Pounding Probability of Three-Span Simply Supported Bridge Subjected to Near-Field and Far-Field Ground Motions

  • Lopamudra Mohanty
  • Rahul Das
  • Goutam MondalEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 56)


During earthquake shaking, pounding of decks occurs in multi-span simply supported bridges (MSSS) when relative displacement between two adjacent decks exceeds the available expansion gap. It may cause the failure of a bridge in various ways such as unseating of the deck, pier failure, bearing failure, and local damage to decks and girders. The damage level of bridge also depends on the distance of the bridge from the fault rupture because the properties of ground motion change with distance from the fault rupture. This paper focuses on pounding probability of a three-span highway bridge subjected to three different types of ground motions, namely, near-field ground motion with pulse, near-field ground motion without pulse, and far-field ground motion along the longitudinal direction of the bridge. Finite element analysis of the bridge was performed in OpenSees considering the nonlinear behavior of piers and bearings. Energy dissipation during pounding of decks was also considered. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) was performed to obtain the level of earthquake shaking (i.e., peak ground acceleration (PGA)) required for pounding between adjacent decks. Based on the IDA, fragility analysis was performed to obtain the pounding probability of decks. At a particular PGA level, it was found that far-field ground motions resulted in higher pounding probability as compared to near-field ground motions. When gap size was small, pounding probability for near-field ground motion with pulse was found to be smaller than that of near-field ground motion without pulse. However, when the gap size was large, near-field ground motion with pulse caused higher pounding probability as compared to near-field ground motions without pulse.


Pounding Near-Field and Far-Field ground motions Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) Fragility curves 


  1. 1.
    Billah M, Alam S, Bhuiyan R (2013) Fragility analysis of retrofitted multi-column bridge bent subjected to near-fault and far-field ground motion. J Bridge Eng 18(10):992–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown AS, Saiidi MS (2008) Investigation of near-fault vs. far field ground motion effects on a substandard bridge bent. Report University of Nevada, RenoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    CALTRANS (2004) Seismic design criteria. Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C (2001) Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. J Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 30(12):1769–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chouw N, Hao H (2008) Significance of SSI and non-uniform near-fault ground motions in bridge response II: effect on response with modular expansion joint. Eng Struct 30(1):154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huo Y, Zhang J (2013) Effects of pounding and skewness on seismic responses of typical multispan highway bridges using the fragility function method. J Bridge Eng 18(6):499–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liao WI, Loh CH, Wan S, Jean WY, Chai JF (2000) Dynamic responses of bridges subjected to near-fault ground motions. J Chin Inst Eng 23(4):455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liao W, Loh C, Lee B (2004) Comparison of dynamic response of isolated and non-isolated continuous girder bridges subjected to near-fault ground motions. Eng Struct 26:2173–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liao WI, Loh CH, Chai JF (2002) Effect of near-fault earthquake on bridges: lessons learned from Chi-Chi earthquake. J Earthq Eng Vib 1(1):86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McKenna FT, Fenves G (2001) The OpenSees Command Language Manual: version 1.2, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California, Berkeley (
  11. 11.
    Mosleh A, Razzaghi MS, Jara J, Varum H (2016) Seismic fragility analysis of typical pre-1990 bridges due to near- and far-field ground motions. Int J Adv Struct Eng 8(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muthukumar S, DesRoches R (2006) A Hertz contact model with non-linear damping for pounding simulation. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(7):811–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielson BG (2005) Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. PhD thesis, School of civil and environmental engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    PEER Strong Motion Database (2009) Accessed 16 Dec 2018
  15. 15.
    Phan V, Saiid S, John A, and Hamid G (2007) Near-fault ground motion effects on reinforced concrete bridge columns. J Struct Eng 133(7):982–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shen J, Tsai MH, Chang KC, Lee GC (2004) Performance of a seismically isolated bridge under near-fault earthquake ground motions. J Struct Eng 130(6):861–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Somerville PG (2002) Characterizing near fault ground motion for the design and evaluation of bridges. In: Third national conference and workshop on bridges and highways, April 29–May 1 2002, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang J, Huo Y (2009) Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Eng Struct 31(8):1648–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InfrastructureIndian Institute of Technology BhubaneswarBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations