Experimental and numerical dynamic response of a SDOF vibro-impact system with double gaps and bumpers under harmonic excitation

  • Ugo AndreausEmail author
  • Maurizio De Angelis


During strong earthquakes, structural pounding may occur between structures and the surrounding moat wall because of the limited separation distance and the deformations of the isolator. An arrangement that favours the solution of this problem is the interposition of bumpers. Thus, the influence of geometrical and mechanical characteristics of isolation and mitigation devices on nonlinear non-smooth response of vibro-impact systems is experimentally and numerically investigated in this paper on the basis of a laboratory campaign of experimental tests and a numerical model. Shaking table tests are carried out under a harmonic excitation in order to investigate two different configurations: the absence and the presence of bumpers. For different values of the table acceleration peak are applied, four different amplitude values of the total gap between mass and bumpers are considered, and also four different types of bumpers are employed. The experimental response of the system is analysed in terms of table acceleration, gap clearance, bumpers’ stiffness, and pseudo-resonance frequency; a suitable normalization is adopted in order to better interpret experimental results; in particular, mass acceleration is normalized with respect to table acceleration and excursion is normalized with respect to gap. The signals of the system’s response are appropriately elaborated to verify the possibility of modifying the system’s response and direct it towards the (conflicting) objectives desired to simultaneously reduce displacements and accelerations. A suitable model has been developed to numerically simulate the behaviour of the system by using a general-purpose computer code, achieving a good agreement with the experimental results.


Base isolation Structural pounding Vibro-impact system Two-sided bumpers Shaking table Non-smooth dynamics 



This research was funded by Sapienza University of Rome, under the Scientific Research Program: Year 2016, Protocol RM116154C359801B, Title “Two-sided damping constraint optimal control for improving performances of vibration isolation and end-stop impact protection”.


  1. 1.
    Kelly JM (1997) Earthquake-resistant design with rubber. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ismail M, Rodellar J, Pozo F (2015) Passive and hybrid mitigation of potential near-fault inner pounding of a self-braking seismic isolator. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:233–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jangid R, Kelly J (2001) Base isolation for near-fault motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:691–707. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murat D, Srikanth B (2007) Equivalent linear analysis of seismic-isolated bridges subjected to near-fault ground motions with forward rupture directivity effect. Eng Struct 29:21–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basili M, De Angelis M (2007) Optimal passive control of adjacent structures interconnected with nonlinear hysteretic devices. J Sound Vib 301:106–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basili M, De Angelis M (2007) A reduced order model for optimal design of 2-MDOF adjacent structures connected by hysteretic dampers. J Sound Vib 306:297–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reggio A, De Angelis M (2015) Optimal energy-based seismic design of non-conventional Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) implemented via inter-story isolation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1623–1642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reggio A, De Angelis M (2013) Optimal design of an equipment isolation system with nonlinear hysteretic behavior. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1907–1930. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu LY, Lee TY, Juang SY, Yeh SW (2013) Polynomial friction pendulum isolators (PFPIs) for building floor isolation: an experimental and theoretical study. Eng Struct 56:970–982. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reggio A, De Angelis M (2014) Combined primary–secondary system approach to the design of an equipment isolation system with High-Damping Rubber Bearings. J Sound Vib 333:2386–2403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Renzi E, De Angelis M (2005) Optimal semi-active control and non-linear dynamic response of variable stiffness structures. J Vib Control 11:1253–1289. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basili M, De Angelis M (2014) Investigation on the optimal properties of semi active control devices with continuous control for equipment isolation. Scalable Comput 15:331–343. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsai H (1997) Dynamic analysis of base-isolated shear beams bumping against stops. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:515–528.;2-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malhotra P (1997) Dynamics of seismic impacts in base-isolated buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:797–813.;2-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Komodromos P, Polycarpou PC, Papaloizou L, Phocas MC (2007) Response of seismically isolated buildings considering poundings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1605–1622. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Komodromos P (2008) Simulation of the earthquake-induced pounding of seismically isolated buildings. Comput Struct 86:618–626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2011) Numerical investigation of potential mitigation measures for poundings of seismically isolated buildings. Earthq Struct 2:1–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Masroor A, Mosqueda G (2013) Impact model for simulation of base isolated buildings impacting flexible moat walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:357–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mavronicola EA, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2016) Effect of planar impact modeling on the pounding response of base-isolated buildings. Front Built Environ 2:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu C, Yang W, Yan Z, Lu Z, Luo N (2017) Base pounding model and response analysis of base-isolated structures under earthquake excitation. Appl Sci 7:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Masroor A, Mosqueda G (2012) Experimental simulation of base-isolated buildings pounding against moat wall and effects on superstructure response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41:2093–2109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andreaus U, De Angelis M (2016) Nonlinear dynamic response of a base-excited SDOF oscillator with double-side unilateral constraints. Nonlinear Dyn 84:1447–1467. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Andreaus U, Baragatti P, De Angelis M, Perno S (2017) A preliminary experimental study about two-sided impacting SDOF oscillator under harmonic excitation. J Comput Nonlinear Dyn 12:061010-1–061010-10. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andreaus U, Baragatti P, De Angelis M, Perno S (2017) Shaking table tests and numerical investigation of two-sided damping constraint for end-stop impact protection. Nonlinear Dyn 90:2387–2421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Naeim F, Kelly J (1999) Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hunt KH, Crossley FRE (1975) Coefficient of restitution interpreted as damping in vibro-impact. J Appl Mech 42:440–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Núñez K, Rivas L, Scattolini M, Rosales C, Perera R, Matos M (2007) Mechanical properties of TPVs of EPDM/polypropylene/paraffin oil. Rev Téc Ing Univ Zulia 30:445–453Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structural and Geotechnical EngineeringSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations