Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanLESSONS FOR CALTRANS FROM THE 2011 GREATEAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI
Mark Yashinsky
Senior Bridge Engineer, Caltrans Office of Earthquake Engineering, Sacramento, CA 95816,
yashinsky@sbcglobal.net

ABSTRACT: The M9.0 East Japan earthquake impacted a large area of Japan, but
ground shaking severely damaged only a few bridges. The tsunami waves were high, but
major bridge damage was due to girders that were picked up by the waves. Bridges thatwere well designed for ground shaking had little tsunami damage. However, moderate
ground shaking damage closed bridges and impeded evacuation before the tsunami.
Scoured embankments and debris-covered roads impeded the emergency response,
delayed timely repairs to the nuclear power plants, and slowed the economic recovery.
Key Words: Tohoku earthquake, earthquake engineering, tsunami, roads, bridges,
highway structures

INTRODUCTION
Caltrans Office of Earthquake Engineering investigates road and bridge damage after large
earthquakes to see if any changes are required to the current seismic criteria. I went to Japan as part ofa team from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Technical Council on Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering from June 12th to June 23rd in order to study the effects of the earthquake andtsunami on roads and bridges close to the northeast coast of Japan (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 The ASCE (and JSCE) earthquake investigation team in Sendai
	
 

1417

THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI
The March 11, 2011 Tohoku earthquake was caused by thrust faulting on the subduction zone
between the Pacific and North American plates (see Figure 2). Modeling of the rupture indicates thefault moved up about 30-40 m and slipped over an area about 300 km long by 150 km wide. The
resulting tsunami waves exceeded 15 m in height and penetrated several km inland (Figure 3).

Fig. 2 Fault rupture map (USGS)

Fig. 3 Tsunami inundation map (NOAA)
	
 

1418

TSUNAMI DAMAGE TO BRIDGES
Most bridges suffered little or no damage from the tsunami that accompanied the Tohoku earthquake.
This was despite bridges not being specifically designed for tsunami. The lack of damage was often
surprising. In the City of Miyako in Iwate Prefecture a video showed boats smashing into bridges(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12725646).
An examination of these bridges after the earthquake revealed only minor damage. None of thecolumns were damaged despite having been struck by a several boats (Fig. 4). This good performance
was due to the columns having been previously retrofitted with steel casings.

Fig. 4 During the tsunami several boats struck the Miyako Bridge (NILIM, 2011)
In contrast to the good performance of bridge columns on the Miyako Bridge, in Otsuchi not only
was the superstructure on a railway bridge washed away but one of the columns was knocked over(Fig. 5). If this bridge had the proper development of its reinforcement and good confinement, thenthe column most likely would have remained standing.

Fig. 5 Undamaged and damaged columns on railway bridge in Otsuchi (Robertson, 2011)
Even when a tsunami wave overtopped a bridge it often remained undamaged. For instance, there
were several bridges (Fig. 6) in Ohamawatari along Iyoushi Bay (near a damaged seawall) that werecovered in debris due to tsunami inundation. However they suffered only minor damage. Moreover,these bridges were not especially well designed for lateral loads. They were precast girder bridges
sitting on seat-type abutments and hammerhead bent caps. We saw this in many other locations.
	
 

1419

Fig. 6 Bridge across river in Ohamawatari was covered with debris but undamaged (NILIM, 2011)
Another bridge-related problem was scouring of abutment backfills (Fig. 7). It didn’t appear thatone kind of embankment cover was more effective than another. Rip-rap, masonry blocks, asphalt andPortland cement concrete were all removed along with the embankments by the tsunami waves. In fact,
tetra-pods (a registered trademark and also a generic term that refers to concrete blocks with several
legs arranged along the shore to stop waves), other energy-dissipating systems, and even forests alongseaside communities were all removed by tsunami waves. Scouring of the soil behind abutments was
the most common type of bridge damage observed during the tsunami.

Fig. 7 Embankment scour at Kawaharagawa and Katagishi Bridges along Route 45 (NILIM, 2011)
Tsunami waves also scour riverbeds. Sediments are removed on the downstream side ofobstacles and are deposited on the upstream side of the next obstacle. There were locations of pierdamage that looked to be caused by scouring of the foundations. For instance, in Motoyoshi-cho there
were two bridges that lost piers.
In Fig. 8, we can see that Pier #3 of the Koizumi Bridge (in thecenter of the river) is missing. A little upstream is a bridge carrying the JR Kesen-Numa line (Figure9) with several piers overturned in a manner suggesting the foundations were not well constructed.
However, railway bridges generally weren’t as well constructed as highway bridges and both of thesebridges could have had pier damage due to ground shaking or due to the tsunami waves, which wereparticularly violent at this location.

	
 

1420

Fig. 8 Damage to Koizumi Bridge due to the tsunami (Kawashima, 2011).

Fig. 9 Damage to JR Kesen-Numa Bridge just upstream from the Koizumi Bridge (Kawashima, 2011)
Similar to embankments, roads in Japan were also vulnerable to tsunami. We saw pavement
removed from roads on fill and at grade. Roads above the ocean were vulnerable and so were roads
behind overtopped seawalls.
We still have a lot to learn about how a tsunami impacts roads and bridges. After the 2004
Sumatra Tsunami, Parsons had the job of quickly replacing roads along the shore near Aceh. They
said one of the biggest challenges was determining what the shoreline would look like a year after thetsunami. They couldn’t tell where sand removed during the tsunami would eventually be returned.
In Japan, we listened to talks by the Ministry of Transportation, by the National Expressway
Corporation, and by the prefectural and local governments. They all said the major issue after thetsunami was clearing all the debris off the roads. The bridge damage was a further detriment since
Highway 45 was the only route along the coast.
The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transportation (MLIT) was put in charge of therecovery for the first 20 days after the tsunami. They praised an emergency action plan (similar to
Caltrans) that allowed them to hire contractors without competitive bidding to quickly remove debris
from the roadways. Highway 45 was praised as being the one seawall that was effective at stopping
the tsunami (see Fig. 10).
The relationship between ground shaking and the subsequent tsunami needs to be better
explored. Because the rupture occurred near the coast, the tsunami arrived less than an hour after the
ground shaking. Were bridges damaged by ground shaking more vulnerable to the subsequenttsunami?
Were any bridge piers that were weakened by ground shaking later demolished by thetsunami? Were any people unable to evacuate before the tsunami due to bridge damage? Such an
event could have occurred since an inland waterway, crossed by many bridges, was created along
Japan’s Pacific Coast hundreds of years ago as a protection for shipping.
	
 

1421

Figure 10. The embankment supporting Route 45 was the barrier that stopped the tsunami (TV Asahi)
The tsunami is a complicated hazard. Waves carry large objects with a tremendous inertial force
that destroys everything in their path. Smaller objects like cars and fishing boats caused less bridge
damage. The impact of the wave, the forces as the wave moves around objects, the buoyant force fromtrapped air between the girders, and the hydrostatic force all play a role in road and bridge damage.
The idea that a bridge designed for strong ground shaking will perform well for a tsunami may
not hold true when it comes to restraining the superstructure. There were many examples where cable
restrainers, damping devices, and steel brackets snapped in two as girders pulled away from the piers
and abutments (Fig. 11). However, the restraints didn’t seem designed to resist large forces. Aretsunami forces higher or lower than the forces caused by ground shaking? We might not want todesign restrainers for such a large force that they end up damaging the substructure. It may be better to
let the girders float away and quickly replace them than to damage the substructure and end up
building a new bridge after the tsunami.

Fig. 11 Broken brackets and restrainers on Utatsu Hashi and Yokozu Kyo Bridges (NILIM, 2011)

	
 

1422

Bridge damage is related to various bridge parameters and also to the tsunami parameters at eachbridge site. This includes the tsunami height, the tsunami wave force, uplift tsunami wave forces aswell as structural characteristics such as span, height, weight of the girders, type of barrier rail,
bearing strength, types of restrainers and shear keys, foundation characteristics, etc. It requires high,fast tsunami waves and a poorly detailed bridge to cause serious tsunami damage. If there is air
trapped under the deck the tsunami can more easily pick up the girders and carry them away. Putting
holes in the deck was considered as a way to remove the air between the girders during a tsunami, but
it was found to be ineffective. If the girders are fixed to the piers, it may prevent the girders fromfloating away or it may cause pier damage, which may be costlier to repair.
Are waves that carry a lot of debris more destructive to bridges? Can the returning wave be more
destructive? Are monolithic bridges safer than bridge girders sitting on drop bent caps? Does groundshaking weaken bridges that later collapse due to the tsunami? Some of these questions can be
resolved by research currently being funded by Caltrans. Other questions may be addressed throughphysical testing. Some questions may be answered by carefully studying the bridge damage from thisand other tsunamis.

GROUND SHAKING DAMAGE
One of Caltrans concerns is the high level of ground shaking recorded during this earthquake. One
instrument (MYG004) recorded PGA of 2.5g and a spectral acceleration (at 0.24 seconds) of 12.9g(Figure 12). The site was 81 km from the rupture and had a shear wave velocity of 500 m/s. Caltransdesigns bridges for PGA less than 1.0g and spectral acceleration generally less than 2g.

Fig. 12 Time history and response spectra recorded at instrument MYG004 during the Tohoku EQ
However, There was no bridge (or building) damage in Tsukidate (where the recording wasmade) according to Prof. Ikuo Towhata [5], a well-known geotechnical engineering professor at the
University of Tokyo. Moreover, the recording shows a sharp spike in the recording suggesting there
was some banging near the instrument. Most likely this recording is an outlier of the data and can besafely ignored.
There was less bridge damage due to ground shaking during the Tohoku earthquake than from
	
 

1423

the 1995 M6.9 Kobe earthquake. Strong ground shaking is expected close to the fault rather than 81
km away. Only a few bridges collapsed due to ground shaking and this was often the result ofliquefaction and lateral spreading. For instance, the Rokko Bridge had settlement of the approaches
and the loss of two piers and three spans (Fig. 13). This is similar to the damage that occurred to theShowa Bridge during the 1964 Niigata earthquake and probably had the same cause, loss of strengthand stiffness of the surrounding soil due to liquefaction.

Fig. 13 Damage to Rokko Bridge in Ibaraki Prefecture
There was a lot of damage to truss bridges due to buckled cross bracing, broken bearings andexpansion joint devices, and torn and buckled gusset plates. An interesting example of this type ofdamage occurred to the Kosoku-Arakawa Truss Bay Shore Bridge (built in 1978) just north of Tokyo
Bay. As shown in Fig. 14 below, the bridge is an 840 m long, seven span truss bridge with a drop-in
steel girder center span. The truss elements are held together with gusset plates that were too thin forthe seismic forces. About twenty plates buckled in compression or were torn apart in tension (usuallyboth) as shown in Fig. 15. Gusset plates should be capacity-protected members and stronger than themembers they connect. Fortunately, the bridge did not fall apart and the Metropolitan Expressway
Corporation was able to replace all the damaged gusset plates.

Fig. 14 Drawing of the Kosoku-Arakawa Bridge showing locations of gusset plate damage

	
 

1424

Fig. 15 Gusset plate damage for horizontal and vertical members

PERFORMANCE OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL
The Shinkansen (bullet train) travels on a network of about 1400 km of standard gauge track from thebottom of Kyushu to the top of Honshu. Despite being well designed and modern in many ways, thetrains ride on viaducts (to avoid traffic delays) that are too stiff and have poor reinforcement details.
After every earthquake (1995 Kobe, 2003 Miyagi Oki, 2004 Niigata, 2011 Tohoku) the damaged
viaducts are repaired and retrofitted, but a rigorous retrofit program hasn’t occurred. No lives havebeen lost partly because of the excellent safety system, the Urgent Earthquake Detection and Alarm
System (UrEDAS) that quickly stops all the trains whenever an earthquake occurs. High speed rail
might work better travelling slightly below grade like the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles.
During the Tohoku earthquake, viaducts were damaged in Koriyama (Fukushima Prefecture), in
Sendai (Miyagi Prefecture) and in Kitakami, Hanamaki, and Morioka (Iwate Prefecture) as shown in
Fig. 16.

Fig. 16 Map of Shinkansen with locations of damage during earthquake
	
 

1425

A very typical example of the damage to the Tohoku Shinkansen Line is shown in Fig. 17 on
the Hanimaki Viaduct in Sendai. This viaduct is composed of four span frames with drop-in spans
between the frames. The end bents are shorter and stiffer to carry the drop-caps which support thedrop-in spans. Almost all the damage to the Shinkansen Line were to the stiffer columns on the end
bents (There was also a lot of damage to transverse beans used to stiffen tall bents.

Fig. 17 Damage to Shinkansen Viaducts in Hanamaki
Demand for the Shinkansen is very high in Japan. Domestic flights around Japan are low
because most urban areas are accessible in a few hours by Shinkansen. All seats are reserved, thetrains leave every hour, and it is an extremely reliable form of transportation. Because no revenue wascoming in to JR East due to damage to the viaducts, all the damage was repaired in a few weeks.
Unfortunately, many of the repairs were damaged again by large aftershocks that continued for several
months after the earthquake.
	
 

1426

LESSONS LEARNED
Lesson 1: Bridges that were retrofit for ground shaking generally remained in service following thetsunami. However, the situation when the girders were overtopped needs further study.
Lesson 2: Bridges with poor seismic details (little confinement, inadequate development ofreinforcement into adjacent members, etc.) performed poorly during the tsunami.
Lesson 3: Large velocity waves and/or poor connection details are necessary to uplift girders.
Lesson 4: Protecting embankments from tsunami-induced scour still needs to be studied.
Lesson 5: A determination of the scour vulnerability for bridge foundations requires wave height andvelocity data as well as a set of bridge plans.
Lesson 6: As the tsunami wave overtops the seawall the water reaches critical velocity with increased
destructiveness until the wall is inundated. As the water continues to rise the wall reduces the velocityof the tsunami wave until the water becomes too high for the wall to be effective (according to Prof.
Solomon Yim at Oregon State University).
Lesson 7: Roadway embankments, a sufficient distance from the coast, make effective tsunami walls.
Lesson 8: Ground shaking followed by a tsunami needs to be studied for bridges along the coast.
Lesson 9: Ground shaking forces need to be compared to tsunami forces to determine if girders can betied down to resist both hazards without severely damaging foundations and substructures.
Lesson 10: Need to determine implications of recorded ground motions well above current practice.
Lesson 11: High-speed rail may be safer below grade than on stiff viaducts with smaller ductility.
Alternately, higher performance may be obtained using isolation bearings with fuses to allow theground to shake while the deck has little movement.
Lesson 12: Owners and users of high-speed rail cannot wait several months after large earthquakes foraftershocks to subside. The line should be designed to be quickly repaired after large earthquakes andto remain in service for smaller earthquakes.
CONCLUSIONS
There are many lessons that we can learn about the behavior of bridges impacted by tsunami waves.
Some of the concerns about potential bridge vulnerabilities will be addressed by the analytical studies
currently being conducted at Oregon State University under a contract with Caltrans. Other issues may
be addressed through physical testing using the tsunami wave generator. However, it would also be
useful if parameters of the bridges in the tsunami inundation area were put in a database and studied to
identify those parameters that were significant for bridges standing and bridges collapsing. Fromobservations made during this event we saw that bridges retrofitted or designed for ground shaking
usually performed very well for tsunami. More research is needed to see if our current seismic design
provides adequate protection from tsunami forces. The vulnerability of the embankments to tsunami
waves is problematic and may require testing to see how they can be protected. It seems thatmonolithic bridges performed better than precast or steel girder bridges because they don’t haveelements that can be picked up and carried away.
Another issue is the very strong ground shaking that was recorded during this earthquake. There
didn’t seem to be enough damage to suggest that PGA had been over 3.0g with significant
amplifications at longer periods. Moreover, these recordings were at large distances from the fault
rupture. Changes to attenuation relationships should be studied after each well-recorded earthquake.
Most of the ground shaking damage was due to lack of uniformity between elements, whichcaused the weaker elements to fail. There was also soil problems that led to fatalities and bridge
collapses. Some steel trusses performed poorly due to inadequate connections.
	
 

1427

Finally, the idea of supporting high-speed rail on stiff viaducts needs to be re-examined. The
Shinkansen was put above grade to prevent delays and possible collisions but these viaducts aredesigned to be stiff (to support trains travelling 200 mph) and they are vulnerable to earthquakes. It
might be better to put high-speed rail underground or on isolation devices so they can be quickly
repaired for large earthquakes and remain in service for smaller earthquakes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The ASCE is gratefully acknowledged for funding TCLEE’s post-earthquake investigation of the
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami. The JSCE is also acknowledged for arranging and accompanying us
on our investigation. The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Institute is thanked for providing
the funding to attend this Seminar. My employer, Caltrans is acknowledged for their willingness toallow travel wherever large earthquakes occur to obtain lessons about the performance of highways
and highway structures. Thanks to JSCE, NILIM, PWRI, Japan Rail, Ian Robertson, Solomon Yim,
Kazuhiko Kawashima, Shigeki Unjoh, and the many other institutions, engineers, and researchers who
provided photos, information, and help with this report.

REFERENCES
Japan National Institute of Land and Infrastructure Management (NILIM), and Public Works ResearchInstitute (PWRI). (2011). “Quick Survey Report on Bridge Damage for the Northeast Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami.” http://www.pwri.go.jp/caesar/event/pdf/110312kyouryou.pdf.
Kawashima, K., et al. (2011). Chapter 9. Damage to Bridges. ‘JSCE Reconnaissance Damage
Investigation.’
Robertson, Ian, et al. (2011). “Joint ASCE/JSCE Tohoku Tsunami Survey.”
http://quakesummit.org/program/presentations/19_c-Robertson.pdf.
Towhata, Ikuo. (2011). “Geotechnical Damage Caused By The Recent Gigantic Earthquake In Japan.”Presentation At 3rd International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for Disaster
Mitigation and Rehabilitation (GEDMAR) in Semarang, Indonesia.
Yim, Solomon (2011). Personal Communication.

	
 1428