Seismic pounding between adjacent buildings remains difficult to assess because the separation demand depends not only on peak displacement, but also on soil-structure interaction, phasing and contact-law assumptions. This study develops a reproducible benchmark for two adjacent reduced-order first-mode building models, meaning that each building is represented by the dominant lateral modal mass, stiffness and damping needed for screening-level comparison. Twenty-one PEER/NGA-West2 record sequence numbers, with two unscaled horizontal components per record, are analyzed separately and conservatively aggregated at record level. Five cases are compared: fixed-base linear contact; flexible-base soil-structure interaction without force transfer; flexible-base Kelvin-Voigt contact; flexible-base Hunt-Crossley contact; and parametric soil-structure-interaction/contact models. For the baseline 6 cm gap and medium foundation stiffness, the Hunt-Crossley soil-structure-interaction model increased mean peak impact force by 170.8% relative to the fixed-base baseline and increased mean impact count by 42.5%. It also increased mean peak force by 124.6% relative to the Kelvin-Voigt case while avoiding tensile rebound artifacts. The proposed amplification indices classify amplified, reduced, neutral and soil-structure-interaction-created impacts, including undefined ratios when the fixed-base denominator is zero. The results support separation screening and identify when fixed-base pounding models can be non-conservative.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gabriel Chiriboga (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: