EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING A N D STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL.

16,443-456 (1988)

POUNDING OF BUILDINGS IN SERIES DURING EARTHQUAKES

STAVROS A. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS*
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, (261 10) Patras, Greece

SUMMARY
A simplified model of several adjacent buildings in a block is used to study the pounding of such buildings due to strong earthquakes. Considerable structural damage and even some collapses have sometimes been attributed to this effect. Each structure is modelled as a S.D.O.F.system and pounding is simulated using impact elements. A parametric investigation of this problem shows that the end structures experience almost always substantial increases in their response while for 'interior'structures the opposite often happens. This may explain why high percentages of corner buildings have collapsed in some earthquakes.

INTRODUCTION Pounding between adjacent buildings or between parts of the same building due to earthquakes has often been recorded as one of the causes of significant or even severe structural damage.'-6 This problem is particularly common in many cities located in seismically active regions, where due to various socioeconomic factors and land usage requirements the codes permit contact between adjacent buildings. In many parts of the world, the so-called 'continuous building system' constitutes by far the predominant practice for large areas in cities or towns, where every building in a block is in full or partial contact, typically at two opposite sides, with its neighbouring buildings. This can be seen in Figure 1, which shows three actual building blocks from the city of Thessaloniki, Greece. The numbers in circles indicate different lots and the shaded areas mark the building layout in each lot. Due to differences in their dynamic characteristics, adjacent buildings will vibrate out of phase during an earthquake and pounding will occur if there is not sufficient separation distance between them. When several buildings are next to each other forming a row in a block, then there is some evidence that the end or corner buildings are more heavily penalized by p ~ u n d i n g .This ~ . ~ can have an intuitive explanation: a building at the end of a row pounds on one side only while being free to move towards the opposite side. The same happens with corner buildings in city blocks except that pounding in this case takes place along two orthogonal directions. O n the other hand, if a building is between two other buildings, it will pound on both sides but at the same time it will not be free to move excessively in either direction. Work on the problem of pounding of adjacent buildings is limited. In Reference 7 the pounding of the Olive View Hospital and its stairway tower during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake was accounted for in an analytical investigation of that famous collapse. The contribution of earthquake induced pounding to the collapse of another building has been studied in Reference 8, while in Reference 9 the pounding of a nuclear reactor building and an adjacent auxiliary structure has been examined. The problem of pounding of two masses under steady-state conditions is known as a vibroimpact problem and has been studied analytically for mechanical systems." Vibroimpact concepts have also been applied in References 11 and 12 to investigate the problem of two adjacent linear Single Degree of Freedom (S.D.O.F.) systems subjected to harmonic ground motion. The results of the aforementioned investigations indicate that pounding, in addition to the local damage it usually causes, increases structural response. It is not clear, however, whether the same conclusion is applicable to all the buildings in a row, particularly those subjected to two-sided impacts. In fact, there is a notion among

Associate Professor.

0098-8847/88/030443-14$07.00 0 1988 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 3 March 1987 Revised 10 August 1987

444

S.A. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS

Figure 1 . Actual city blocks in Thessaloniki, Greece

some structural engineers who have made post-earthquake damage surveys that interior buildings in a block may actually benefit from their contact with the adjacent buildings. This problem, which as far as the author knows has not been studied before, is examined in the present paper. Several adjacent buildings in a row are idealized as S.D.O.F. systems and their non-linear as well as linear response, including multiple impacts, to strong earthquake motions is computed for different values of the parameters involved. It must be stressed, however, that this is a highly idealized model of actual buildings in city blocks and should be viewed only as a first attempt to shed some light on a quite complex and difficult problem. Thus, any extrapolation of results to real situations must be made with caution, taking into account that here we are concerned only with the effects of pounding on the overall structural response and not with local effects such as the damage of a column (or columns) being pounded by a slab of the adjacent building.

POUNDING OF BUILDINGS IN SERIES

445

SIMPLIFIED MODEL O F SEVERAL ADJACENT STRUCTURES The simplest possible idealization for studying the effects of earthquake induced pounding between several adjacent buildings is shown in Figure 2(a). Each structure is idealized as a S.D.O.F. system with mass m i , viscous damping constant c i , initial stiffness K , , yield level RYiand post-yield stiffness p K , [Figure 2(b)]. For numerical applications, these parameters can be taken as generalized properties of actual buildings corresponding to some assumed deflected shape (e.g. that of the first mode). Pounding is simulated by means of linear viscoelastic impact elements (spring-dashpots) that are introduced between the masses and act only when the masses are in contact. These elements are characterized by the linear spring constants s,, and the dashpot constants cij. It is assumed that all systems are subjected to the same input ground motion u,(t), i.e. the effects of phase difference due to travelling waves are not considered.

Equations of motion

If we denote by ui the displacement of mass i relative to the ground displacement u,and use dots to indicate differentiation with respect to time, then the equation of motion for mass i is mi ui c,li

+ + Ri - Fi

- ,i

+ F,.,

- mi u,

(1)

where Ri is the non-linear resistance of the system, a function of the relative displacement u,, and Fi - . i , F,.,+ are impact forces due to pounding of mass i with masses i - 1 and i + 1, respectively. These last two forces will not be always present but will act only when the corresponding masses are in contact. If we call (2) where di,it , is the distance between systems i and i 1, then the condition for contact between masses i and i + 1 is bi .>0. Thus, the expressions for the forces Fi - I .i and Fi.i I are
i i

6. = u . - u .

i t

-di.it

Fi-l.i =0 for <0 F i - l . i = s i - l.iSi-I + c i - l . i S i - , for 6,- > 0 for Si < 0 Fi.it 1 = 0 Fi.i + 1 = si.i t 1 hi + ci.i + 1 Ai for bi > 0

By writing equation (1) for every S.D.O.F. system in the row, we obtain the system of differential equations i , . This system is uncoupled if there is describing the response of the configuration to the ground acceleration t no pounding. Coupling between two or more equations is introduced whenever the corresponding masses come into contact. In matrix form, the system of equations can be written as

(3)

[MI { 0 )+ CCl { i '} + { R }

+ [ S ] { U } + { D } = - u, { m }

(4)

"i

Figure 2. Idealization of several adjacent structures

446

S. A. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS

where

[MI [C]

[C,] ci [C 3 { R r = vector of structural resistances Ri, functions of the displacements ui { U } = vector of unknown displacements u i { m } = vector containing the masses m, [S] = stiffness matrix corresponding to the impact elements {D} = vector including stiffness terms due to the impact elements,

= diagonal mass matrix, with elements the masses m, = [ C , ] [C,] = damping matrix = diagonal damping matrix, with elements the damping constants = damping matrix corresponding to the impact elements

Matrices [ C , ] and [S] and the vector { D } are of the form

[C,I

I
0 0 0 0

c12
-c12

-c12
c12+c23

0
-c23
c23+c34 -c34

-c23

-c34

etc.

............................
-s12

s12

0
-s23
s23 + s 3 4

-s12

s12+s23
-s23

CSl =

etc.

..........................
In these matrices, [equation (2)].

............

and si.i+ are set equal to zero if the masses mi and mi+ are not at impact, i.e. if di d 0

Solution of the equations of motion The equations of motion, equations (4), were solved numerically using central differences (constant velocity method) and the linear acceleration method to start the solution. For computational efficiency, two different time steps were employed: a large time step, equal to 0.01 sec, and a finer time step whose size depended on the stiffness of the impact springs. The typical value of the finer time step was O W 0 5 sec, which is less than about 1/30 of the lowest natural period of any system configuration with the gaps closed. The small time step was applied whenever one or more masses were at impact. If an impact was detected while the large time step was in use, the integration was repeated with the finer time step from the beginning of the last time station. The finer time step remained in effect for the duration of the impact or for the duration of all consecutive overlapping impacts.

PARAMETRIC INVESTIGATIONS

To obtain results of a more general nature, i.e. covering a wide range of parameters and independent of specific motion characteristics, a large number of analyses was carried out. The systems used for these analyses were assigned masses increasing with the natural period T according to the expression m = mo (0.25 0.75 T). Corresponding stiffnesseswere then determined from the natural periods considered, while viscous damping 3 per cent of critical was assigned to each system. Yield forces were computed on the basis of the ATC-3 variation of the design base shear ~oefficient,'~ assuming that R , = V 0 / 3 , where Vo is the design shear according to ATC-3 for q = 1. As for the impact elements, their stiffnesses were set equal to twenty times the stiffness of the stiffer S.D.O.F.system in the pair to which each element was assigned. This value was estimated on the basis of

POUNDING OF BUILDINGS IN SERIES

447

some practical considerations, supported by a limited sensitivity study which showed that the system responses are not very sensitive to changes in the stiffness of the impact elements. The dashpot constant of the impact elements determines the amount of energy dissipated during impact. Reasonable values of this constant can be assigned by relating it to the coefficient of restitution, in terms of which the plastic impact of two bodies has typically been studied and for which experimental data are a~ai1able.l~ If we consider two masses m 1and m, which collide with arbitrary velocities, it is easy to express the dashpot constant c of the impact element in terms of the coefficient of restitution r, by equating the energy losses during impact. The resulting expression is

with

where K = stiffness of the impact spring and lnr = natural logarithm of r. Values of the coefficient of restitution r are listed in Table I for a range of damping ratios ti.We see that the elastic impact (r = 1.0) corresponds to a damping ratio t i = 0 and the completely plastic impact (r = 0) corresponds to a damping ratio ti= 1.0. For the applications herein, a value of the coefficient of restitution r = 0.65 was assumed, which corresponds to a damping ratio ti= 0.14. All analyses were carried out using the five earthquake motions listed in Table 11. These motions were scaled to the Arias intensities' of the El Centro record computed for the durations listed in the table. The last column in this table gives the scaling factor for each motion.

Table 1. Coefficients of restitution r corresponding to different damping ratios t i

r

0.0 0.02 0.05 010 0.20 0.50 1 .oo

1 .oo 0.94 0.85 0.73 0.53 0.16 0.0

Table 11. Earthquake motions used in analyses Max. acceleration Earthquake El Centro Taft Eureka Olympia Parkfield (Array No. 2) (1940) (1952) (1954) (1949) (1966) Component Duration (sec)

(Y'd
0.35 0.18 0.26 0.28 0.49

Scale
1 .o 1.75 1.33 1.25 0.82

NS S69E N79E N86E N65E

10 15 10 23 10

448

S. A. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS

The most important parameters that characterize our problem and whose effects will be examined here are:
(1) system configuration, i.e. number of systems in a row and their periods (2) gap size (3) strength (yield level) of the systems (4) relative size of system masses ( 5 ) impact element damping (6) impact element stiffness.
1. System configuration

One of the difficulties in studying the problem at hand is associated with the great number of possible configurations, as determined by a variable number of buildings in a row and by the different combinations of their natural periods. This was dealt with by considering two, three, four and five systems in a row and by introducing the ratio 1of the period of the interior system to the period of the adjacent exterior system as a parameter. The five configurations examined are shown as insets in the upper right part of Figures 3 to 7, while the four combinations of periods used for the study are indicated in the upper left part. In Figure 3, we have two systems with periods T,and T,, where T , / T , = A. In Figures 4,5 and 6, the two exterior systems are identical with period T,,and so are the interior systems with period Tin.The last configuration, that in Figure 7, differs from the configuration in Figure 6 only in the middle system, which in Figure 7 is identical to the two exterior systems rather than the two interior. In all these cases the system masses were placed in practical contact by assuming a gap size equal to 0 1 cm. Results have been expressed in terms of displacement amplification factors i.e. as ratios of peak displacements, denoted by uL, u , , ucx,u i n ,to the corresponding peak displacements denoted by uo of the same systems responding independently (i.e. without pounding). Mean and maximum values of these factors for the five earthquake motions have been plotted versus the period of the system examined. They are both given in the figures, the mean values at left and the maximum values at right. The system periods T in all the configurations ranged from 0.125 sec to 4.0 sec. In Figure 3 the results are for a two-system configuration, in which we have only one-sided impacts. The graphs in the upper part are for the left structure and the graphs in the lower part are for the right structure.

0 1 1 3

T , (sec)

T , (sec)

,0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 1

T , (sec)

TR (sec)

Figure 3. Effects of pounding on seismic response: two-system configuration

POUNDING OF BUILDINGS IN SERIES

449

;
7 2 (sec) 3

0
0 1 2 3

T,,

T,,

( sec)

Figure 4. Effects of pounding on seismic response: three-system configuration

Ok-?-?--3

Tan ( 9 ~ )

Tm (

5 ~ )

Figure 5. Effects of pounding on seismic response: four-system configuration

Differences between responses of the left and right system are due to the dependence of the time and sequence of impacts on the position of each system in the configuration. Such differences, however, are of no practical significance. We also observe that when the system examined is adjacent to a more flexible system (A or A' > l), the mean amplification is always greater than one, increasing typically for higher values of the ratios A or A'. In this case, the mean amplification factors vary between 1.0and 1-5, while their peak values vary from 1.15 to 2.5.

450
r

S. A. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS

7-

1 -

ot
0

21

21

Figure 6. Effects of pounding on seismic response: five-system configuration

19

0
0 1 7 3

O0

L3

, T . (sec)

T..(sec)

(5)
f t

+ *

1, (set)

T,. (sec)

Figure 7. Effects of pounding on seismic response: second five-system configuration

POUNDING OF BUILDINGS IN SERIES

45 1

When the system examined is adjacent to a stiffer system (A or , I < 1) the mean amplification factors can be either less or greater than one, depending upon the frequency of the system as well as upon the ratio i (or i). The mean amplifications in this case vary from 0.80 to 1.25 and their peak values from 1.05 to 1.60. For more than two systems in a row, we can distinguish between exterior and interior systems, the first subjected to one-sided impacts and the second to two-sided impacts. Mean and maximum amplification factors are presented in Figures 4 to 7, for exterior systems in the upper part and for interior systems in the lower part. In computing mean values for the five motions, only the largest factor from each group of systems-xterior or interior-has been used, i.e. u,,is the larger peak displacement of the two exterior systems and uinis the largest peak displacement of the two or three interior systems. Thus, the graphs depict the worst effects of pounding in the row rather than effects on individual systems. In Figure 7, a third set of graphs shows amplification factors for the middle system (which is identical to the two exterior systems) plotted versus its period. Comparison of the graphs for exterior and interior structures indicates that the former are much more heavily penalized than the latter. While the exterior structures in all configurations exhibit mean displacement amplifications greater than one practically over the full range of periods and for all the ratios Tin/Te, considered, the opposite is true for the interior structures which exhibit substantially lower amplifications. Moreover, for TeX/Ti, = 1.5 or 2.0, the effect of pounding is to reduce, on the average, the peak response of the interior structures over almost the complete range of periods. The greatest increases in response due to pounding, up to 3 times, appear to occur when stiff exterior systems collide with flexible interior systems. If the same group of plots (i.e. mean or maximum amplifications-interior or exterior systems) from the various configurations is compared, an overall similarity, qualitative as well as quantitative, will become apparent. This similarity is even greater for the graphs of Figures 4 and 7, which correspond to two configurations such that one is identical to a portion of the other. What this indicates is that the effects of multiple poundings on the response of any system in a given configuration are predominantly determined by the properties of the system itself and in relation to the properties of the adjacent systems. The response and collisions of systems in the configuration that are not adjacent to the system considered, and thus do not interact with it directly, do not influence this systems response appreciably.

2. Effects of gap size A lower limit of the gap size between two adjacent structures, if pounding is to be avoided, is obviously the sum of their absolute maximum displacements due to their independent responses to the earthquake motion considered. Because, however, it is highly unlikely that these two maximum displacements will both occur at the same instant and with opposite signs, a smaller gap size will usually be sufficient to avoid pounding. As the gap size increases, the number of impacts decreases and typically the amplification of structural response decreases. This can be confirmed in Figure 8 where the response amplifications, mean and maximum, of the exterior systems in the four-system configuration are shown for two ratios Ti,/T,, (= 0*5,2.0) and for five gap sizes. The solid lines are for the case of practical contact between the systems (d = 0.1 cm) that has already been presented in Figure 5. The dotted lines correspond to the largest gap size ( d o )considered, which for any two adjacent systems was taken equal to the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of their design peak displacements. These peak displacements have been estimated as , , ,a N (0.85 x 3.0)6,, following the ATC-3 provisions3 for a response reduction factor q = 3.0, a ratio q/c, = 0.85 and a yield displacement 6 , = R , / K . The remaining three lines are for intermediate gap sizes, constant fractions of d o . As expected, there is a rather consistent reduction of response amplification due to pounding with increasing gap sizes. Moreover, a gap size equal to do appears to be generally sufficient for avoiding impact problems.
3. Effects of structural strength To see how the amplification of structural response due to pounding is affected by the system strength R (Figure l), the four-system configuration with Tin/TeX = 0.5 and 2.0 was analysed for two additional structuraf strengths: (a) for R, = very large (elastic response) and (b) for R, = V0/6, where Vo is the design base shear according to ATC-3 without any reduction (i.e. q = 1). In Figure 9, the resulting amplifications, mean and maximum, corresponding to three yield levels are presented for the exterior systems (the yield level R, = Vo/3

452

S. A. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS

(24
3
2

I
0

-1,

.
1 2

,
3

,yJ,
,

Figure 8. Effects of gap size on the seismic response of four adjacent systems

Figure 9. Effects of structural strength on the seismic response of four adjacent systems

was assumed for the basic designs). It can be seen that, while differences in amplification factors resulting from the different strengths can be significant, no clear dependence between yield level and response amplification due to pounding is obvious. For some periods, higher strengths lead to higher amplifications, yet for others the opposite happens. Thus, the only conclusion that may be drawn is that pounding can be as bad for elastic as for inelastic responses.

POUNDING OF BUILDINGS IN SERIES

453

4. Eflects of relative mass size

It is intuitively obvious that when two bodies collide, the consequences of the collision for one of them become greater when the mass of the other body increases. The extent to which the mass sizes affect the response amplifications due to pounding was examined for the four-system configuration, by varying the mass of the two interior systems. If mbis the mass of the interior systems for the basic design, the cases with minterior = O-2mb, 2-Omband5-0m,were also analysed, with the masses of the exterior systems kept unchanged. Results are given in Figure 10 for two ratios of Tin/Tex:0.5 and 2.0. It is seen that, for both these ratios and practically for all the periods considered, the response amplification of the exterior systems increases, often substantially, as the interior systems become more massive. In practice, large differences in masses of adjacent structures that may experience pounding will be found in industrial facilities or in buildings with external stairway towers.

5. lmpact element damping As stated earlier, the damping constant of the impact element determines the amount of energy dissipated during impact, i.e. the degree to which the impact is plastic. There is obviously a great deal of uncertainty as to what might be a reasonable value for the coefficient of restitution to describe the earthquake induced collisions between real buildings. The value used in this study ( r = 0.65) is nothing more than an educated guess made on the basis of some data from impact experiments with spheres and ~ 1 a t e s . This l ~ value is probably high (conservative assumption). It turns out, however, that this uncertainty is not important. This can be seen in Figure 11, where response amplifications for the exterior systems of the four-system configuration, with Tin/Tex = 0 5 and 2.0, are presented for four values of the impact damping ratio <i:O.O, 0.14,0.35 and 1.0. The corresponding values of the coefficient of restitution are 1.0,0.65, 0.31 and 0.0 (fully plastic impact). We see the amplifications corresponding to the other that except for the case of perfectly elastic impacts (ti= three values of ti are very close. This indicates that the problem of building pounding can be studied without requiring accurate estimates of the coefficient of restitution (or impact element damping constant).
OaO),

6. Impact element stiffness Uncertainty in the impact element stiffness comes from many sources such as unknown geometry of the impact surfaces, uncertain material properties under impact loadings, variable impact velocities, etc. Following

0
0 1 1 3 0 1 1 3

Figure 10. Effects o f relative mass size on the seismic response of four adjacent systems

454

S. A. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS

-0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

Figure 1 1 . Effects of impact element damping on the seismic response of four adjacent systems

the same approach as before, the four-system configuration with Ti,/T,., = 0.5 and 2.0 was analysed for two additional impact element stiffnesses: Ki/10 and Ki/lOO, where K i is the basic stiffness used previously. An impact element stiffnessof K i / 100 is actually very low but was included to simulate properties of some material that could be placed in the gap between adjacent structures to act as an impact absorber. The results are presented in Figure 12 and show that a ten-fold decrease of the impact element stiffness produces negligible effects (the response amplifications due to pounding have remained practically the same in all cases). On the other hand, the reduction of K iby a factor of 100 caused a substantial decrease in response amplifications, though not below the value of one. Thus, it may be concluded that the use of some soft material to fill the gap between adjacent buildings can dampen the impacts significantly. Such practice, however, is not useful as a vibration reduction mechanism i.e. for reducing building response below the values reached without pounding. It should be pointed out that the foregoing comments about insensitivity of response to impact element properties apply to displacements only. Impact generated accelerations, on the other hand and to a lesser degree the corresponding velocities, are quite sensitive to changes in the impact element properties, especially to changes in the spring stiffnesses. These accelerations can cause damage to the contents of the building, but have little effect on the displacement response of the colliding masses, as Figure 12 indicates.

CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the results obtained herein and subject to the limitations imposed by the underlying assumptions the following conclusions can be summarized:
(1) The effects of earthquake induced pounding on the overall (global) response of a structure in a row of

several adjacent structures depend primarily on (a)the properties of the structure itself and in relation to the properties of the two other structures that are next to it on either side, (b) whether the structure is subjected to one or two-sided impacts (i.e. whether an exterior structure-at the end of the row-or an interior structure), and (c) the gap size.

POUNDING OF BUILDINGS IN SERIES

455

0
0 1 2

0
0 1 2

1 , .

( Sec)

Figure 12. Effects of impact element stiffness on the seismic response of four adjacent systems

(2) Exterior structures (end of the row) are subjected to one-sided impacts and as a rule experience response amplifications that can be quite substantial. Interior structures, on the other hand, are subjected to twosided impacts that can produce either increases or reductions of response depending on the ratio of their periods to the periods of the adjacent structures. When this ratio is smaller than one, pounding amplifies, in most cases, the response of interior structures. This amplification, however, is lower than that of exterior structures. When the ratio is greater than one, the response of interior structures is typically reduced due to pounding. These results could explain why end buildings in city blocks appear to have suffered more than interior buildings in past earthquakes. (3) Increasing the gap size decreases the effects of pounding. A gap size equal to the SRSS of the design peak displacements of the adjacent structures could be sufficient to avoid pounding. (4) Pounding causes similar effects on elastic and on inelastic structures. The consequences, however, for inelastic structures will normally be more serious. (5) Larger differences in the masses of two adjacent structures make the effect of pounding more pronounced for the structure with the smaller mass. (6) The computed displacement amplifications due to pounding are not very sensitive to changes in the parameters of the impact elements simulating the collisions. (7) The use of a soft viscoelastic material filling the gap between two adjacent structures can reduce the effects of pounding significantly. It is not effective, however, as a motion reduction mechanism.

The above suggest that although pounding may sometimes reduce the overall structural response and thus be considered beneficialin such cases, more often it will amplify the response significantly. This is particularly true for end (or corner) buildings in city blocks. If one also takes into account the local damage that is almost always caused as a result of pounding, it follows that pounding must be avoided by providing a sufficient seismic gap between adjacent buildings.

456

S. A. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS
REFERENCES

I . G . V. Berg and H. J. Degenkolb,Engineeringlessonsfrom the Managua earthquake, American Iron and Steel Institute Report, 1973. 2. V. V. Bertero and R. G. Collins, Investigation of the failures of the Olive View stairtowers during the San Fernando earthquake and their implications on seismic design, Report No. EERC 73-26, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,

Berkeley, CA, 1973, 3. -The Romania, 4 March 1977, earthquake and its effects on structures, Short Monograph prepared by ICCPDC, INCERC and IPCT for C 0 . P . I . S . E . E . congress, earthquake protection of construction in seismic areas, Bucharest, 1978. 4. Thessaloniki, Greece, earthquake-June 20, 1978. EERI Reconnaissance Report, 1978. 5. The Central Greece earthquakes of February-March, 1981, EERI, Reconnaissance and Engineering Report, 1982. 6. -Impressions of the Guerrero-Michoacan, Mexico earthquake of 19 September 1985. EERl Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, 1985. 7. S. A. Mahin, V. V. Bertero, A. K. Chopra and R. G. Collins, Response of the Olive View Hospital main building during the San Fernando earthquake, Report No. EERC 76-22, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1976. 8. A. Wada, Y. Shinozaki and N. Nakamura, Collapse of building with expansion joints through collision caused by earthquake motion, Proc. 8th world conJ earthquake eng. San Francisco. IV, 855-862 (1984). 9. J. P. Wolf and P. E. Skrikerud, Mutual pounding of adjacent structures during earthquakes, Nucl. eng. des. 57, 253-275 (1980). 10. A. E. Kobrinski, Dynamics ofMechanisms with Elastic Connections and Impact Systems, English Translation: R.Lennox-Napier, Iliffe, London, 1969. 11. R. K. Miller, Steady vibroimpact at a seismicjoint between adjacent structures, Proc. 7th worldconf. earthquake eng. Istanbul, Turkey 6, 57-64 (1980). 12. R. K. Miller and B. Fatemi, An efficient technique for the approximate analysis of vibroimpact, J.mech. des. ASME preprint, Design Engineering Technical Conference, Hartford, Connecticut, Paper No. 81-DET-16 (198 I). 13. __Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings, Applied Technology Council, Publication ATC 306, USA, 1978. 14. W. Goldsmith, Impact: The Theory and Physical Behaoiour of Colliding Solids, Edward Arnold, London, 1960. 15. A. Arias, A measure of earthquake intensity, Seminar seismic des. nucl. power plants Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass., 1969.
~ ~