 [156], and NBCC [159] to overestimate the seismic gap distance
U : seismic peak displacement
√( )2 ( )2
EN 1998–1 [157] Seismic gap distance can be multiplied by a
q1 dc1 + q2 dc2
reduction factor of 0.7 in the case of slab-to-slab
q: behaviour factor, dc: storey displacement pounding
√( )2 ( )2
ECP 201 [158] Seismic gap distance can be multiplied by a
0.7R1 dc1 + 0.7R2 dc2
reduction factor of 0.7 in the case of slab-to-slab
R: Response modification factor pounding
√
ASCE/SEI 7–10 [160], and IBC [161] The seismic peak displacements (U1 and U2) are
UM,1 2 + UM,2 2
replaced with the inelastic maximum response
Cd Δmax,e
UM = I
, Cd : amplification factor, Δmax,e: elas-
displacements (UM,1 and UM,2)
tic displacement, I : importance factor
( )
Taiwan building code [172] 0.6 Δu1 + Δu2 This approach depends on the absolute sum of the
Δu = 1.4𝛼y RΔe, 𝛼y: amplification factor, R: allow- peak displacements method but the seismic gap
able ductility factor, Δe: elastic displacement distance is reduced herein by 40% as it is rare for
neighbouring buildings to experience their maxi-
mum displacements simultaneously
AS 1170.4 [173] 0.01Hmax This approach also suffered from being conservative
Hmax : the maximum of the adjacent buildings as it overpredicts the seismic gap
heights
( )
Iranian code [174] 0.05 h1 + h2 Relates the seismic gap distance to the buildings’
h: height of the building heights

gap if the adjacent buildings had different structural systems fundamental periods. Later, Lopez-Garcia and Soong
[164], or they were analysed in the near-collapse limit state [168] extended the study using different scenarios affect-
[165]. ing the accuracy of the double difference method. The
To predict seismic gap more accurately, Jeng et al. [166] observations were consistent with the findings in Refs.
developed the double difference method (also known as the [169–171].
complete quadratic combination), as shown in the following Shretha [175] made a comparison between the seismic
formula: gaps predicted by the absolute sum method, the square
√ root of the sum of the squares method, and the double
S = U1 2 + U2 2 − 2𝜌U1 U2 (4) difference method against the analytically predicted seis-
mic gap. It was demonstrated that the double difference
where 𝜌 is a factor that accounts for the uncertainties during method surpassed the absolute sum of the peak displace-
seismic pounding. It is determined as follows: ments method and the sum of the squares of the peak
√ � �� �1.5 displacements method in terms of seismic gap prediction
accuracy. Barbato and Tubaldi [176], as well, figured out
T T
8 𝜉1 𝜉2 𝜉2 + 𝜉1 T2 T2
similar findings.
1 1
𝜌= �
� �2 � 2 � � �2 �� � � �� T �2
T
1 − T2
T
+ 4𝜉1 𝜉2 1 + T2
T2
T
+ 4 𝜉1 2 + 𝜉2 2 T2 The method embedded in Taiwan building code [172],
which is dependent on the absolute sum of the peak dis-
1 1 1 1

(5)
placements method, takes inelastic deformations into
where 𝜉1 and 𝜉2 represent damping ratios of the buildings, account as follows:
whereas T1 and T2 are the fundamental periods of the build- ( )
ings (T1 < T2). S = 0.6 Δu1 + Δu2 (6)
Lopez-Garcia [167] investigated the accuracy of the
double difference method in predicting seismic gap. He where Δu1 and Δu2 are the inelastic displacements of the
reported that the prementioned method was inaccurate buildings that can be determined based on Eqs. (7) and (8).
in the case that the adjacent buildings had convergent It is noted that the absolute sum of the peak displacements
4282 A. Elgammal et al.

is reduced herein by 40% since adjacent buildings seldom they do not often prefer to sacrifice regions within their
reach their peak displacements at the same time, as previ- property line to provide the required seismic gap, especially
ously discussed. due to financial issues and the high cost of land. Hence,
other mitigation measures are favourable. Furthermore, pro-
Δu1 = 1.4𝛼y R1 Δe1 (7) viding seismic gap is not applicable in the case of existing
buildings that need retrofitting to survive seismic pounding.
Δu2 = 1.4𝛼y R2 Δe2 (8)
5.2 Impact‑Absorbing Materials
where 1.4 is the overstrength factor, 𝛼y is an amplification
factor, R1 and R2 denote the allowable ductility factors, and Another approach to avoid the detrimental effects of seis-
Δe1 and Δe2 denote the elastic displacements of the buildings mic pounding is the placement of layers of soft materials
when subjected, separately, to seismic loading. However, the between adjacent buildings to absorb shocks. The idea
studies of Lin and Weng [177], and Lin [178] showed that behind this approach is identical to that adopted in marine
the formula of Taiwan building code [172] was conservative platforms, wherein soft bumpers are installed at the wharfs
and it overpredicted the required seismic gap. to evade the damage caused by docking ships [182].
The AS 1170.4 [173] followed another approach to deter- The incorporation of polystyrene absorbing material
mine the seismic gap by relating it to the heights of the adja- between adjacent buildings was experimentally and numeri-
cent buildings, as shown below: cally evaluated by Rezavandi and Moghadam [183, 184].
They pointed out that polystyrene can efficiently reduce the
S = 0.01Hmax (9)
storey acceleration of the buildings.
where Hmax is the height of the tallest building. Nevertheless, Polycarpou et al. [182], and Takabatake et al. [185]
this formula also suffered from being conservative as it over- numerically studied the incorporation of rubber shock
predicts the seismic gap [179, 180]. Therefore, a modified absorbers between adjacent buildings. It was indicated
formula was suggested in [180] as follows: that this particular type of impact-absorbing material can
√ severely reduce the impact force. As the softness of the
S = U1 2 + U2 2 − 2SFU1 U2 (10) absorbing material increases, the impact force decreases.
Sołtysik et al. [186, 187] conducted an experimental
where SF is a separation factor that can be determined by study on adjacent buildings with polymeric-absorbing mate-
the following formula: rial between them. They revealed that the incorporation of
( ) polymers is capable of effectively reducing seismic pound-
T2 ( )
SF = − 10.5 T2 − T1 (11) ing. Moreover, they recommended the absorbing material to
T1 completely fill the gap between the buildings since this case
yielded the lowest pounding-induced response.
where T1 < T2.
A novel polymer-metal composite material was proposed
Similar to AS 1170.4 [173], the Iranian code [174] pro-
by Stręk et al. [188] to mitigate seismic pounding. This
vided a formula that relates the seismic gap to the buildings
material consisted of polyurethane and closed-cell alumin-
height as follows:
ium foam. The experimental results were found to be prom-
( )
S = 0.05 h1 + h2 (12) ising. However, further experimental testing is still required.
Khatami et al. [189] installed rubber bumpers between
where h1 and h2 are the adjacent buildings’ heights. the storeys of adjacent buildings. They examined bumpers
GB50011-2001 [181] on the other hand, requires the with different shapes and dimensions. This is to determine
seismic gap to be not less than 70 mm for adjacent build- the optimum ones that can effectively reduce seismic pound-
ings shorter than 15 m. The seismic gap correspondingly ing and absorb impact forces. They found that the thick-
increases by 20 mm for each increase in building height in ness of the rubber bumpers greatly affects the amount of
accordance with different seismic intensity levels. impact force absorbed and energy dissipation. In addition,
It is worth mentioning that all the formulas discussed in bumpers with a circular cross-section performed better than
this section are concerned with fixed-base buildings. For those with a square cross-section in absorbing impact forces.
base-isolated buildings, a larger seismic gap is required. The Furthermore, this study evaluated structural damage using
adequate gap in this case might be up to three times the one equations for calculating the damage index, revealing sig-
predicted by the formulas in this subsection [138, 149, 150]. nificantly lower damage indices for buildings equipped with
Even though providing an adequate seismic gap is consid- rubber bumpers compared to those without, underscoring
ered the optimum solution to disallow seismic pounding, it the significant influence of rubber bumpers on structural
does not usually appeal to buildings’ owners. This is because response to seismic excitation.
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4283

Although all the previous studies were involved with response of the whole building in order to tolerate the act-
fixed-base buildings, several investigations in the literature ing loads without excessive deformations. Note that these
addressed the effect of impact-absorbing materials on the systems require a huge power source to operate. This is to
seismic pounding mitigation of base-isolated buildings, such be able to generate the needed control force that decreases
as the studies of Komodromos [118], and Polycarpou and structural response [191, 192]. Active tuned mass dampers
Komodromos [190]. It was implied that impact-absorbing and distributed actuators are among the most well-known
materials were able to reduce impact forces in spite of the active control systems [193].
increase in the number of collisions. This increase is attrib- Semi-active control systems work in a similar way to
uted to the softness of the materials. active control systems. Nevertheless, the most disadvanta-
According to Anagnostopoulos [39], filling the gap geous trait of the active control devices is disposed of herein.
between adjacent buildings with different materials surely In particular, semi-active control systems operate only on
limits the effect of seismic pounding. Nevertheless, this battery power; there is no need for a huge power source
method is not as efficient as the installation of earthquake- [194]. Semi-active control systems include magneto-rheo-
resisting systems, whose role is to limit lateral deformations logical dampers, semi-active stiffness dampers, etc. [193].
of buildings. As a consequence, this brings us to the next Nowadays, passive control systems are the most reliable
category of seismic pounding mitigation measures: the use method of structural control. This is because they do not
of earthquake-resisting systems. require any external power source at all to operate. So, they
are simple and can be practically used without many pre-
5.3 Earthquake‑Resisting Systems cautions [195]. Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that
one of the drawbacks of passive systems is their inadequate
This method of seismic pounding mitigation relies on the adaptivity to varying excitation since they are not equipped
implementation of certain elements in the building that with any sensors, nor do they operate on external power
are responsible for reducing lateral displacements that the sources. Such a disadvantage, though, can be justified by
storeys undergo. On this basis, the possibility that adjacent the ease of manufacturing and the relatively low price of
buildings collide is decreased, despite not being fully hin- these systems, as only mechanical devices are used [192].
dered. However, even if the adjacent buildings collide into Passive control systems include base isolation systems and
each other, their storeys move lower distances because of the energy dissipation devices [196]. However, conventional
installed earthquake-resisting systems. Accordingly, the cor- base isolation systems are not considered a seismic pound-
responding momentum, which is directly proportional to the ing mitigation technique due to the circumstances discussed
distance that a moving body travels, is reduced. This, in turn, in Sect. 4.2. Other special base isolation systems that can
results in the mitigation of seismic pounding. Earthquake- mitigate seismic pounding have been developed in several
resisting systems can be classified into two categories: (a) previous studies [197–202]. On the contrary, all conven-
conventional protection systems and (b) innovative structural tional energy dissipation devices can be utilised for seismic
control systems [99]. pounding mitigation. Energy dissipation devices encom-
Conventional protection systems involve adding struc- pass numerous devices that can be used to control seismic
tural walls, cores, or concentric braces to the building or response. Energy dissipation devices can be classified as
adopting columns with large cross-sectional dimensions. displacement-dependent dampers (like metallic dampers and
So, conventional protection systems rely on increasing the friction dampers), velocity-dependent dampers (like fluid
strength and stiffness of the building in order to resist the viscous dampers and viscoelastic dampers), or dynamic
acting earthquake ground motions and decrease the lateral vibration absorbers (like tuned mass dampers and tuned liq-
displacements. In contrast, innovative structural control sys- uid dampers) [203].
tems are typical devices that are installed into the building As the name suggests, hybrid control systems combine
for the purpose of adjusting its dynamic properties rather active, semi-active, or passive control systems together in
than strength and stiffness, therefore guaranteeing a reduc- the same building to make use of the features of each of
tion in the seismic response. These innovative structural them. Accordingly, each individual system participates
control methods can be either active, semi-active, passive, in resisting the actions induced by the earthquake ground
or hybrid. Several subsidiary devices fall under each of these motion [194]. Hybrid systems are cost-effective, and they
prementioned groups. are characterised by sufficient functionality and reliability
Active control systems are computer-based devices that [192]. Semi-active tuned liquid dampers with passive damp-
are installed into the building to transform it into a smart ers and hybrid mass dampers represent examples for hybrid
building. These active control systems are entirely adaptive. control systems [204].
Put in another way, they perceive the surrounding earth- In the numerical investigations of Jamal and Vidyadhara
quake loading by means of sensors. Then, they adjust the [205], and Abhina and Nair [206] structural walls were
4284 A. Elgammal et al.

found to be efficient in the mitigation of seismic pounding. 5.4 Coupling of Buildings

Hameed et al. [207] also detected that the structural walls
can limit the out-of-phase deformations of adjacent build- As described in Sect. 1, seismic pounding mainly occurs
ings as well as concentric braces, thus mitigating seismic as a result of the out-of-phase vibrations of adjacent build-
pounding. Furthermore, Barros and Khatami [208] pointed ings. For that, adjacent buildings can be connected together
out that although structural walls can significantly reduce by means of special connections, as shown in Fig. 5, that
storey displacements and the number of collisions, they transmit forces between them, which can be exploited to
cause the impact force to increase. This may be attributed mitigate out-of-phase vibrations and compel the buildings
to the increase in the stiffness of the building, as discussed to vibrate in-phase [220]. This method of seismic pound-
earlier in this subsection. ing mitigation is called building coupling. In general, the
Hameed et al. [179] assessed the performance of adja- results in [221–223] illustrated that the pounding-induced
cent buildings installed with Pall friction dampers. They response of a flexible building can be noticeably decreased
showed that the adopted friction dampers can reduce sto- by coupling it to a stiff building. Yet, the response of the stiff
rey displacement more than structural walls and concentric building was only slightly affected.
braces. So, they can be considered an efficient technique This technique was first introduced in 1972 by Klein et al.
to mitigate pounding-induced damage. [224] to stabilise wind-induced oscillations in structures.
Adding to this, fluid viscous dampers have been widely Four years later, Kunieda [225] was the first to use the cou-
proposed to mitigate seismic pounding. Kazemi et al. pling concept to enhance the seismic response of two adja-
[209] reported that fluid viscous dampers can decrease cent single-degree-of-freedom structures. Later, in 1980,
impact force and duration caused by seismic pounding. Miller [226] investigated the resonance of coupled build-
Hence, they delay the collapse of the buildings in which ings subjected to seismic pounding. These early publications
they are installed. Elwardany et al. [210] also numerically represented the pioneering first steps in the development of
investigated the effect of fluid viscous dampers on seismic the coupling technique to mitigate seismic pounding.
pounding mitigation. They illustrated that despite fluid vis- The connection between coupled buildings can either be
cous dampers significantly mitigate seismic pounding, they rigid or energy-dissipative [220, 227]. Rigid connections
are subjected to a higher peak force in comparison with depend on their strength and stiffness to couple adjacent
the design independent force. Hence, the local response of buildings with each other, therefore fully or nearly fully
the elements surrounding the fluid viscous damper should synchronising their response. So, they are intended to keep
be carefully analysed in the design process. Kazemi et al. responding within the elastic stage during the seismic event
[211] illustrated that fluid viscous dampers can be utilised without exhibiting any kind of inelastic behaviour. On the
to reduce the collapse possibility of adjacent buildings other hand, energy-dissipative connections are designed
subjected to pounding. to synchronise the response of adjacent buildings to some
Tuned mass dampers were also addressed in several extent while dissipating some quantity of input energy
studies in the literature to mitigate seismic pounding [212, through the induced inelastic actions. Energy-dissipative
213]. They were found to reduce peak storey displace- connections are classified as active, semi-active, passive, or
ment. Tuned mass dampers were then modified via the hybrid [220].
addition of viscous material; their responsibility is to dis- Rigid connections, in their simplest form, can be stiff
sipate energy during pounding [214–218]. In comparison beams [228] or stiff links [229]. Another alternative to stiff
with conventional tuned mass dampers, the modified ones
proved to be more efficient in mitigating seismic pounding.
As mentioned before, special base isolation systems can
be installed in buildings to mitigate seismic pounding. The
roll-in-cage isolators were presented in the extensive work
of Ismail et al. [197–201]. They indicated that this type of
base isolation systems can effectively mitigate both trans-
lational pounding and torsional pounding as well. Agar-
wal et al. [198] investigated friction-varying base isola-
tors, and they showed that these isolators were capable of
mitigating seismic pounding under certain circumstances.
Likewise, Mazza and Laberanda [219] assessed the ability
of concave surface sliders to mitigate seismic pounding of
adjacent reinforced concrete buildings that were irregular
in the plan. Fig. 5  Two adjacent buildings coupled together
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4285

beams is the sky bridge connection [230]. On the other hand, in which [M]1, [M]2 , [K]1, [K]2 , [C]1, and [C]2 are the matri-
energy-dissipative connections include a wide variety of ces of mass, stiffness, and damping
[ ] for [each ] of the adjacent
devices, such as those listed in Table 2. It is noticeable that buildings, respectively. Also, kd , and cd are the stiffness
most of the structural control systems discussed in Sect. 5.3 and damping matrices for the dampers that can be expressed
can be used to couple adjacent buildings. As with previ- by the following equation:
ously discussed structural control systems, passive energy [ ] [ ]
dissipation connections are the most used and studied in the kd = kd1 , kd2 , … , kdi (17)
literature [220]. Accordingly, this type of energy dissipation
[ ] [ ]
connections will be of interest throughout this subsection. cd = cd1 , cd2 , … , cdi (18)
The coupling of adjacent buildings using passive energy
dissipation connections causes them to behave as a single where kdi and cdi are the stiffness and damping of the i th
building. In general, the equation of motion for that coupled damper, respectively.
building is as follows: As for {r}, it is a dimensional ground acceleration–mass
{ } transformation vector of the size (n + m) × 1 that can be
[M]{u(t)}
̈ + [C]{u(t)}
̇ + [K]{u(t)} = −[m]{r} ü g (t) (13) obtained as follows:
̈ , u(t)
where u(t) ̇ , and u(t) are the relative acceleration, veloc- [ ]T
{r} = 1 1 ⋯ 1 (19)
ity and displacement concerning the base, while ü g (t) is a
dimensionless vector, with dimensions (n + m) × 1, that rep- Connecting adjacent buildings with stiff beams was stud-
resents the earthquake ground motion. Note that n and m ied by Westermo [228] to avoid seismic pounding. More
are the degrees of freedom of the adjacent buildings. Addi- recently, Kamel [229] used reinforced concrete stiff beams
tionally, [M], [C], and [K] represent the matrices of mass, to connect adjacent buildings with unequal heights. He, as
damping, and stiffness, respectively. The aforementioned well, deduced that the stiff beams were better placed in the
matrices have dimensions of (n + m) × (n + m) and they can top storey of the shortest building instead of the lower sto-
be obtained as the following: reys in terms of pounding force mitigation.
[ ] Furthermore, Ni et al. [239] analysed the seismic
[M]1 [0]m×n
[M] = (14) response of adjacent buildings connected with yielding
[0]n×m [M]2
metallic dampers, and they implied that there was no need
� � � � to install those dampers between all storeys of the build-
� � ⎡ � kd � −kd� [0]m×n−n ⎤ ings. Moreover, several investigations were conducted to
[K]1 [0]m×n �
[K] = + ⎢ −kd kd [0]m×n−n ⎥ optimally design adjacent buildings connected with yield-
[0]n×m [K]2 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ [0]m−n×n [0]m−n×n [0]m−n×n−n ⎦ ing metallic dampers [249–251]. In addition, Sama and Gur
(15) [252] demonstrated that shape memory alloy hysteretic
� � � � dampers surpassed yielding metallic ones in terms of storey
� � ⎡ cd [0]m×n−n ⎤
[C]1 [0]m×n � � �−cd� displacements and acceleration reduction.
[C] = + ⎢ −cd cd [0]m×n−n ⎥
[0]n×m [C]2 ⎢ ⎥ On the other hand, Bhaskararao and Jangid [240, 253,
⎣ [0]m−n×n [0]m−n×n [0]m−n×n−n ⎦ 254] extensively investigated friction dampers as a coupling
(16) system. They found that it could sufficiently reduce the seis-
mic response of the buildings. Based on the experimental

Table 2  Examples for each type of energy dissipation connections between coupled buildings
Energy dissipa- Examples
tion connection
type

Active Active tuned mass dampers [231], active negative stiffness devices [232], active viscous fluid dampers [233], and actuators
[234]
Semi-active Magneto-rheological dampers [235], semi-active friction dampers [236], semi-active viscous dampers [237], and semi-active
variable stiffness dampers [238]
Passive Metallic dampers [239], friction dampers [240], lead extrusion dampers [241], fluid viscous dampers [242], viscoelastic
dampers [243], shared tuned mass dampers [244], and tuned liquid dampers [245]
Hybrid Magnetorheological dampers with tuned mass dampers [246], actuators with base isolation systems [247], and fluid viscous
dampers with tendon-type active control devices [248]
4286 A. Elgammal et al.

tests of Ng and Xu [255], the friction coupling dampers can contains a reinforced concrete block that was connected
usefully reduce the seismic response of adjacent buildings to the steel plate at the end of the fluid viscous damper.
compared to rigid connections. Karabork [263] carried out a numerical optimization
Patel [241] followed a similar approach by connecting analysis to determine the optimum damping of coupling
adjacent buildings using lead extrusion dampers. The results viscous dampers for the sake of pounding avoidance.
illustrated that this approach was able to mitigate the seismic Moreover, Tubaldi et al. [264] suggested a simplified
response of coupled buildings, even if not all storeys were design strategy for coupling viscous dampers.
linked together. Jankowski and Mahmoud [223] compared between
Opposed to metallic dampers, friction dampers, and lead buildings coupled with springs, dashpots, and viscoe-
extrusion dampers, numerous publications that are related lastic dampers. They observed that viscoelastic dampers
to velocity-dependent dampers, such as viscoelastic dampers were able to decrease the maximum storey displacements
and viscous dampers, are found in the literature. The latter, compared to springs and dashpots. As a result, a smaller
particularly, had the lion’s share of the publications. seismic gap could be adopted.
Zhu and Iemura [256] utilised viscous dampers to cou- Uppari and Chandrashekar [265] utilised coupling vis-
ple adjacent buildings. Moreover, Patel and Jangid [257], coelastic dampers to control seismic vibrations in adja-
and Tubaldi et al. [176] carried out extensive investigations cent buildings. They demonstrated that diagonal coupling
on the efficiency of viscous dampers in mitigating seismic viscoelastic dampers were more efficient than horizontal
pounding. They found that, generally, viscous dampers can ones in mitigating the seismic response of the buildings.
efficiently limit seismic pounding. They, as well, demon- They also pointed out that coupling viscoelastic damp-
strated that there was no need to connect all the storeys of ers need not be installed between all storeys of adjacent
adjacent buildings together. For instance, only connecting buildings; optimal placement of them can lead to better
half of the stories, according to [257], mitigated seismic performance. In a slightly different study, Taleshian et al.
pounding satisfactorily. Another application of viscous [266] utilised viscoelastic dampers to mitigate seismic
dampers, in which they were installed at the isolation level pounding between adjacent asymmetric-plan buildings.
of base-isolated buildings, was presented by Polycarpou and Adjusting the damping of the viscoelastic damper sig-
Komodromos [125], and Abd-Elsalam et al. [258]. nificantly affected the decrease in the displacements of
In addition, Roshan et al. [259] compared between vis- adjacent buildings. This decrease reached 90% for certain
cous and viscoelastic coupling dampers in terms of seismic damping values.
pounding mitigation. Both coupling dampers were seen to Kangda and Bakre [267] used viscous dampers to couple
effectively mitigate seismic pounding. However, viscoelas- a fixed-base building with a base-isolated building equipped
tic dampers slightly surpassed viscous dampers. Anyway, with lead rubber isolators. This combined mitigation tech-
viscoelastic coupling dampers did not represent a value for nique was found to be efficient.
money as the enhancement in seismic pounding mitigation Kazemi et al. [268] evaluated the effect of coupling rein-
was not consistent with their extra cost. forced concrete and steel moment-resisting frames with vis-
Soreci and Terenzi [260] adopted a similar approach cous dampers. The existence of viscous dampers was seen
wherein viscous dampers were placed in the gap between to efficiently reduce impact forces during seismic pounding.
adjacent buildings. Similarly, Pratesi et al. [261, 262] car- Kangda and Bakre [269] investigated the optimum loca-
ried out a case study on seismic pounding between the tion of coupling viscous dampers between adjacent build-
existing bell tower and church building of Chiesa del Sacro ings. They revealed that there was no need to install coupling
Cuore in Florence. They noticed that adjacent buildings viscous dampers between all colliding storeys. Installation
were significantly vulnerable to seismic pounding. Conse- of them at only the top colliding storey was sufficient to
quently, they made a comparison between retrofitting the mitigate seismic pounding.
existing buildings with linking viscous dampers and rigid In a more recent study, Asgarkhani et al. [270] installed
interconnection. Both retrofitting techniques managed to coupling viscous dampers between adjacent steel and rein-
mitigate seismic pounding. Yet, viscous dampers exhibited forced concrete moment-resisting framed buildings. The
a better effect as they additionally decreased axial forces, results clarified that this technique can significantly enhance
shear forces, and bending moments acting on the stressed the capacity of buildings. Moreover, an optimal retrofit strat-
columns. Moreover, Pratesi et al. [261, 262] adopted a egy was presented to mitigate seismic pounding between the
one-meter-long viscous damper, but the gap between prementioned buildings.
the buildings was not wide enough to accommodate it. Licari et al. [271] innovated a novel coupling technique
Accordingly, they suggested demolishing around 1.6 m that consists of a damper that is connected in parallel with
long of the nave walls to provide sufficient space for the a spring. Thereby, this technique had varying damping with
viscous dampers to be housed in. This additional 0.6 m respect to time. They also detected that this technique was
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4287

characterised by a considerable storey shear reduction, thus prementioned phase lasts till the two bodies completely get
efficiently mitigating seismic pounding. away from each other with final velocities that may differ
Dynamic vibration absorbers have also been investigated from the initial velocities before impact [37].
in early studies. For instance, instead of utilising a separate Although numerous impact analytical models have
tuned mass damper for each building, as shown in Sect. 5.3, been developed in the literature, as pointed out previously,
Abdullah et al. [272] developed the shared tuned mass they fundamentally follow one of two approaches. These
damper; it is a single tuned mass damper that is installed approaches are typically the stereomechanical approach
into one of the buildings and connected to the adjacent one or the force-based (penalty) approach. Each of these two
by means of a spring. They illustrated that the shared tuned approaches is discussed in the following subsections.
mass dampers were better than conventional tuned mass
dampers in terms of seismic pounding mitigation. However,
this is contradictory to the findings in Refs. [244, 273]. 6.1 The Stereomechanical Approach
Additionally, Wang et al. [274] used tuned liquid damp-
ers to connect two adjacent high-rise buildings. The results The stereomechanical approach is considered one of the
implied that this method was capable of decreasing the seis- classical approaches to determine the post-impact velocity
mic response of the buildings. Nevertheless, the efficiency of colliding bodies. This approach is particularly based on
of this method was dependent on the fundamental periods the principle of momentum conservation [37, 116]. This
and frequencies of both buildings. principle states that the total momentum of two bodies col-
liding in an isolated system before impact is identical to their
momentum after impact. In other words, the momentum
6 Impact Analytical Models lost by the first body is equal to that gained by the second
body. Hence, the stereomechanical approach is only con-
Since theoretical studies are more feasible than experimen- cerned with the relationship between the post-impact and
tal tests from a time and cost point of view, many impact pre-impact velocities; it does not pay attention to the direct
analytical models have been developed in the literature to estimation of impact forces. The post-impact velocities ( v1 ′
accurately evaluate and simulate seismic pounding between and v2 ′) and pre-impact velocities ( v1 and v2 ) can be related
structures. The general notion of impact modelling mainly to each other as follows [275]:
relies on the interaction between the two colliding bodies m2 v1 − m2 v2
v1 � = v1 − (1 + e) (20)
before and after collision; mathematical formulas are thus m1 + m2
used to describe the response of the colliding bodies.
To better understand impact models, it is first necessary to m1 v1 − m1 v2
recognise the different phases associated with the collision v2 � = v2 − (1 + e) (21)
m1 + m2
process. Referring to Fig. 6, different phases of collision
between two random bodies are illustrated. At the begin- where m1 and m2 denote the masses of the colliding bodies,
ning, the two bodies translate towards each other with initial while e is the coefficient of restitution that can be defined as
velocities, causing the separation distance to get smaller. the square root of the ratio of the rebound distance ( h2 ) that
Later, the two bodies get closer until the separation distance a body travels upward after freefalling towards a rigid plate
reaches zero. At this moment, the impact becomes immi- from a distance h1. So, it describes the level of plasticity of
nent. So, this stage is called the approach phase. The end the colliding bodies. For instance, if e is equal to zero, this
of this phase occurs when the relative velocity between the means that the collision is fully plastic. On the other hand,
two bodies reaches zero. Beyond this point, the two bod- if e is equal to unity, then the collision is fully elastic. That
ies separate from each other, thus marking the beginning of coefficient can be determined using either of the following
another phase that is called the restitution phase. Next, the formulas [116]:

Fig. 6  Different impact phases

for two colliding bodies (direct
central impact)
4288 A. Elgammal et al.

h2 (b) the linear viscoelastic model (Kelvin-Voigt model) [39,

e2 = (22) 276],
h1
(c) the modified linear viscoelastic models [117, 277, 278],
(d) the nonlinear Hertz model [70, 95, 279–281],
v2 � − v1 �
e= (23) (e) the Hertzdamp model [282, 283],
v1 − v2 (f) the nonlinear viscoelastic model [284–287], and
It is worth pointing out that the stereomechanical (g) the viscous elastoplastic model [288].
approach is seldom used in seismic pounding simulation,
despite its precise theoretical base [116]. This is because that In the linear spring model [116], a spring connecting the two
approach is mainly oriented towards the estimation of the colliding bodies, as shown in Fig. 7, is added to take the impact
post-impact velocities rather than accounting for complex stiffness into consideration. Note that the spring is activated
interactions like material behaviour, energy dissipation, and only when the two bodies become in contact with each other.
structural damage caused by pounding events; it disregards According to this mode, the impact force (F(t)) and the inter-
the duration of impact (i.e., it is assumed to last for a negli- penetration distance (𝛿(t)) can be expressed as follows:
gible short time). Accordingly, the transformation of stresses {
k𝛿(t) 𝛿(t) > 0
and deformations between the bodies during impact is not F(t) =
0 𝛿(t) ≤ 0 (24)
considered. Besides, impact forces that are induced during
contact cannot be directly estimated using that approach
[37]. Furthermore, stereomechanical approach often do not 𝛿(t) = u1 (t) − u2 (t) − d (25)
accurately capture the full range of forces acting upon the where k is the spring stiffness (which is equivalent to the
buildings during pounding, leading to potentially mislead- impact stiffness at contact location), u1 (t) and u2 (t) are the
ing predictions about the extent of damage and the overall displacements of the colliding bodies, and d is the initial
structural response [154]. To overcome these challenges, separation distance.
researchers have turned to more sophisticated methods and The aforementioned model has a serious flaw as it assumes
stochastic approaches, which better represent the intricate the impact to be elastic. This means that both plastic behaviour
physics governing seismic pounding scenarios [37, 116]. and energy dissipation through collision are ignored. To over-
come this drawback, Anagnostopoulos [39, 276] developed the
linear viscoelastic model (also known as Kelvin-Voigt model).
6.2 The Force‑Based Approach In this model, a damper (dashpot) is added in parallel with the
linear spring to include energy dissipation into calculations,
Due to the limitations associated with the stereomechani- as shown in Fig. 8. This model can be expressed by the fol-
cal approach, the force-based approach (also known as lowing equation:
the penalty approach) has been developed and extensively
{
investigated. As its name suggests, this approach depends on ̇
k𝛿(t) + c𝛿(t) 𝛿(t) > 0
the estimation of the impact forces that are induced during
F(t) =
0 𝛿(t) ≤ 0 (26)
contact. Therefore, impact stiffness is taken into account.
Various impact models fall under the force-based approach √
mm
classification, such as: c = 2𝜉 k 1 2 (27)
m1 + m2
(a) the linear spring model [116],

Fig. 7  Schematic diagram of

the linear spring model and its
force–displacement relationship
F(t)

k
d

u1(t)-u2(t)
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4289

Fig. 8  Schematic diagram of

the linear viscoelastic model
(Kelvin-Voigt model) and its
force–displacement relationship

F(t)
k

u1(t)-u2(t)

lne In the same manner, in order to eliminate the tensile

𝜉 = −√ (28)
𝜋 2 + (lne)2 forces, Mahmoud and Jankowski [278] also presented the
following modified model:
where 𝛿(t)
̇ denotes the relative velocity between the colliding
bodies, c is the impact damping coefficient, while 𝜉 is the ⎧ k𝛿(t) + c𝛿(t)
̇ ̇ >0
𝛿(t) > 0 and 𝛿(t)
⎪
impact damping ratio. F(t) = ⎨ k𝛿(t) ̇ ≤0
𝛿(t) > 0 and 𝛿(t) (32)
The linear viscoelastic model, in its original form, has a ⎪0 𝛿(t) ≤ 0
⎩
certain disadvantage; definitely, it takes energy dissipation
into account during both approach and restitution phases.
This causes the development of tensile forces at the end of 1 − e2
𝜉=− (33)
the impact process, which does not make sense [116]. Conse- e(e(𝜋 − 2) + 2)
quently, many modified linear viscoelastic models have been
With respect to the impact damping coefficient (c ) in the
proposed in the literature to evade this issue. For example,
latter modified model, it is determined in accordance with
Komodromos et al. [117] suggested ignoring these tensile
Eq. (27). Khatami et al. [302], on the other hand, proposed
forces by forcing F(t) to always be larger than unity. Another
another formula to calculate impact damping ratio ( 𝜉 ) as
modified linear viscoelastic model was developed by Pant et al.
follows:
[277] which can be determined as follows:
1−e
⎧ k𝛿(t) + c(t)𝛿(t)
̇ ̇ >0
𝛿(t) > 0 and 𝛿(t)
𝜉=− e0.204 (34)
⎪ e𝛼+0.204 + 3.351𝜋e
F(t) = ⎨ k𝛿(t) ̇ ≤0
𝛿(t) > 0 and 𝛿(t) (29)
⎪0 𝛿(t) ≤ 0 where 𝛼 equals 1.05 e0.653. The comparative analysis in [302]
⎩ confirmed the accuracy of the proposed formula since it was
validated across different scenarios.
c(t) = 𝜉𝛿(t) (30) All the aforementioned models only consider linear stiff-
ness during impact. This inspired plenty of researchers, such
as Davis [279] and Chau et al. [70, 95, 280, 281], to include
3k(1 − e2 )
𝜉=− (31) nonlinear stiffness in impact model. Thus, the nonlinear Hertz
2e2 (v1 − v2 )

Fig. 9  Schematic diagram of the

nonlinear Hertz model and its
force–displacement relationship
F(t)

u1(t)-u2(t)
4290 A. Elgammal et al.

� √
model has been developed, as shown in Fig. 9. The following m m
formula can be used to obtain the impact force F(t). C(t) = 2𝜉 K 𝛿(t) 1 2 (41)
m1 + m2
{ 1.5
K𝛿 (t) 𝛿(t) > 0 √
F(t) =
0 𝛿(t) ≤ 0 (35)
9 5 1 − e2
𝜉= ∙ (42)
2 e(e(9𝜋 − 16) + 16)
where K denotes the impact stiffness parameter.
Likewise, the Hertzdamp model, shown in Fig. 10, was where K and C(t) represent the impact stiffness parameter
developed by Muthukumar and DesRoches [282, 283] to and the impact damping parameter, respectively. Subse-
include the nonlinear damping in the analytical expression as quently, C(t) was modified by Naderpour et al. [291] as
follows: follows:
{ 1.5
̇
K𝛿 (t) + C(t)𝛿(t) 𝛿(t) > 0 e𝛽 (v1 − v2 )(1 − e) 1.5
F(t) =
k𝛿(t) ̇ ≤0
𝛿(t) (36) C(t) = 𝛼 K𝛿 (t) (43)
̈
𝛿(t)

where 𝛿(t)
̈ denotes the relative acceleration between collid-
C(t) = 𝜉𝛿 1.5 (t) (37)
ing bodies, whereas 𝛼 and 𝛽 are fitting parameters that have
typical values of 0.01557 and 0.2706, respectively.
3K(1 − e2 ) Khatiwada et al. [288] further modified the nonlinear vis-
𝜉= (38)
4(v1 − v2 ) coelastic model to consider elastoplastic behaviour. Thus,
the viscous elastoplastic model was attained as follows:
where C(t) is the impact damping parameter.
However, the theoretical work of Ye et al. [289, 290] ⎧ K𝛿 1.5 (t) + C(t)𝛿(t)
̇ K𝛿 1.5 (t) + C(t)𝛿(t) ̇ >0
̇ < FE and 𝛿(t)
̇ ≥ FE and 𝛿(t)
⎪
demonstrated that utilising Eq. (38) to determine 𝜉 brings on ⎪ FE K𝛿 1.5 (t) + C(t)𝛿(t) ̇ >0
unreliable results. As a result, they proposed a new formula to
F(t) = ⎨
K𝛿 1.5 (t) ̇ ≤0
K𝛿 1.5 (t) < FE and 𝛿(t)
(44)
⎪
≥ FE and 𝛿(t)
̇ ≤0
⎪
calculate 𝜉 as followw: ⎩ FE K𝛿 1.5 (t)

8K(1 − e) where FE represents the yield strength of the colliding ele-

𝜉= (39)
5e(v1 − v2 ) ment at the point of contact.
The impact models described earlier are only involved
Jankowski [284–287], as well, developed a nonlinear vis-
with 1-D and 2-D pounding problems. Hence, they neglect
coelastic model to better model the nonlinear response during
the friction in the direction perpendicular to the motion in
impact. This model can be described on the basis of the fol-
spite of taking it in the direction of the motion into consid-
lowing formulas:
eration. Accordingly, Polycarpou et al. [292–294] developed
⎧ K𝛿 1.5 (t) + C(t)𝛿(t) an extended impact model that is suitable for 3-D systems.
̇ ̇ >0
𝛿(t) > 0 and 𝛿(t)
⎪ Otherwise, alternative impact models have also been pro-
F(t) = ⎨ K𝛿 1.5 (t) ̇ ≤0
𝛿(t) > 0 and 𝛿(t) (40) posed, such as the equivalent linear impact model [295],
⎪0 𝛿(t) ≤ 0
⎩ sears impact model [296], and the nonlinear visco-elasto-
plastic model [297].

Fig. 10  Schematic diagram of

the Hertzdamp model and its
force–displacement relationship
F(t)

u1(t)-u2(t)
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4291

6.3 Parameters of the Impact Analytical Models stiffness coefficient is 50 to 100 times the lateral stiffness
of the whole building. Furthermore, Jankowski [284], in
In the domain of impact analytical models, the parameters experimental investigations, pointed out that the value of
associated with the damping coefficient and spring stiffness the impact stiffness coefficient ( k ) in the linear viscoelastic
garner significant attention due to their profound influence model is 9.35 × ­107 N/m, while the impact stiffness param-
on the induced impact forces generated during pounding eter ( K ) in the nonlinear viscoelastic model is 1.13 × ­109.
phenomena. By meticulously selecting judicious values for Nonetheless, these values deal exclusively with Jankowski’s
these parameters, the model’s capacity to accurately capture experimental tests [284]. So, they cannot be disseminated
critical localized effects is demonstrably enhanced. These beyond these tests. Anagnostopoulos [39] investigated the
effects encompass inelastic flexural deformations, yielding effects of different values for the damping and stiffness
of flexural reinforcement, the inherent ductility of materials, coefficients of the impact analytical model on the pound-
and the potential for shear brittle failure within the impacted ing-induced response of single degree of freedom systems.
zone. The results demonstrated that the issue of building pound-
Many formulas have been developed in order to attain the ing can be investigated without necessitating precise esti-
stiffness-related parameters for the models described before. mations of the damping coefficient. In addition, a reduction
One of the most straightforward approaches to determining of the stiffness coefficient yielded minimal impact, as the
the impact stiffness coefficient (k) is to relate it to the axial response amplifications resulting from pounding remained
stiffness of the colliding bodies as follows [77]: essentially unchanged across all scenarios. Anagnostopoulos
[39] further illustrated that the previous remarks regarding
EA
k= (45) the insensitivity of response to impact model properties per-
L tain solely to displacements. Conversely, pounding-induced
where E represents the modulus of elasticity, while A and L accelerations, and to a lesser extent, the corresponding
are the cross-sectional area and length of the colliding ele- velocities, are highly responsive to alterations in impact
ment in pounding direction, respectively. model properties, particularly changes in spring stiffnesses.
A distinctive formula was suggested by Cole et al. [298] These accelerations may result in structural damage but
in which k was related to the mass, coefficient of restitution, exhibit minimal influence on the displacement response of
and impact period of the colliding elements (tc ) as follows: the colliding masses. This agrees with the findings of Mate
� �� �2 et al. [301], which suggested that within a reasonable limit
m1 m2 𝜋 of the actual scenario, different impact analytical models
k=
m1 +m2
�
tc
�2 can accurately anticipate the pounding response of closely
(46) situated buildings, contingent upon thorough investigation
1− √ −lne
and appropriate utilisation of impact model properties.
𝜋 2 +(lne)2
Nevertheless, this partially agrees only with the remarks of
Xu et al. [299] conducted a numerical study to check the Karayannis and Naoum [57]. In this study, it was specified
capability of the current formulas to accurately predict the that the stiffness coefficient of the spring is conventionally
impact stiffness coefficient. They demonstrated that the for- presumed to be large. However, uncertainty prevails regard-
mulas in [78] and [298] gave inaccurate estimations of the ing the precise value of this spring, attributable to factors
impact stiffness coefficient. Thereby, they developed a new such as the undisclosed geometry of impact surfaces and
formula (Eq. (46)) which proved to be more accurate. the variability in material properties under differing impact
velocities. So, Karayannis and Naoum [57] agreed with early
√ literature studies suggesting that alterations in spring stiff-
2lne 𝜋
m2 sin−1
(47)
𝜋
𝜋 2 +(lne)2
k= ke
m1 + m2 1 ness do not significantly affect system response [40, 65].
The work of Jaradat and Far [302] focused on determining
where k1 is determined by Eq. (44). the optimal stiffness coefficient values through numerical
Adopting the correct value for the impact stiffness coef- analysis on an existing experimental model, varying stiffness
ficient could be tricky in some particular cases. The reason is and evaluating its impact on pounding force magnitude and
that the seismic behaviour of pounded buildings is unrespon- number of impacts. The results highlighted the number of
sive to high values of the impact stiffness coefficient [116]. impacts and maximum force as key factors for determining
Based on the numerical work of Ghandil and Aldaikh optimal stiffness range, presenting this range for the specific
[138], as an example, the behaviour of pounded buildings model used. This guidance aids in selecting realistic stiffness
is unresponsive to the impact stiffness coefficient if the lat- values for more accurate damage prediction, emphasising
ter exceeds 1­ 010 N/m. On the other hand, the numerical the importance of considering impact dynamics and experi-
work of Naserkhaki et al. [300] revealed that the impact mental validation.
4292 A. Elgammal et al.

As to the coefficient of restitution, Jankowski [60] car- with regard to the impact velocity, the Hertzdamp model is
ried out experimental tests to find a formula that relates it more precise than the other models.
to the pre-impact velocity ( v ). Accordingly, he developed In the same regard, Khatiwada et al. [307] investigated
the following formulas for different materials crashing into the pounding between adjacent portal frames both experi-
each other: mentally and numerically in order to assess the accuracy
of different impact models in predicting the maximum
e = −0.0039v3 + 0.044v2 − 0.1867v + 0.72 displacements and forces developed due to pounding. The
(48)
steel to steel impact impact models under consideration were the linear vis-
coelastic, the modified linear viscoelastic, the nonlinear
e = −0.007v3 + 0.0696v2 − 0.2529v + 0.7929 viscoelastic, the Hertzdamp, and the modified Hertzdamp
(49) models. The results showed that the Hertzdamp model was
concrete to concrete impact
the most imprecise among the considered models. For the
other models, they had a margin of error of up to 20% in
e = −0.0043v3 + 0.0479v2 − 0.1971v + 0.7067 predicting the displacements. Nevertheless, the linear vis-
(50)
timber to timber impact coelastic model was more accurate than the other models,
despite requiring less computational effort. On this basis,
they recommended using the linear viscoelastic model for
e = −0.004v3 + 0.0474v2 − 0.2116v + 0.8141
(51) the simulation of seismic pounding after carrying out the
ceramic to ceramic impact necessary refinement. Yet, the conclusions of Khatiwada
et al. [307] were contradictory to those of Jankowski et al.
Regardless of the aforementioned detailed expressions for
[304–306]. Another comprehensive comparison between
the coefficient of restitution, it has been assumed in many
different impact analytical models was carried out by Mate
studies to be 0.65 without any calculations. This value cor-
et al. [308] who investigated the behaviour of three adja-
responds to a damping ratio of 0.14 and 0.35 in the case of
cent multi degree of freedom buildings using six different
the linear and nonlinear viscoelastic models, respectively
impact models for impact simulation, namely linear spring
[138, 284]. Polycarpou and Komodromos [125] attrib-
model, linear viscoelastic (Kelvin-Voigt) model, modified
uted this to the insensitivity of the results obtained from
linear viscoelastic (Kelvin-Voigt) model, nonlinear Hertz
the analytical impact models to the coefficient of restitu-
model, and Hertzdamp model. The findings revealed mini-
tion in some cases. Nonetheless, the numerical analyses of
mal change in peak displacement response across differ-
Naderpour et al. [291] indicated that, in general, the impact
ent simulation techniques, with exterior flexible buildings
forces are inversely proportional to the coefficient of resti-
exhibiting unconventional shear force patterns. Linear spring
tution. In contrast, Anagnostopoulos [39] revealed that the
stiffness models produced similar impact forces, while non-
displacements, in their theoretical work, are unresponsive
linear models offer reduced pounding forces. Nonlinear tech-
to the coefficient of restitution, whereas the velocity and
niques resulted in lower impact forces compared to linear
acceleration are entirely the opposite. It could be observed,
techniques, but peak displacement remained similar across
as a consequence, that the results are contradictory and alter
all models. Impact forces significantly increased spectral
from one case to another.
acceleration and spread peak spectral acceleration values
In the recent work of Mosa et al. [303], the pounding
over a longer structural period range. Furthermore, the study
forces were shown to be inversely proportional to the coef-
of Jaradat et al. [309] on the structural pounding between
ficient of restitution in the Hertz model. Also, they detected
steel buildings post strong earthquakes. Five different impact
that the impact forces between adjacent buildings increased
analytical models were employed to capture pounding force,
with the increase in the impact spring stiffness used in the
with parameters derived from experimental data. The used
simulation process.
models were the linear spring, linear viscoelastic, Hertz,
non-linear viscoelastic and Hertzdamp models. While the
models tended to over-predict pounding response, they
6.4 Accuracy of Different Impact Analytical Models
aligned closely with experimental results. Notably, the lin-
ear viscoelastic model exhibited the least variance and most
Owing to the abundance of impact models, several studies
accurate predictions, indicating its superiority for assessing
have compared different impact models in terms of accu-
pounding response in such scenarios.
racy. For instance, Jankowski et al. [304–306] illustrated
More in-depth studies concerned with comparisons
that the nonlinear viscoelastic model estimates the impact
between the impact models were also presented in [277,
forces more accurately than the linear viscoelastic model, the
310, 311]. No final verdict, however, could be reported
nonlinear Hertz model, and the Hertzdamp model. However,
based on these comparative studies. The reason is that
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4293

seismic pounding is a complex process that is affected by 7 Concluding Remarks

various parameters. and Recommendations for Future
Relevant Work
6.5 Applications In this paper, an intensive review is conducted regarding
most of the previous research that dealt with the seismic
The comprehensive exploration of various impact analyti- pounding phenomenon. On that basis, the most important
cal models in preceding discussions has greatly enhanced remarks that could be drawn are as follows:
the capability to simulate adjacent building configurations,
numerically and analytically, under seismic pounding. (a) The primary cause of seismic pounding is the insuf-
Consequently, theoretical studies necessitated the selection ficient separation distance between adjacent buildings
of the geometric modelling approach employed for neigh- since they experience repetitive collisions and usually
bouring buildings. These buildings can be represented exhibit out-of-phase vibrations during seismic events.
as stick masses, presenting single or multiple degrees of Even for buildings with zero gap distance and similar
freedom buildings, 2-D (plane frames) models, or 3-D dynamic characteristics, seismic pounding may still
models. Furthermore, the pounding-induced response of occur.
such buildings can be analysed employing methods such (b) In the case of pounding between a stiff building and a
as time-history analysis, incremental dynamic analysis, flexible building, the stiff one is usually not affected. In
or reliability and fragility analysis. In summary, Table 3 meantime, the flexible building usually has its response
encapsulates the methodological approaches adopted by amplified. Moreover, although seismic pounding
select studies in the literature concerning these pertinent increase the storey displacements and accelerations of
issues. While the stick mass model has found limited use one of the colliding buildings, the vibration of the other
in recent studies, primarily focused on time-history analy- building may, in some cases, be somehow blocked. In
sis, recent research has shown a preference for leveraging other words, one of the buildings may work on restrain-
the increased detail and accuracy offered by 2-D (plane ing the displacements that the stories of the other build-
frame) and 3-D models. Notably, 3-D models have gained ing undergo. However, numerous parameters have been
more traction compared to their 2-D counterparts, receiv- seldom investigated in the literature despite noticeably
ing extensive investigation through various analysis meth- affecting seismic pounding, such as the orientation
ods, including time-history, incremental dynamic, and reli- angle of the earthquake ground motion and the vertical
ability and fragility analyses. This shift suggests a growing component of the seismic excitation. These parameters
interest in capturing the complex behaviour of structures need further consideration.
using more sophisticated models, moving beyond the sim- (c) In numerical analyses, the bases of the buildings are
plified approach of the stick mass model. assumed to be fixed, but this is only true if and only
if the buildings are built on stiff soil (such as rock).

Table 3  Methodological approaches adopted in most recent studies

Performed analysis Building model
Stick mass 2-D 3-D

Time-history Zhang et al. [312], Pote and Mate Sinha and Rao [107], Khatami et al. Manoukas and Karayannis [8],
[313], Zhang and Zhang [314], [189], Tena-Colunga and Sánchez- Forcellini [323], Ambiel et al.
Zhang et al. [315], Djerouni et al. Ballinas [318], Yazdanpanah et al. [92], Isobe and Shibuya [324],
[316], Kazemi et al. [317] [109], Cayci and Akpinar [319], Jiang et al. [325], Rayegani and
Kazemi et al. [211], Mohebi et al. Nouri [326], Kamal et al. [327],
[320], Langlade et al. [321], Mazza Kamal and Inel [328], Miari and
and Labernarda [322] Jankowski [145], Bodnar et al.
[329], Kamal and Inel [330],
Ambiel et al. [330],
Incremental dynamic Kazemi et al. [317] Sinha and Rao [107], Yazdanpanah Forcellini [323], Rayegani and Nouri
et al. [109], Kazemi et al. [211], [326], Miari and Jankowski [145]
Mohebi et al. [320]
Reliability and fragility Kazemi et al. [317] Sinha and Rao [107], Yazdanpanah Forcellini [323], Rayegani and Nouri
et al. [109] [326], Miari and Jankowski [145]
4294 A. Elgammal et al.

For buildings on softer soil, soil-structure interaction that future studies explore these emerging techniques,
should be considered as it results in higher displace- as their application in this field remains relatively lim-
ments of building storeys, therefore increasing the risk ited compared to traditional numerical and analytical
of seismic pounding. methods, despite being featured in several early studies
(d) Some studies showed that the formulas provided by in the literature. Embracing these innovative method-
several codes of practice to determine seismic gap dis- ologies can pave the way for more robust and efficient
tance may either estimate or underestimate the required solutions to address the challenges posed by structural
gap distance. Accordingly, more research related to this pounding in seismic regions.
issue is required. (j) In addition to seismic forces, it is imperative to
(e) Other than the seismic gap, there are a wide range of acknowledge that structural pounding may arise from
seismic pounding mitigation methods that differ in their other external influences, including wind, mining
operation mechanism and installation requirements, blasts, and surface blasts. While the current study pri-
such as impact-absorbing materials, earthquake-resist- marily addresses seismic pounding, there exists a need
ing systems, and coupling techniques. for subsequent research endeavours to explore the rami-
(f) The efficiency of alternative passive energy dissipa- fications of these alternative forces on structural pound-
tion devices in mitigating seismic pounding should ing phenomena. Since pounding due to mining blasts
be addressed, such as shear links, friction dampers, was timidly investigated in early studies [72, 331], it is
buckling-restrained braces, etc. Although many passive recommended that future investigations dedicate atten-
energy dissipation devices have been addressed in the tion to these additional factors with the same scholarly
literature, the applicability of the aforementioned ones rigor as seismic pounding, thus fostering a comprehen-
in mitigating seismic pounding has not been studied sive comprehension of the multifaceted contributors to
before. structural pounding and facilitating the development of
(g) There are a variety of analytical models that can be comprehensive mitigation strategies.
used to simulate seismic pounding. However, different (k) In the complex realm of seismic pounding, slab-to-
studies that compared these models demonstrated con- column pounding deserves a spotlight. This specific
tradictory results for the pounding-induced response. form of collision intensifies the harmful effects of
So, in these models, the impact stiffness and coefficient pounding. Unlike typical slab-to-slab pounding, slab-
of restitution need to be further investigated in order for to-column pounding focuses immense forces onto
them to be quantified for distinctive configurations of smaller elements like columns. This results in mag-
seismically pounding buildings. nified shear forces and ductility demands, which can
(h) Despite the significant advancements in understanding easily overwhelm these members, triggering localised
seismic pounding through theoretical studies, future failures and potentially compromising the entire struc-
research efforts must prioritize comprehensive experi- ture’s integrity. Therefore, explicitly considering slab-
mental testing to validate these findings and address to-column pounding scenarios in seismic design and
remaining uncertainties. Real-world structures exhibit retrofit strategies is crucial, as its neglection could lead
complexities beyond idealisations, and laboratory or to an underestimation of a building’s true vulnerability
field experiments can capture these intricacies and during earthquakes.
their influence on pounding behaviour. Such testing (l) The presence of torsional pounding, prevalent in
can illuminate the nuanced interplay between structural buildings with asymmetrical configurations, presents
features, material properties, and earthquake ground a significant concern during seismic events. Since it
motions, ultimately leading to more accurate design increases the frequency of collisions and heighten
and mitigation strategies for structures susceptible to demands on displacement, shear, torsion, and ductility.
pounding. Additionally, experiments can guide the These combined observations reveal the critical role of
development of improved numerical models by provid- torsional pounding in amplifying the adverse effects of
ing crucial benchmarks for calibration and validation. seismic pounding on adjacent buildings, necessitating
(i) The utilisation of artificial intelligence and machine careful consideration in design and assessment prac-
learning-based approaches holds paramount impor- tices.
tance in accurately predicting pounding forces and the (m) Ensuring an adequate seismic gap between adjacent
resulting response of adjacent buildings during seis- buildings not only alleviates seismic pounding but
mic events. These advanced methodologies offer sig- effectively eradicates it. Therefore, it is imperative that
nificant potential for enhancing the understanding of the seismic gap be sufficiently spacious to accommo-
structural dynamics and improving design strategies to date the peak displacements of each building. Find-
mitigate pounding effects. It is strongly recommended ings from existing literature indicate that enlarging the
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4295

seismic gap does not significantly influence pounding 7. Karayannis CG, Naoum MC (2017) Inter-story pounding and
unless the buildings are adequately distanced from each torsional effect due to interaction between adjacent multistory
RC buildings. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference
other. However, this contrasts with findings presented on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake
in other studies, as it has been reported in some of engineering (COMPDYN 2015). Institute of Structural Analysis
them that expanding the separation distance between and Antiseismic Research School of Civil Engineering National
buildings changes the force of pounding experienced Technical University of Athens (NTUA) Greece, pp 3556–3567
8. Manoukas GE, Karayannis CG (2024) Asymmetric seismic
between them as well as the number of collisions. pounding between multistorey reinforced concrete structures in
a city block. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 177:108415. https://​doi.​org/​
Funding Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & 10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2023.​108415
Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyp- 9. Doğan M, Günaydin A (2009) Pounding of adjacent RC buildings
tian Knowledge Bank (EKB). during seismıc loads. J Eskişehir Osmangazi Univ Faculty Eng
Architect 22:129–145
Declarations 10. Berg GV, Degenkolb HJ (1973) Engineering lessons from the
Managua earthquake. American Iron and Steel Institute Report
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known com- 11. Bertero VV, Collins RG (1973) Investigation of the failures of the
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have ap- Olive View stairtowers during the San Fernando earthquake and
peared to influence the work reported in this paper. their implications on seismic design. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center University of California
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- 12. Rosenblueth E, Meli R (1986) The earthquake of 19 September
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- 1985: effects in Mexico City. Concr Int 8:23–34
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long 13. Valles-Mattox R, Reinhorn A (1997) Evaluation, prevention and
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, mitigation of pounding effects in building structures. National
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are of New York at Buffalo, New York
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated 14. Valles-Mattox R, Reinhorn A (1996) Evaluation, prevention and
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in mitigation of pounding effects in building structures. In: Proceed-
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not ings of the eleventh world conference on earthquake engineering.
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Pergamon, Elsevier Science Oxford, Acapulco
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a 15. Anagnostopoulos SA (1995) Earthquake induced pounding: State
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. of the art. Proceedings of the 10th European conference on earth-
quake engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 897–905
16. Kasai K, Maison BF (1997) Building pounding damage dur-
ing the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Eng Struct 19:195–207.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0141-​0296(96)​00082-X
References 17. Chung LL, Jean WY, Yeh YK, et al (2007) Seismic upgrading
of compulsory school buildings in Taiwan. In: Proceedings on
1. Anagnostopoulos SA (1996) Building pounding re-examined: second international conference on urban disaster reduction.
how serious a problem is it. In: Proceedings of the eleventh world 18. Patil US (2004) Risk reduction in school buildings against earth-
conference on earthquake engineering. Pergamon, Elsevier Sci- quake. In: New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering
ence Oxford, Acapulco (NZSEE) Conference. Rotorua, New Zealand
2. Degg MR (1992) Some implications of the 1985 Mexican earth- 19. Agarwal P, Thakkar SK, Dubey RN (2012) Behaviour of Build-
quake for hazard assessment. Geohazards. Springer, Dordrecht, ing, Bridges, Dams and Ports During Bhuj Earthquake of Jan 26,
pp 105–114 2001. Roorkee
3. Isobe D, Ohta T, Inoue T, Matsueda F (2012) Seismic pounding 20. Jain SK, Lettis WR, Murty CVR, Bardet J-P (2002) Bhuj, India
and collapse behavior of neighboring buildings with different Earthquake of Jan 26, 2001 Reconnaissance Report (Publication
natural periods. Nat Sci 4:686–693. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4236/​ns.​ number 2002-01). Oakland
2012.​428090 21. Madabhushi SPG, Haigh SK (2005) The Bhuj, India earthquake
4. Miari M, Choong KK, Jankowski R (2021) Seismic pound- of 26th January 2001. Earthquake Engineering Field Investiga-
ing between bridge segments: a state-of-the-art review. Arch tion Team, London
Comput Methods Eng 28:495–504. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ 22. Sołtysik B, Jankowski R (2013) Non-linear strain rate analysis
s11831-​019-​09389-x of earthquake-induced pounding between steel buildings. Int J
5. Cole G, Dhakal R, Carr AJ, Bull D (2010) Building pounding Earth Sci Eng 6:429–433
state of the art: identifying structures vulnerable to pounding 23. Wibowo A, Kafle B, Kermani AM, et al (2008) Damage in the
damage. In: Proceedings of New Zealand society for earthquake 2008 China earthquake. In: Proceedings of Australian earthquake
engineering annual conference. University of Canterbury: Civil engineering society conference. Ballarat, Australia
and Natural Resources Engineering, Wellington 24. Cole G, Dhakal R, Carr A, Bull D (2010) Interbuilding pounding
6. Karayannis CG, Naoum MC (2017) Torsion effect due to asym- damage observed in the 2010 Darfield earthquake. Bull N Z Soc
metric seismic pounding between multistory RC buildings. In: Earthq Eng 43:382–386. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5459/​bnzsee.​43.4.​
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on computational 382-​386
methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering 25. Cole GL, Dhakal RP, Carr AJ, Bull DK (2011) Case studies of
(COMPDYN 2015). Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseis- observed pounding damage during the 2010 Darfield earthquake.
mic Research School of Civil Engineering National Technical In: Proceedings of 9th pacific conference on earthquake engi-
University of Athens (NTUA) Greece, pp 3519–3529 neering. Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society, Auckland,
pp 173–180
4296 A. Elgammal et al.

26. Cole GL, Dhakal RP, Turner FM (2012) Building pounding dam- buildings in series. Struct Eng Mech 83:153–166. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
age observed in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Earthq Eng 10.​12989/​sem.​2022.​83.2.​153
Struct Dyn 41:893–913. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​1164 44. Maniatakis CA, Spyrakos CC, Kiriakopoulos PD, Tsellos K
27. Cole GL, Dhakal RP, Chouw N (2012) Building pounding dam- (2018) Pounding phenomena affecting seismic response of a his-
age observed in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. In: Proceed- toric Byzantine Church. In: Proceedings of the 16th European
ing of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering. Lisboa conference on earthquake engineering. Thessaloniki, Greece
28. Romão X, Costa AA, Paupério E et al (2013) Field observations 45. Maniatakis CA, Spyrakos CC, Kiriakopoulos PD, Tsellos K-P
and interpretation of the structural performance of construc- (2018) Seismic response of a historic church considering pound-
tions after the 11 May 2011 Lorca earthquake. Eng Fail Anal ing phenomena. Bull Earthq Eng 16:2913–2941. https://​doi.​org/​
34:670–692. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engfa​ilanal.​2013.​01.​040 10.​1007/​s10518-​017-​0293-5
29. Shrestha B, Hao H (2018) Building pounding damages observed 46. Rojas FR, Anderson JC (2012) Pounding of an 18-story build-
during the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil ing during recorded earthquakes. J Struct Eng 138:1530–1544.
32:04018006. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​CF.​1943-​5509.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​ST.​1943-​541X.​00005​41
00011​34 47. Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2013) Struc-
30. Rai DC, Singhal V, Raj SB, Sagar SL (2016) Reconnaissance tural pounding between adjacent buildings subjected to strong
of the effects of the M7.8 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April ground motions. Part I: the effect of different structures
25, 2015. Geomat Nat Haz Risk 7:1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​ arrangement. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1509–1528. https://​
19475​705.​2015.​10849​55 doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2285
31. Sharma K, Deng L, Noguez CC (2016) Field investigation on the 48. Sołtysik B, Jankowski R (2015) Building damage due to
performance of building structures during the April 25, 2015, structural pounding during earthquakes. J Phys: Conf Ser
Gorkha earthquake in Nepal. Eng Struct 121:61–74. https://​doi.​ 628:012040
org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2016.​04.​043 49. Jameel M, Islam ABMS, Hussain RR et al (2013) Non-linear
32. Gautam D, Chaulagain H (2016) Structural performance and FEM analysis of seismic induced pounding between neighbour-
associated lessons to be learned from world earthquakes in Nepal ing multi-storey structures. Latin Am J Solids Struct 10:921–939.
after 25 April 2015 (MW 7.8) Gorkha earthquake. Eng Fail Anal https://​doi.​org/​10.​1590/​S1679-​78252​01300​05000​04
68:222–243. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engfa​ilanal.​2016.​06.​002 50. Inel M, Cayci BT, Kamal M, Altinel O (2014) Structural pound-
33. Gautam D, Rodrigues H, Bhetwal KK et al (2016) Common ing of mid-rise RC buildings during earthquakes. In: Proceedings
structural and construction deficiencies of Nepalese build- of the second European conference on earthquake engineering
ings. Innov Infrastruct Solut 1:1. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​ and semiology. Istanbul, Turkey
s41062-​016-​0001-3 51. Jankowski R (2005) Impact force spectrum for damage assess-
34. Shakya K, Pant DR, Maharjan M et al (2013) Lessons learned ment of earthquake-induced structural pounding. Key Eng Mater
from performance of buildings during the September 18, 293–294:711–718. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4028/​www.​scien​tific.​net/​
2011 earthquake in Nepal. Asian J Civ Eng (Build Housing) KEM.​293-​294.​711
14:719–733 52. Jankowski R (2006) Pounding force response spectrum under
35. Sayın E, Yön B, Onat O et al (2021) 24 January 2020 Sivrice- earthquake excitation. Eng Struct 28:1149–1161. https://​doi.​org/​
Elazığ, Turkey earthquake: geotechnical evaluation and perfor- 10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2005.​12.​005
mance of structures. Bull Earthq Eng 19:657–684. https://​doi.​ 53. Crozet V, Politopoulos I, Yang M et al (2017) Influential struc-
org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​020-​01018-4 tural parameters of pounding between buildings during earth-
36. Bayrak E, Ozer C (2021) The 24 January 2020 (Mw 6.8) Sivrice quakes. Procedia Eng 199:1092–1097. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
(Elazig, Turkey) earthquake: a first look at spatiotemporal dis- proeng.​2017.​09.​084
tribution and triggering of aftershocks. Arab J Geosci 14:2445. 54. Crozet V, Politopoulos I, Yang M et al (2018) Sensitivity analysis
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12517-​021-​08756-y of pounding between adjacent structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
37. Mohamed H, Elyamany G, Khalil E (2021) Seismic pounding 47:219–235. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2949
between adjacent buildings: a review. Acad Platform J. Nat Haz- 55. Karayannis CG, Favvata MJ (2005) Inter-story pounding between
ards Disaster Manage 2:16–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​52114/​apjhad.​ multistory reinforced concrete structures. Struct Eng Mech
937206 20:505–526
38. Bayrak OF, Bikçe M, Erdem MM (2021) Failures of structures 56. Karayannis CG, Favvata MJ (2005) Earthquake-induced interac-
during the January 24, 2020, Sivrice (Elazığ) Earthquake in tion between adjacent reinforced concrete structures with non-
Turkey. Nat Hazards 108:1943–1969. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ equal heights. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1–20. https://​doi.​org/​
s11069-​021-​04764-z 10.​1002/​eqe.​398
39. Anagnostopoulos SA (1988) Pounding of buildings in series dur- 57. Karayannis CG, Naoum MC (2018) Torsional behavior of multi-
ing earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 16:443–456. https://d​ oi.​ story RC frame structures due to asymmetric seismic interaction.
org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​42901​60311 Eng Struct 163:93–111. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ ngstr​ uct.2​ 018.​
40. Anagnostopoulos SA, Spiliopoulos KV (1992) An investigation 02.​038
of earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings. 58. Karayannis CG, Naoum MC (2017) Inter-story pounding and
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21:289–302. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​ torsional effect due to interaction between adjacent multistory
42902​10402 RC buildings. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference
41. Raheem SEA (2006) Seismic pounding between adjacent build- on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake
ing structures. Electron J Struct Eng 6:66–74 engineering. Rhodes Island, Greece, pp 3556–3567
42. Abdel Raheem SE (2014) Mitigation measures for earthquake 59. Rajaram C, Kumar RP (2012) Three dimensional modeling of
induced pounding effects on seismic performance of adjacent pounding between adjacent buildings. In: Proceedings of the
buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 12:1705–1724. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ fourth international conference on structural stability and dynam-
1007/​s10518-​014-​9592-2 ics (ICSSD)
43. Elwardany H, Mosa B, Khedr MDE, Seleemah A (2022) Effect 60. Jankowski R (2009) Experimental study on earthquake-induced
of earthquake induced-pounding on the response of four adjacent pounding between structural elements made of different building
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4297

materials. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:343–354. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​ heights. J Civ Struct Health Monit 8:635–648. https://​doi.​org/​
1002/​eqe.​941 10.​1007/​s13349-​018-​0296-1
61. Mahmoud S, Jankowski R (2009) Inelastic damage-involved 78. Abdel-Mooty M, Al-Atrpy H, Ghouneim M (2009) Modeling
response of colliding buildings during earthquakes. Key Eng and analysis of factors affecting seismic pounding of adjacent
Mater 417–418:513–516. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4028/​www.​scien​ multi-story buildings. WIT Trans Built Environ 104:127–138.
tific.​net/​KEM.​417-​418.​513 https://​doi.​org/​10.​2495/​ERES0​90121
62. Naserkhaki S, Daneshvar GS, Tayebi TD (2013) Heavier adjacent 79. Chitte CJ, Jadhav AS, Kumavat HR (2014) Seismic pounding
building pounding due to earthquake excitation, technical note. between adjacent building structures subjected to near field
Asian J Civ Eng (Build Housing) 14:349–367 ground motion. Int J Res Eng Technol 3:53–62
63. Jankowski R (2015) Pounding between inelastic three-storey 80. Fujii K, Sakai Y (2017) Shaking table test of adjacent building
buildings under seismic excitations. Key Eng Mater 665:121– models considering pounding. Int J Comput Methods Exp Meas-
124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4028/​www.​scien​tific.​net/​KEM.​665.​121 ure 6:857–867. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2495/​CMEM-​V6-​N5-​857-​867
64. Jankowski R (2005) Non-linear modelling of earthquake induced 81. Abdel Raheem SE, Fooly MYM, Abdel Shafy AGA et al (2019)
pounding of buildings, Mechanics of the 21st Century–Proc. of Numerical simulation of potential seismic pounding among adja-
21st ICTAM. In: Proceedings of 21st international congress on cent buildings in series. Bull Earthq Eng 17:439–471. https://d​ oi.​
theoretical and applied mechanics (ICTAM). Springer, Dordrecht org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​018-​0455-0
65. Maison BF, Kasai K (1992) Dynamics of pounding when two 82. Mohamed Nazri F, Miari MA, Kassem MM et al (2019)
buildings collide. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21:771–786. https://​ Probabilistic evaluation of structural pounding between
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​42902​10903 adjacent buildings subjected to repeated seismic excita-
66. Mouzakis HP, Papadrakakis M (2004) Three dimensional nonlin- tions. Arab J Sci Eng 44:4931–4945. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
ear building pounding with friction during earthquakes. J Earth- s13369-​018-​3666-4
quake Eng 8:107–132 83. Jing W, Xing S, Song Y (2020) Collapse-pounding dynamic
67. Jankowski R (2008) Earthquake-induced pounding between equal responses of adjacent frame structures under earthquake action.
height buildings with substantially different dynamic properties. Adv Civ Eng 2020:1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2020/​88513​07
Eng Struct 30:2818–2829. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​r uct.​ 84. Folhento P, De Barros RC, Braz-César M (2021) Study on
2008.​03.​006 earthquake-induced structural pounding between two adjacent
68. Jankowski R (2009) Non-linear FEM analysis of earthquake- building structures with unequal heights. WSEAS Trans Syst
induced pounding between the main building and the stairway 20:196–208. https://​doi.​org/​10.​37394/​23202.​2021.​20.​22
tower of the Olive View Hospital. Eng Struct 31:1851–1864. 85. Favvata MJ, Naoum MC, Karayannis CG (2013) Earthquake
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2009.​03.​024 induced interaction between RC frame and steel frame structures.
69. Jankowski R (2007) Assessment of damage due to earthquake- WIT Trans Built Environ 134:839–851. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2495/​
induced pounding between the main building and the stairway SAFE1​30741
tower. Key Eng Mater 347:339–344. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4028/​ 86. Elwardany H, Seleemah A, Jankowski R (2017) Seismic pound-
www.​scien​tific.​net/​KEM.​347.​339 ing behavior of multi-story buildings in series considering the
70. Chau KT, Wei XX, Guo X, Shen CY (2003) Experimental and effect of infill panels. Eng Struct 144:139–150. https://​doi.​org/​
theoretical simulations of seismic poundings between two adja- 10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2017.​01.​078
cent structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:537–554. https://​doi.​ 87. Elwardany H, Seleemah A, Jankowski R (2018) Corrigendum to
org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​231 “Seismic pounding behavior of multi-story buildings in series
71. Gong L, Hao H (2005) Analysis of coupled lateral-torsional- considering the effect of infill panels” [Eng Struct 144 (2017)
pounding responses of one-storey asymmetric adjacent struc- 139–150]. Eng Struct 171–933
tures subjected to bi-directional ground motions part I: uniform 88. Ismail R, Hasnan MH, Shamsudin N (2017) Structural pound-
ground motion input. Adv Struct Eng 8:463–479. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ ing of concrete frame structure with masonry infill wall under
10.​1260/​13694​33057​74858​043 seismic loading. In: AIP conference proceedings. AIP Publishing
72. Jankowski R, Seleemah A, El-Khoriby S, Elwardany H (2014) LLC, p 120011
Experimental study on pounding between structures during dam- 89. Favvata MJ, Karayannis CG, Anagnostopoulou V (2012) Influ-
aging earthquakes. Key Eng Mater 627:249–252. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ ence of infill panels with and without openings on the pounding
10.​4028/​www.​scien​tific.​net/​KEM.​627.​249 effect of RC structures. In: Proceedings of the 15th world on
73. Abdel Raheem SE, Fooly MYM, Elsonbaty AA, Mansour MH earthquake engineering. Lisboa, pp 24–28
(2021) Critical vertical position of potential seismic collision 90. Favvata MJ, Karayannis CG (2013) The inter-storey pound-
of adjacent buildings. In: Proceedings of second international ing effect on the seismic behaviour of infilled and Pilotis RC
conference on civil engineering: recent applications and future structures. Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineer-
challenges. pp 405–415 ing: seismic behaviour and design of irregular and complex civil
74. Dimitrakopoulos E, Makris N, Kappos AJ (2009) Dimensional structures. Springer, Netherlands, pp 87–101
analysis of the earthquake-induced pounding between adjacent 91. Manoukas GE, Karayannis CG (2023) Seismic interaction
structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:867–886. https://​doi.​org/​ between multistory Pilotis RC frames and shorter structures
10.​1002/​eqe.​872 with different story levels—floor-to-column pounding. CivilEng
75. Dimitrakopoulos E, Makris N, Kappos AJ (2010) Dimensional 4:618–637. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​civil​eng40​20036
analysis of the earthquake response of a pounding oscillator. J 92. Ambiel JHK, Brun M, Gravouil A (2023) Numerical investiga-
Eng Mech 136:299–310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​ tion of the effects of symmetric and eccentric earthquake-induced
9399(2010)​136:​3(299) pounding on accelerations and response spectra for two-storey
76. Zhai C, Jiang S, Li S, Xie L (2015) Dimensional analysis of structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 171:107930. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
earthquake-induced pounding between adjacent inelastic MDOF 1016/j.​soild​yn.​2023.​107930
buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 14:295–313. https://d​ oi.​org/​10.​ 93. Fiore A, Marano GC, Monaco P (2013) Earthquake-induced
1007/​s11803-​015-​0024-3 lateral-torsional pounding between two equal height multi-sto-
77. Chenna R, Ramancharla PK (2018) Damage assessment due to rey buildings under multiple bi-directional ground motions. Adv
pounding between adjacent structures with equal and unequal
4298 A. Elgammal et al.

Struct Eng 16:845–865. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 260/1​ 369-4​ 332.1​ 6.5.​ 111. Mohamed H, Romão X (2021) Seismic fragility functions for
845 non-seismically designed RC structures considering pounding
94. Wei XX, Wang LX, Chau KT (2009) Nonlinear seismic torsional effects. Buildings 11:665. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​buildi​ ngs1​
pounding between an asymmetric tower and a barrier. Earthq 11206​65
Spectra 25:899–925. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1193/1.​32071​77 112. Bantilas KE, Naoum MC, Kavvadias IE et al (2023) Structural
95. Chau KT, Wei XX, Shen CY, Wang LX (2004) Experimental and pounding effect on the seismic performance of a multistorey rein-
theoretical simulations of seismic torsional poundings between forced concrete frame structure. Infrastructures 8:122. https://d​ oi.​
two adjacent structures. In: Proceedings of the 13th world confer- org/​10.​3390/​infra​struc​tures​80801​22
ence on earthquake engineering 13WCEE. Vancouver, Canada 113. Flenga MG, Favvata MJ (2023) The effect of magnitude mw and
96. Wang LX, Chau KT (2008) Chaotic seismic torsional pounding distance Rrup on the fragility assessment of a multistory RC
between two single-story asymmetric towers. In: Proceedings of frame due to earthquake-induced structural pounding. Buildings
the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering. Beijing, 13:1832. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​build​ings1​30718​32
China, pp 1–8 114. Ebrahimiyan F, Hadianfard MA, Naderpour H, Jankowski R
97. Karayannis CG, Favvata MJ, Kakaletsis DJ (2011) Seismic (2022) Fragility analysis of structural pounding between adjacent
behaviour of infilled and pilotis RC frame structures with beam– structures arranged in series with various alignment configura-
column joint degradation effect. Eng Struct 33:2821–2831. tions under near-field earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 20:7215–
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2011.​06.​006 7240. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​022-​01471-3
98. Favvata MJ, Karayannis CG, Liolios AA (2009) Influence of 115. Naeim F, Kelly JM (1999) Design of seismic isolated structures:
exterior joint effect on the inter-story pounding interaction of from theory to practice. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken
structures. Struct Eng Mech 33:113–136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 116. Miari M, Choong KK, Jankowski R (2019) Seismic pounding
12989/​sem.​2009.​33.2.​113 between adjacent buildings: identification of parameters, soil
99. Elgammal A (2021) Improving the performance of vertical shear interaction issues and mitigation measures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
links for enhanced seismic energy dissipation. MSc thesis, Tanta 121:135–150. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2019.​02.​024
University 117. Komodromos P, Polycarpou PC, Papaloizou L, Phocas MC
100. Jeng V, Tzeng WL (2000) Assessment of seismic pounding haz- (2007) Response of seismically isolated buildings considering
ard for Taipei City. Eng Struct 22:459–471. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ poundings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1605–1622. https://​doi.​
1016/​S0141-​0296(98)​00123-0 org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​692
101. Hosseini SH, Naderpour H, Vahdani R, Jankowski R (2022) 118. Komodromos P (2008) Simulation of the earthquake-induced
Evaluation of pounding effects between reinforced concrete pounding of seismically isolated buildings. Comput Struct
frames subjected to far-field earthquakes in terms of damage 86:618–626. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truc.​2007.​08.​001
index. Bull Earthq Eng 20:1219–1245. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ 119. Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2010) Simulating seismically
s10518-​021-​01259-x isolated buildings under earthquake-induced pounding inci-
102. Yang YQ, Xie LL, Dai JW (2018) Simulation and preliminary dences. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference
analysis of collision process between adjacent RC frame struc- on structures under shock and impact (SUSI2010). Tallinn, Esto-
tures during earthquake. Chin Civil Eng J 51:104–108 nia, pp 245–256
103. Polycarpou PC, Papaloizou L, Komodromos P, Charmpis DC 120. Masroor A, Mosqueda G (2012) Experimental simulation of
(2015) Effect of the seismic excitation angle on the dynamic base-isolated buildings pounding against moat wall and effects
response of adjacent buildings during pounding. Earthqu Struct on superstructure response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41:2093–
8:1127–1146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​eas.​2015.8.​5.​1127 2109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2177
104. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Pnevmatikos NG (2014) On the seis- 121. Bao Y, Becker TC (2018) Inelastic response of base-isolated
mic response of collided structures. International Journal of structures subjected to impact. Eng Struct 171:86–93. https://​
Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2018.​05.​091
8:750–754 122. Polycarpou PC, Papaloizou L, Mavronicola E, et al (2008) Earth-
105. Kazemi F, Mohebi B, Yakhchalian M (2018) Evaluation of the quake induced poundings of seismically isolated buildings: the
P-delta effect on collapse capacity of adjacent structures sub- effect of the vertical location of impacts. In: Proceedings of the
jected to far-field ground motions. Civ Eng J 4:1066–1073 10th Pan American congress of applied mechanics. pp 7–11
106. Mohebi B, Kazemi F, Yakhchalian M (2018) Investigating the 123. Mavronicola EA, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2017) Spatial
P-Delta effects on the seismic collapse capacity of adjacent seismic modeling of base-isolated buildings pounding against
structures. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on moat walls: effects of ground motion directionality and mass
earthquake engineering. Thessaloniki, Greece eccentricity. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1161–1179. https://​doi.​
107. Sinha R, Rao BN (2023) Seismic fragility of non-ductile RC org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2850
frames for pounding risk assessment. Structures 56:104865. 124. Mavronicola EA, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2020) Effect
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2023.​07.​055 of ground motion directionality on the seismic response of base
108. Flenga MG, Favvata MJ (2021) Fragility curves and probabilistic isolated buildings pounding against adjacent structures. Eng
seismic demand models on the seismic assessment of RC frames Struct 207:110202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​r uct.​2020.​
subjected to structural pounding. Appl Sci 11:8253. https://​doi.​ 110202
org/​10.​3390/​app11​178253 125. Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2010) Earthquake-induced
109. Yazdanpanah O, Mohebi B, Kazemi F et al (2022) Development poundings of a seismically isolated building with adjacent struc-
of fragility curves in adjacent steel moment-resisting frames tures. Eng Struct 32:1937–1951. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​
considering pounding effects through improved wavelet-based ruct.​2010.​03.​011
refined damage-sensitive feature. Mech Syst Signal Process 126. Polycarpou P, Papaloizou L, Mavronicola E, Komodromos P
173:109038. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ymssp.​2022.​109038 (2008) Numerical simulation of seismically isolated buildings
110. Liu P, Zhu HX, Fan PP, Yang WG (2021) A reliability-based considering poundings with adjacent structures. In: Proceedings
fragility assessment method for seismic pounding between non- of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering
linear buildings. Struct Eng Mech 77:19–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 127. Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2010) On poundings of a seis-
12989/​sem.​2021.​77.1.​019 mically isolated building with adjacent structures during strong
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4299

earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:933–940. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ 145. Miari M, Jankowski R (2022) Incremental dynamic analysis and
10.​1002/​eqe.​975 fragility assessment of buildings founded on different soil types
128. Mahmoud S, Jankowski R (2010) Pounding-involved response of experiencing structural pounding during earthquakes. Eng Struct
isolated and non-isolated buildings under earthquake excitation. 252:113118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2021.​113118
Earthq Struct 1:231–252 146. Shakya K, Wijeyewickrema AC, Ohmachi T (2008) Mid-column
129. Pant DR, Wijeyewickrema AC (2012) Structural performance of seismic pounding of reinforced concrete buildings in a row con-
a base-isolated reinforced concrete building subjected to seismic sidering effects of soil. In: The 14th world conference on earth-
pounding. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41:1709–1716. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ quake engineering. Beijing, pp 12–17
10.​1002/​eqe.​2158 147. Farghaly AA (2017) Seismic analysis of adjacent buildings
130. Uz M, Hadi MN (2010) Investigating the effects of pounding for subjected to double pounding considering soil–structure inter-
inelastic base isolated adjacent buildings under earthquake exci- action. Int J Adv Struct Eng 9:51–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
tations. In: Proceedings of the 21st Australian conference on the s40091-​017-​0148-y
mechanics of structures and materials. CRC Press: Melbourne, 148. Kontoni D-P, Farghaly A (2018) Seismic response of adjacent
pp 329–334 unequal buildings subjected to double pounding considering soil-
131. Liu C, Yang W, Yan Z et al (2017) Base pounding model and structure interaction. Computation 6:10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
response analysis of base-isolated structures under earthquake compu​tatio​n6010​010
excitation. Appl Sci 7:1238 149. Naserkhaki S, El Rich M, Abdul Aziz FNA, Pourmohammad H
132. Masroor A, Mosqueda G (2015) Assessing the collapse probabil- (2013) Separation gap, a critical factor in earthquake induced
ity of base-isolated buildings considering pounding to moat walls pounding between adjacent buildings. Asian J Civ Eng (Build
using the FEMA P695 methodology. Earthq Spectra 31:2069– Housing) 14:881–898
2086. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1193/​09211​3EQS2​56M 150. Li P, Liu S, Lu Z (2017) Studies on pounding response consid-
133. Far H (2019) Advanced computation methods for soil-structure ering structure-soil-structure interaction under seismic loads.
interaction analysis of structures resting on soft soils. Int J Geo- Sustainability 9:2219. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su912​2219
tech Eng 13:352–359. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19386​362.​2017.​ 151. Elwardany H, Seleemah A, Jankowski R, El-khoriby S (2019)
13545​10 Influence of soil–structure interaction on seismic pounding
134. Chinmayi HK (2019) Study on pounding of structures with between steel frame buildings considering the effect of infill
soil–structure interaction effects: a review. J Instit Eng Ser A panels. Bull Earthq Eng 17:6165–6202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
100:199–204. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40030-​018-​0341-4 S10518-​019-​00713-1/​FIGUR​ES/​31
135. Sobhi P, Far H (2021) Impact of structural pounding on struc- 152. Mahmoud S, Gutub SA (2013) Earthquake induced pounding-
tural behaviour of adjacent buildings considering dynamic soil- involved response of base-isolated buildings incorporating soil
structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 20:3515–3547. https://d​ oi.​ flexibility. Adv Struct Eng 16:2043–2062. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​021-​01195-w 1260/​1369-​4332.​16.​12.​2043
136. Stewart JP, Fenves GL, Seed RB (1999) Seismic soil-structure 153. Naseri SA, VaseghiAmiri J, Rajabnejad H, Sadeghi A (2022)
interaction in buildings. I: analytical aspects. J Geotech Geoen- A study into the effect of different ground motion durations
viron Eng 125:26–37 on the seismic pounding force by considering soil–structure
137. Naserkhaki S, El-Rich M, Aziz F, Pourmohammad H (2014) interaction. Asian J Civ Eng 23:53–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
Pounding between adjacent buildings of varying height coupled s42107-​021-​00408-6
through soil. Struct Eng Mech 52:573–593 154. Kamel KT (2023) Estimating the seismic pounding force between
138. Ghandil M, Aldaikh H (2017) Damage-based seismic planar adjacent buildings and study the effect of gap distance on seismic
pounding analysis of adjacent symmetric buildings considering pounding. Asian J Civ Eng 24:153–167. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
inelastic structure-soil-structure interaction. Earthq Eng Struct s42107-​022-​00494-0
Dyn 46:1141–1159. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2848 155. International Conference of Building Officials (1997) Uniform
139. Mahmoud S, Abd-Elhamed A, Jankowski R (2013) Earthquake- Building Code (UBC). Whittier
induced pounding between equal height multi-storey buildings 156. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) Pre-
considering soil-structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 11:1021– standard and commentary for the Seismic rehabilitation of build-
1048. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​012-​9411-6 ings (FEMA 356). Washington, DC
140. Naserkhaki S, Aziz FNAA, Pourmohammad H (2012) Earth- 157. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2004) Euroc-
quake induced pounding between adjacent buildings consider- ode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1:
ing soil-structure interaction. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 11:343–358. general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998–
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11803-​012-​0126-0 1). Belgium
141. Madani B, Behnamfar F, Tajmir Riahi H (2015) Dynamic 158. Housing & Building National Research Center (2012) Egyptian
response of structures subjected to pounding and structure–soil– code of practice for calculating loads and forces in structural
structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 78:46–60. https://​doi.​ works and building works (ECP 201). Giza,
org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2015.​07.​002 159. National Research Council of Canada (2015) National building
142. Fatahi B, Van Nguyen Q, Xu R, Sun W (2018) Three-dimen- code of Canada (NBCC), Fourteenth. Canada
sional response of neighboring buildings sitting on pile founda- 160. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2016) Minimum
tions to seismic pounding. Int J Geomech 18:04018007 design loads for buildings and other structures: ASCE/SEI 7–16.
143. Miari M, Jankowski R (2022) Shaking table experimental study Reston
on pounding between adjacent structures founded on different 161. International Code Council (ICC) (2021) International building
soil types. Structures 44:851–879. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ code (IBC). Illinois
istruc.​2022.​08.​059 162. Pantelides CP, Ma X (1998) Linear and nonlinear pounding of
144. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010) Minimum structural systems. Comput Struct 66:79–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
design loads for buildings and other structures: ASCE/SEI 7-10. 1016/​S0045-​7949(97)​00045-X
Reston
4300 A. Elgammal et al.

163. Kumar MP, Kumar JDC (2015) Seismic pounding of the adja- earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:81–100. https://​doi.​org/​
cent buildings with different heights. Int J Eng Res Sci Technol 10.​1002/​eqe.​2194
4:350–361 183. Rezavani A, Moghadam AS (2004) Using shaking table to study
164. Ehab M, Salem H, Mostafa H, Yehia N (2014) Earthquake different methods of reduceing effects of buildings pounding dur-
pounding effect on adjacent reinforced concrete buildings. Int J ing earthquake. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engi-
Comput Appl 106: neering. Vancouver
165. Favvata MJ (2017) Minimum required separation gap for adja- 184. Rezavandi A, Moghadam AS (2007) Experimental and numerical
cent RC frames with potential inter-story seismic pounding. Eng study on pounding effects and mitigation techniques for adjacent
Struct 152:643–659. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ ngstr​ uct.2​ 017.0​ 9.​ structures. Adv Struct Eng 10:121–134. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1260/​
025 13694​33077​80429​752
166. Jeng V, Kasai K, Maison BF (1992) A spectral difference method 185. Takabatake H, Yasui M, Nakagawa Y, Kishida A (2014) Relaxa-
to estimate building separations to avoid pounding. Earthq Spec- tion method for pounding action between adjacent buildings at
tra 8:201–223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1193/1.​15856​79 expansion joint. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:1381–1400. https://​
167. Garcia DL (2004) Separation between adjacent nonlinear struc- doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2402
tures for prevention of seismic pounding. In: Proceedings of 13th 186. Sołtysik B, Falborski T, Jankowski R (2017) Preventing of earth-
world conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver quake-induced pounding between steel structures by using poly-
168. Lopez-Garcia D, Soong TT (2009) Assessment of the separa- mer elements–experimental study. Procedia Eng 199:278–283.
tion necessary to prevent seismic pounding between linear struc- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2017.​09.​029
tural systems. Probab Eng Mech 24:210–223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 187. Sołtysik B, Falborski T, Jankowski R (2020) Study on poly-
1016/j.​probe​ngmech.​2008.​06.​002 mer elements for mitigation of earthquake-induced pounding
169. Hong HP, Wang SS, Hong P (2003) Critical building separation between buildings in complex arrangements. Seismic behaviour
distance in reducing pounding risk under earthquake excitation. and design of irregular and complex civil structures III. Springer,
Struct Saf 25:287–303. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0167-​4730(02)​ New York, pp 391–401
00080-2 188. Stręk AM, Lasowicz N, Kwiecień A et al (2021) Highly dissipa-
170. Garcia DL (2005) Discussion on: Critical building separation tive materials for damage protection against earthquake-induced
distance in reducing pounding risk under earthquake excitation. structural pounding. Materials 14:3231. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
Struct Saf 27:393–396. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​strus​afe.​2005.​ ma141​23231
06.​001 189. Khatami SM, Naderpour H, Mortezaei A et al (2023) Optimum
171. Hong HP, Wang SS, Hong P (2005) Reply to discussion on shapes and dimensions of rubber bumpers in order to reduce
“Critical building separation distance in reducing pounding risk structural pounding during seismic excitations. Structures
under earthquake excitation. Struct Saf 397–398. https://​doi.​org/​ 48:1046–1056. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2023.​01.​026
10.​1016/​S0167-​4730(02)​00080-2 190. Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2011) Numerical investigation
172. Construction and Planning Administration Ministry of Interior of potential mitigation measures for poundings of seismically
(2011) Seismic design code and commentary for buildings. isolated buildings. Earthq Struct 2:1–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Taipei 12989/​eas.​2011.2.​1.​001
173. Standards Australia (2007) Structural design actions - Part 4: 191. Adeli H, Panakkat A (2009) A probabilistic neural network for
earthquake actions in Australia (AS 1170.4–2007). Sydney earthquake magnitude prediction. Neural Netw 22:1018–1024.
174. Building & Housing Research Center (2017) Iranian code of https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​neunet.​2009.​05.​003
practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (Standard 2800- 192. Cheng F, Jiang H, Lou K (2008) Smart structures: innovative
4th edition). TehranIran systems for seismic response control, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca
175. Shrestha B (2013) Effects of separation distance and nonlinearity Raton
on pounding response of adjacent structures. Int J Civ Struct Eng 193. Fisco NR, Adeli H (2011) Smart structures: part I—active and
3:3–603 semi-active control. Scientia Iranica 18:275–284. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
176. Barbato M, Tubaldi E (2013) A probabilistic performance-based 10.​1016/j.​scient.​2011.​05.​034
approach for mitigating the seismic pounding risk between adja- 194. Soong TT, Spencer BF (2000) Active, semi-active and hybrid
cent buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1203–1219. https://d​ oi.​ control of structures. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 33:387–402.
org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2267 https://​doi.​org/​10.​5459/​bnzsee.​33.3.​387-​402
177. Lin J, Weng C (2002) A study on seismic pounding probability 195. Moreschi L (2000) Seismic design of energy dissipation systems
of buildings in Taipei metropolitan area. J Chin Inst Eng 25:123– for optimal structural performance. PhD dissertation, Virginia
135. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02533​839.​2002.​96706​87 Polytechnic Institute and State University
178. Lin J (2005) Evaluation of seismic pounding risk of buildings 196. Song TT, Dargush GF (1997) Passive energy dissipation systems
in Taiwan. J Chin Inst Eng 28:867–872. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​ in structural engineering. Wiley, Hoboken
02533​839.​2005.​96710​57 197. Ismail M, López-Almansa F, Benavent-Climent A, Pujades-
179. Hao H (2015) Analysis of seismic pounding between adjacent Beneit LG (2014) Finite element code-based modeling of a
buildings. Aust J Struct Eng 16:208–225. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/​ multi-feature isolation system and passive alleviation of possible
13287​982.​2015.​10926​84 inner pounding. Int J Adv Struct Eng 6:1–23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
180. Naderpour H, Khatami SM, Barros RC (2017) Prediction of criti- 1007/​s40091-​014-​0069-y
cal distance between two MDOF systems subjected to seismic 198. Ismail M, Rodellar J, Pozo F (2015) Passive and hybrid miti-
excitation in terms of artificial neural networks. Periodica Poly- gation of potential near-fault inner pounding of a self-braking
technica Civ Eng 61:516–529. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 311/P ​ Pci.9​ 618 seismic isolator. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:233–250. https://​doi.​
181. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (2001) Code org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2014.​10.​019
for seismic design of buildings (GB50011-2001). Beijing 199. Ismail M (2015) Inner pounding control of the RNC isolator
182. Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P, Polycarpou AC (2013) A and its impact on seismic isolation efficiency under near-fault
nonlinear impact model for simulating the use of rubber shock earthquakes. Eng Struct 86:99–121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
absorbers for mitigating the effects of structural pounding during engst​ruct.​2014.​12.​041
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4301

200. Ismail M (2015) An isolation system for limited seismic gaps in reduction in SDOF structure. Shock Vib 2016:1–15. https://​doi.​
near-fault zones. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1115–1137. https://​ org/​10.​1155/​2016/​80216​90
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2504 219. Mazza F, Labernarda R (2021) Concave surface base-isolation
201. Ismail M (2015) Elimination of torsion and pounding of isolated system against seismic pounding of irregular adjacent buildings.
asymmetric structures under near-fault ground motions. Struct In: 14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress. CIMNE
Control Health Monit 22:1295–1324. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 002/s​ tc.​ 220. Doroudi R, Lavassani SHH (2021) Connection of coupled build-
1746 ings: a state-of-the-art review. Structures 33:1299–1326. https://​
202. Rayegani A, Nouri G (2022) Application of smart dampers for doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2021.​05.​017
prevention of seismic pounding in isolated structures subjected to 221. Richardson A, Walsh KK, Abdullah MM (2013) Closed-form
near-fault earthquakes. J Earthquake Eng 26:4069–4084. https://​ equations for coupling linear structures using stiffness and damp-
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13632​469.​2020.​18222​30 ing elements. Struct Control Health Monit 20:259–281. https://​
203. Symans MD, Charney FA, Whittaker AS et al (2008) Energy doi.​org/​10.​1002/​stc.​490
dissipation systems for seismic applications: current practice and 222. Richardson A, Walsh KK, Abdullah MM (2013) Closed-form
recent developments. J Struct Eng 134:3–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ design equations for controlling vibrations in connected struc-
1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​9445(2008)​134:​1(3) tures. J Earthq Eng 17:699–719. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13632​
204. Fisco NR, Adeli H (2011) Smart structures: part II—hybrid con- 469.​2013.​771590
trol systems and control strategies. Scientia Iranica 18:285–295. 223. Jankowski R, Mahmoud S (2016) Linking of adjacent three-
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scient.​2011.​05.​035 storey buildings for mitigation of structural pounding during
205. Jamal KA, Vidyadhara HS (2013) Seismic pounding of multisto- earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 14:3075–3097. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
reyed buildings. Int J Res Eng Technol 15:12–17 1007/​s10518-​016-​9946-z
206. NK A, Nair N (2016) Evaluation of seismic pounding between 224. Klein R, Cusano G, Stukel J (1972) Investigation of a method to
adjacent RC building. Int J Innov Res Sci Technol 3:138–147 stabilize wind induced oscillations in large structures‫‏‬. In: Ameri-
207. Hameed A, Saleem M, Qazi AU, et al (2012) Mitigation of seis- can Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Annual Meeting.
mic pounding between adjacent buildins. Pak J Sci 64 New York, pp 1–8
208. Barros RC, Khatami SM (2012) Seismic response effect of shear 225. Kunieda M (1976) Earthquake prevent design and earthquake
walls in reducing pounding risk of reinforced concrete buildings proof design for structures. J JSME 79:361–365
subjected to near-fault ground motions. In: Proceedings of the 226. Miller RK (1980) Steady vibroimpact at a seismic joint between
15th world conference on earthquake engineering. Lisbon adjacent structures‫‏‬. In: Proceedings of the 7th World Conference
209. Kazemi F, Mohebi B, Yakhchalian M (2018) Enhancing the seis- on Earthquake Engineering. Istanbul, pp 57–64
mic performance of adjacent pounding structures using viscous 227. Kobori T, Yamada T, Takenaka Y, et al (1988) Effect of dynamic
dampers. In: The 16th European conference on earthquake engi- tuned connector on reduction of seismic response-application to
neering (16ECEE). Thessaloniki, pp 18–21 adjacent office buildings. In: Proceedings of the 9th world confer-
210. Elwardany H, Jankowski R, Seleemah A (2021) Mitigating the ence on earthquake engineering. Tokyo-Kyoto, pp 773–778
seismic pounding of multi-story buildings in series using linear 228. Westermo BD (1989) The dynamics of interstructural connection
and nonlinear fluid viscous dampers. Arch Civ Mech Eng 21:137. to prevent pounding. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 18:687–699
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s43452-​021-​00249-9 229. Kamel KT (2023) Mitigating the seismic pounding between
211. Kazemi F, Mohebi B, Jankowski R (2021) Predicting the seismic adjacent buildings by the use of link beams between them and
collapse capacity of adjacent SMRFs retrofitted with fluid vis- investigating the best location of these links. Asian J Civ Eng.
cous dampers in pounding condition. Mech Syst Signal Process https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42107-​023-​00602-8
161:107939. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ymssp.​2021.​107939 230. Song J, Tse KT (2014) Dynamic characteristics of wind-excited
212. Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM (2012) Preventing the pounding of linked twin buildings based on a 3-dimensional analytical model.
adjacent buildings with harmony search optimized tuned mass Eng Struct 79:169–181. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ ngstr​ uct.2​ 014.​
damper. In: 3rd European Conference of Civil Engineering, pp 08.​015
2–4 231. Park K-S, Ok S-Y (2019) Coupling ATMD system for seismic
213. Mate NU, Bakre SV, Jaiswal OR (2017) Seismic pounding response control of two adjacent buildings. Shock Vib 2019:1–
response of singled-degree-of-freedom elastic and inelastic struc- 16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2019/​20606​23
tures using passive tuned mass damper. Int J Civ Eng 15:991– 232. Yamada Y, Ikawa N, Yokoyama H, Tachibana E (1994) Active
1005. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40999-​017-​0178-7 control of structures using the joining member with negative
214. Zhang P, Song G, Li H-N, Lin Y-X (2013) Seismic control of stiffness. In: Proceedings of the first world conference on struc-
power transmission tower using pounding TMD. J Eng Mech tural control. Pasadena, pp 9–41
139:1395–1406. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 061/(​ ASCE)E
​ M.1​ 943-7​ 889.​ 233. Palacios-Quinonero F, Rossell JM, Rodellar J, Karimi HR (2011)
00005​76 Active-passive control strategy for adjacent buildings. In: Pro-
215. Zhang P, Li L, Patil D et al (2016) Parametric study of pound- ceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference. IEEE, pp
ing tuned mass damper for subsea jumpers. Smart Mater Struct 3110–3115
25:015028. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​0964-​1726/​25/1/​015028 234. Park K-S, Ok S-Y (2012) Optimal design of actively controlled
216. Wang W, Hua X, Wang X et al (2017) Optimum design of a novel adjacent structures for balancing the mutually conflicting objec-
pounding tuned mass damper under harmonic excitation. Smart tives in design preference aspects. Eng Struct 45:213–222.
Mater Struct 26:055024. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1361-​665X/​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2012.​06.​020
aa69a3 235. Spencer BF, Dyke SJ, Sain MK, Carlson JD (1997) Phenom-
217. Xue Q, Zhang J, He J et al (2017) Seismic control performance enological model for magnetorheological dampers. J Eng Mech
for pounding tuned massed damper based on viscoelastic pound- 123:230–238. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​9399(1997)​
ing force analytical method. J Sound Vib 411:362–377. https://​ 123:​3(230)
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jsv.​2017.​08.​035 236. Ng CL, Xu YL (2007) Semi-active control of a building complex
218. Xue Q, Zhang J, He J, Zhang C (2016) Control performance with variable friction dampers. Eng Struct 29:1209–1225. https://​
and robustness of pounding tuned mass damper for vibration doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2006.​08.​007
4302 A. Elgammal et al.

237. Cundumi O, Suárez LE (2008) Numerical investigation of a vari- investigation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:657–677. https://​doi.​
able damping semiactive device for the mitigation of the seismic org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​549
response of adjacent structures. Comput-Aid Civ Infrastruct Eng 256. Zhang WS, Xu YL (2000) Vibration analysis of two buildings
23:291–308. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​8667.​2007.​00537.x linked by Maxwell model-defined fluid dampers. J Sound Vib
238. Mevada SV, Jangid RS (2015) Seismic response of torsionally 233:775–796. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​jsvi.​1999.​2735
coupled building with passive and semi-active stiffness damp- 257. Patel CC, Jangid RS (2010) Seismic response of dynamically
ers. Int J Adv Struct Eng 7:31–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ similar adjacent structures connected with viscous dampers.
s40091-​015-​0080-y IES J Part A: Civ Struct Eng 3:1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
239. Ni YQ, Ko JM, Ying ZG (2001) Random seismic response 19373​26090​32368​33
analysis of adjacent buildings coupled with non-linear hyster- 258. Abd-Elsalam S, Eraky A, Abd-El-Mottaleb HE, Abdo A (2012)
etic dampers. J Sound Vib 246:403–417. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 006/​ Control of adjacent isolated-buildings pounding using viscous
jsvi.​2001.​3679 dampers. J Am Sci 8
240. Bhaskararao AV, Jangid RS (2006) Seismic response of adja- 259. Roshan AM, Taleshian HA, Eliasi A (2017) Seismic pound-
cent buildings connected with friction dampers. Bull Earthq Eng ing mitigation by using viscous and viscoelastic dampers. J
4:43–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​005-​5410-1 Fundamental Appl Sci 9:377–390
241. Patel CC (2017) Seismic analysis of parallel structures coupled 260. Sorace S, Terenzi G (2013) Damped interconnection-based
by lead extrusion dampers. Int J Adv Struct Eng 9:177–190. mitigation of seismic pounding between adjacent R/C build-
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40091-​017-​0157-x ings. Int J Eng Technol 5:406–412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7763/​
242. Park K-S, Ok S-Y, Koh H-M (2006) Optimal design of linear IJET.​2013.​V5.​585
viscous damping system for vibration control of adjacent build- 261. Pratesi F, Sorace S, Terenzi G (2013) Seismic pounding mitiga-
ing structures. J Earthq Eng Soc Korea 10:85–100. https://​doi.​ tion of a modern heritage R/C bell tower. In: Structural stud-
org/​10.​5000/​EESK.​2006.​10.3.​085 ies, repairs and maintenance of heritage architecture XIII, pp
243. Yang Z, Lam ESS (2014) Dynamic responses of two buildings 303–314
connected by viscoelastic dampers under bidirectional earth- 262. Pratesi F, Sorace S, Terenzi G (2014) Analysis and mitigation
quake excitations. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13:137–150. https://​ of seismic pounding of a slender R/C bell tower. Eng Struct
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11803-​014-​0218-0 71:23–34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2014.​04.​006
244. Nigdeli SM, Bekdas G (2014) Optimum tuned mass damper 263. Karabork T (2020) Optimization damping of viscous dampers
approaches for adjacent structures. Earthq Struct 7:1071–1091. to prevent collisions between adjacent structures with unequal
https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​eas.​2014.7.​6.​1071 heights as a case study. Arab J Sci Eng 45:3901–3919. https://​
245. Wang Q, Qiao H, De Domenico D et al (2020) Seismic doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13369-​019-​04307-6
response control of adjacent high-rise buildings linked by the 264. Tubaldi E, Gioiella L, Scozzese F et al (2020) A design method
Tuned Liquid Column Damper-Inerter (TLCDI). Eng Struct for viscous dampers connecting adjacent structures. Front Built
223:111169. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​r uct.​2020.​111169 Environ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fbuil.​2020.​00025
246. Amini F, Doroudi R (2010) Control of a building complex 265. Uppari R, Sasalpur Chandrashekar M (2020) Vibration control
with magneto-rheological dampers and tuned mass damper. of dynamically similar buildings optimally connected by viscoe-
Struct Eng Mech 36:181–195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​sem.​ lastic dampers. J Instit Eng Ser A 101:809–821. https://​doi.​org/​
2010.​36.2.​181 10.​1007/​s40030-​020-​00466-0
247. Fathi F, Bahar O (2017) Hybrid coupled building control for 266. Taleshian HA, Roshan AM, Amiri JV (2022) Seismic pounding
similar adjacent buildings. KSCE J Civ Eng 21:265–273. mitigation of asymmetric-plan buildings by using viscoelastic
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12205-​016-​0708-x links. Structures 36:189–214. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​
248. Park K-S, Ok S-Y (2015) Hybrid control approach for seis- 2021.​11.​036
mic coupling of two similar adjacent structures. J Sound Vib 267. Kangda MZ, Bakre S (2021) Dynamic analysis of base isolated
349:1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jsv.​2015.​03.​028 connected buildings subjected to seismic and blast induced vibra-
249. Basili M, De Angelis M (2007) Optimal passive control of tions. Soil Mech Found Eng 58:416–424. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
adjacent structures interconnected with nonlinear hysteretic s11204-​021-​09760-w
devices. J Sound Vib 301:106–125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ 268. Kazemi F, Miari M, Jankowski R (2021) Investigating the effects
jsv.​2006.​09.​027 of structural pounding on the seismic performance of adjacent
250. Basili M, De Angelis M (2007) A reduced order model for RC and steel MRFs. Bull Earthq Eng 19:317–343. https://​doi.​
optimal design of 2-mdof adjacent structures connected by hys- org/​10.​1007/​s10518-​020-​00985-y
teretic dampers. J Sound Vib 306:297–317. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 269. Kangda MZ, Bakre S (2021) Performance of linear and nonlin-
1016/j.​jsv.​2007.​05.​012 ear damper connected buildings under blast and seismic excita-
251. Bakeri AE (2012) Optimal design of hysteretic dampers con- tions. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions 6:130. https://​doi.​org/​
necting 2-MDOF adjacent structures for random excitations. 10.​1007/​s41062-​021-​00502-3
Int J Eng 6:184–200 270. Asgarkhani N, Kazemi F, Jankowski R (2023) Optimal retrofit
252. Sama KJ, Gur S (2023) Optimal design of SMA damper for strategy using viscous dampers between adjacent RC and SMRFs
vibration control of connected building under random seismic prone to earthquake-induced pounding. Arch Civ Mech Eng.
excitation. Mater Today Proc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matpr.​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s43452-​022-​00542-1
2023.​03.​554 271. Licari M, Sorace S, Terenzi G (2015) Nonlinear modeling and
253. Bhaskararao AV, Jangid RS (2006) Seismic analysis of struc- mitigation of seismic pounding between R/C frame buildings. J
tures connected with friction dampers. Eng Struct 28:690–703. Earthq Eng 19:431–460. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/1​ 36324​ 69.2​ 014.​
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​r uct.​2005.​09.​020 984370
254. Bhaskararao AV, Jangid RS (2006) Harmonic response of adja- 272. Abdullah MM, Hanif JH, Richardson A, Sobanjo J (2001) Use
cent structures connected with a friction damper. J Sound Vib of a shared tuned mass damper (STMD) to reduce vibration
292:710–725. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jsv.​2005.​08.​029 and pounding in adjacent structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
255. Ng C-L, Xu Y-L (2006) Seismic response control of a build- 30:1185–1201
ing complex utilizing passive friction damper: experimental
Comprehensive Review on Seismic Pounding Between Adjacent Buildings and Available Mitigation… 4303

273. Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM (2012) Preventing the pounding of 292. Polycarpou PC, Papaloizou L, Komodromos P (2014) An
adjacent buildings with harmony search optimized tuned mass efficient methodology for simulating earthquake-induced 3D
damper. In: 3rd European conference of civil engineering pounding of buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:985–1003.
274. Wang Q, Qiao H, De Domenico D et al (2021) Seismic perfor- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2383
mance of optimal Multi-Tuned Liquid Column Damper-Inerter 293. Polycarpou P, Komodromos P (2013) On the numerical simula-
(MTLCDI) applied to adjacent high-rise buildings. Soil Dyn tion of structural pounding in three Dimensions. In: Proceed-
Earthq Eng 143:106653. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2021.​ ings of world congress on advances in structural engineering
106653 and mechanics (ASEM13). Jeju Island
275. Goldsmith W (1960) Impact: the theory and physical behavior 294. Polycarpou P, Komodromos P (2012) A methodology for
of colliding solids. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., London an efficient three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulation of
276. Anagnostopoulos SA (2004) Equivalent viscous damping for earthquake-induced pounding of building. In: Proceedings of
modeling inelastic impacts in earthquake pounding problems. the 14th world conference of earthquake engineering. Lisboa
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:897–902. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​ 295. Liu Y, Liu W-G, Wang X et al (2014) New equivalent lin-
377 ear impact model for simulation of seismic isolated structure
277. Pant DR, Wijeyewickrema AC, Ohmachi T (2010) Seismic pounding against moat wall. Shock Vibration. https://​doi.​org/​
pounding between reinforced concrete buildings: a study using 10.​1155/​2014/​151237
two recently proposed contact element models. In: Proceedings 296. Khatiwada S, Chouw N, Larkin T (2013) Simulation of struc-
of the 14th European conference on earthquake engineering. tural pounding with the sears impact model. In: Proceedings
Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia, pp 4213–4219 of the 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational
278. Mahmoud S, Jankowski R (2011) Modified linear viscoelastic methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering.
model of earthquake-induced structural pounding. Iran J Sci Kos Island, pp 4234–4246
Technol Trans B—Eng 35:51–62 297. Bamer F, Markert B (2018) A nonlinear visco-elastoplastic model
279. Davis RO (1992) Pounding of buildings modelled by an impact for structural pounding. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47:2490–2495.
oscillator. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21:253–274. https://​doi.​org/​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​3095
10.​1002/​eqe.​42902​10305 298. Cole G, Dhakal R, Carr A, Bull D (2011) An investigation of the
280. Chau KT, Wei XX (2001) Pounding of structures modelled as effects of mass distribution on pounding structures. Earthq Eng
non-linear impacts of two oscillators. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn Struct Dyn 40:641–659. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​1052
30:633–651. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​27 299. Xu X, Xu X, Liu W, Zhou D (2016) A new formula of impact
281. Wang LX, Chau KT, Wei XX (2009) Numerical simulations of stiffness in linear viscoelastic model for pounding simulation.
nonlinear seismic torsional pounding between two single-story Shock Vibration. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2016/​58617​39
structures. Adv Struct Eng 12:87–101. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1260/​ 300. Naserkhaki S, Abdul Aziz FNA, Pourmohammad H (2012) Para-
13694​33097​87522​678 metric study on earthquake induced pounding between adjacent
282. Muthukumar S, DesRoches R (2006) A Hertz contact model buildings. Struct Eng Mech 43:503–526. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
with non-linear damping for pounding simulation. Earthq Eng 12989/​sem.​2012.​43.4.​503
Struct Dyn 35:811–828. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​557 301. Mate NU, Bakre S V, Jaiswal OR (2012) Comparative study of
283. Muthukumar S, Desroches R (2004) Evaluation of impact mod- impact simulation models for linear elastic structures in seismic
els for seismic pounding. In: Proceedings of the 13th world pounding. In: The 15th world conference on earthquake engi-
conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver neering. Lisboa
284. Jankowski R (2005) Non-linear viscoelastic modelling of 302. Jaradat Y, Far H, Jaradat Y, Far H (2021) Optimum stiffness
earthquake-induced structural pounding. Earthq Eng Struct values for impact element models to determine pounding forces
Dyn 34:595–611. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​434 between adjacent buildings. Struct Eng Mech 77:293–304.
285. Jankowski R (2004) Non-linear viscoelastic model of structural https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​SEM.​2021.​77.2.​293
pounding. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on 303. Mosa B, Elwardany H, Khedr MDE, Seleemah A (2022) The
earthquake engineering. Vancouver effect of earthquake-induced pounding on the response of a series
286. Jankowski R (2006) Analytical expression between the impact of neighboring buildings. Int J Adv Eng Manage Sci 8:01–09.
damping ratio and the coefficient of restitution in the non-linear https://​doi.​org/​10.​22161/​ijaems.​810.1
viscoelastic model of structural pounding. Earthq Eng Struct 304. Jankowski R, Mahmoud S (2015) Earthquake-induced structural
Dyn 35:517–524. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​537 pounding. Springer, Cham
287. Jankowski R (2007) Theoretical and experimental assessment 305. Jankowski R (2008) Comparison of numerical models of impact
of parameters for the non-linear viscoelastic model of struc- force for simulation of earthquake-induced structural pounding.
tural pounding. J Theor Appl Mech 45:931–942 International conference on computational science. Springer,
288. Khatiwada S, Chouw N, Butterworth JW (2011) Development Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 710–717
of pounding model for adjacent structures in earthquakes. In: 306. Mahmoud S, Chen X, Jankowski R (2008) Structural pound-
Proceeding of the 9th pacific conference on earthquake engi- ing models with Hertz spring and nonlinear damper. J Appl Sci
neering. Auckland 8:1850–1858. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3923/​jas.​2008.​1850.​1858
289. Ye K, Li L, Zhu H (2009) A note on the Hertz contact model 307. Khatiwada S, Chouw N, Butterworth JW (2013) Evaluation of
with nonlinear damping for pounding simulation. Earthq Eng numerical pounding models with experimental validation. Bull
Struct Dyn 38:1135–1142. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​883 N Z Soc Earthq Eng 46:117–130. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.5​ 459/b​ nzsee.​
290. Ye K, Li L, Zhu H (2009) A modified Kelvin impact model for 46.3.​117-​130
pounding simulation of base-isolated building with adjacent 308. Mate NU, Bakre SV, Jaiswal OR (2015) Seismic pounding of
structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 8:433–446. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ adjacent linear elastic buildings with various contact mechanisms
1007/​s11803-​009-​8045-4 for impact simulation. Asian J Civ Eng 16:383–415
291. Naderpour H, Barros RC, Khatami SM, Jankowski R (2016) 309. Jaradat Y, Far H, Mortazavi M (2023) Experimental evaluation
Numerical study on pounding between two adjacent buildings of theoretical impact models for seismic pounding. J Earthq Eng
under earthquake excitation. Shock Vibration. https://​doi.​org/​ 27:3269–3289. https://​doi.​org/1​ 0.​1080/​13632​469.​2022.​21316​54
10.​1155/​2016/​15047​83
4304 A. Elgammal et al.

310. Mavronicola EA, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2016) Effect 321. Langlade T, Bertrand D, Grange S et al (2021) Modelling of
of planar impact modeling on the pounding response of base- earthquake-induced pounding between adjacent structures with
isolated buildings. Front Built Environ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​ a non-smooth contact dynamics method. Eng Struct 241:112426.
fbuil.​2016.​00011 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2021.​112426
311. Mavronicola E, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2015) The 322. Mazza F, Labernarda R (2022) Effects of near-fault accelera-
effect of modified linear viscoelastic impact models on the tion and non-acceleration pulses on pounding between in-plan
pounding response of a base isolated building with adjacent irregular fixed-base and base-isolated buildings. Struct Control
structures. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference Health Monit. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​stc.​2992
on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake 323. Forcellini D (2023) The role of Soil Structure Interaction (SSI)
engineering. Crete Island on the risk of pounding between low-rise buildings. Structures
312. Zhang J, Li Y, Zhang C (2024) Pounding induced overturning 56:105014. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2023.​105014
resistance of FPB-isolated structures considering soil-structure- 324. Isobe D, Shibuya T (2022) Preliminary numerical study on
interactions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 177:108416. https://d​ oi.​org/​ the reduction of seismic pounding damage to buildings with
10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2023.​108416 expanded polystyrene blocks. Eng Struct 252:113723. https://​
313. Pote RK, Mate NU (2023) Structural pounding of three adjacent doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2021.​113723
multi degree of freedom system under subsurface blast and seis- 325. Jiang S, Zhai C, Liu Y (2022) Experimental and numerical stud-
mic action by considering and ignoring the effect of soil structure ies of seismic induced story-to-story and inter-story pounding.
interaction. Mater Today Proc. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matpr.​ Structures 46:555–569. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2022.​10.​
2023.​06.​359 061
314. Zhang J, Zhang C (2023) Using viscoelastic materials to miti- 326. Rayegani A, Nouri G (2022) Seismic collapse probability and life
gate earthquake-induced pounding between adjacent frames with cycle cost assessment of isolated structures subjected to pound-
unequal height considering soil-structure interactions. Soil Dyn ing with smart hybrid isolation system using a modified fuzzy
Earthq Eng 172:107988. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2023.​ based controller. Structures 44:30–41. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
107988 istruc.​2022.​07.​085
315. Zhang J, Li Y, Ding Y, Guan X (2023) Using the improved inner 327. Kamal M, Inel M, Cayci BT (2022) Seismic behavior of mid-rise
slider to enhance overturning resistance of DFPB-isolated struc- reinforced concrete adjacent buildings considering soil-structure
ture subjected to poundings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 173:108158. interaction. J Build Eng 51:104296. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2023.​108158 jobe.​2022.​104296
316. Djerouni S, Elias S, Abdeddaim M, Rupakhety R (2022) Opti- 328. Kamal M, Inel M (2022) A new equation for prediction of seis-
mal design and performance assessment of multiple tuned mass mic gap between adjacent buildings located on different soil
damper inerters to mitigate seismic pounding of adjacent build- types. J Build Eng 57:104784. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​
ings. J Build Eng 48:103994. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.j​ obe.2​ 022.​ 2022.​104784
103994 329. Bodnar B, Heitz T, Clément J, Richard B (2022) Assessment
317. Kazemi F, Mohebi B, Yakhchalian M (2020) Predicting the of the floor response spectra due to pounding between adjacent
seismic collapse capacity of adjacent structures prone to structures during earthquakes: an alternative approach to study
pounding. Can J Civ Eng 47:663–677. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​ local amplifications. Eng Struct 255:113922. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
cjce-​2018-​0725 1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2022.​113922
318. Tena-Colunga A, Sánchez-Ballinas D (2022) Required building 330. Kamal M, Inel M (2022) Simplified approaches for estimation of
separations and observed seismic pounding on the soft soils of required seismic separation distance between adjacent reinforced
Mexico City. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 161:107413. https://​doi.​org/​ concrete buildings. Eng Struct 252:113610. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2022.​107413 1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2021.​113610
319. Cayci BT, Akpinar M (2021) Seismic pounding effects on typical 331. El-Khoriby S, Seleemah A, Elwardany H, Jankowski R (2015)
building structures considering soil-structure interaction. Struc- Experimental and numerical study on pounding of structures in
tures 34:1858–1871. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.i​ struc.2​ 021.0​ 8.1​ 33 series. Advances in Structural Engineering. Springer, New Delhi,
320. Mohebi B, Yazdanpanah O, Kazemi F, Formisano A (2021) Seis- pp 1073–1089
mic damage diagnosis in adjacent steel and RC MRFs consider-
ing pounding effects through improved wavelet-based damage- Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
sensitive feature. J Build Eng 33:101847. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1016/j.​jobe.​2020.​101847