Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanIMPLICATIONS OF BRIDGE PERFORMANCEDURING GREAT EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE FOR
U.S. SEISMIC DESIGN PRACTICE
Ian BUCKLE1, Wen-huei (Phillip) YEN2, Lee MARSH3 and Eric MONZON4
1

Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA, igbuckle@unr.edu
2
Principal Bridge Engineer, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC, USA, wen-huei.yen@dot.gov
3
Senior Project Engineer, BergerABAM, Seattle, WA, USA, lee.marsh@abam.com
4
Graduate Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA, emonzon@unr.edu

ABSTRACT: About 200 highway bridges and numerous rail bridges were damaged
during the Great East Japan Earthquake. The causes of this damage were principally
ground shaking (including ground failure and liquefaction), and tsunami inundation.
Implications for US design practice include: (1) Japan’s retrofit program and revised
design specifications were very effective; (2) design provisions for elastomeric bearings
may need revision; (3) design strategies for survival of tsunami inundation appear
feasible; and (4) duration effects were inconclusive but sufficient to warrant further study.
Key Words: Great East Japan earthquake, bridge performance, design and retrofit
programs, elastomeric bearings, tsunami inundation, duration,
implications for United States

INTRODUCTION
About 200 highway bridges and numerous rail bridges were damaged during the Great East Japan
Earthquake of March 11, 2011, including span unseating, foundation scour, ruptured bearings, column
shear failures and approach fill settlements. The causes of this damage can be broadly classified in two
categories: ground shaking including ground failure (liquefaction), and tsunami inundation. Of these,
the tsunami was responsible for about one-half of the number of damaged bridges.
This damage is briefly reviewed in this paper followed by a set of observations regarding bridge
performance during this extreme event and implications for US practice. Locations of bridges
discussed in this paper are shown in Figure 1.

1363

Fig. 1 Damaged bridge locations(map: L. Marsh)
BRIDGE DAMAGE DUE TO GROUND SHAKING
In general the amount of damage due to ground shaking was remarkably light considering peakground accelerations that in some locations that exceeded 1.0 g, (short-period spectral accelerations inexcess of 5g), with durations in excess of 2 minutes.
The most likely explanation is that the design specifications for new bridges were significantly
revised following widespread damage to bridges in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake(JRA 1996), and that most, if not all, of the existing bridges on the national highway system had been
seismically retrofitted over the last 10-15 years. Bridges that were damaged in this earthquake (byground shaking) were generally older structures owned by city and local governments, whereretrofitting had not yet begun, or was incomplete at the time of the earthquake, due to a lack offunding.
Table 1 summarizes the damage observed in six bridges due to ground shaking. It will be seen thattypical damage includes failures of older steel bearings, anchor bolt pullout, and flexural/shear
cracking at mid-height columns at, or near, rebar termination. In one bridge, transverse steel stoppers
failed followed by rupture of adjacent elastomeric bearings with consequential distress to cross frames
and web stiffeners of the plate girder superstructure. In another bridge, ground settlement and lateralflow due to liquefaction appear to be the reasons for the observed structural damage.

1364

Table 1 Summary of typical damage due to ground shaking
Year
Built

Spans

LengthSteel girders (2),2-column
concrete piers

1957

9

NA

SendaiO-hashiSteel girders,
concrete wall
piers

1965

9

310 m

Fuji hashi

Steel plate girders(3), single column
piers

1972

13

NA

YuriageO-hashiConcrete box
girder, concrete
wall piers

1974

10

542 m

Steel bearing failure (roller bearings);
insufficient capacity for longitudinal
movement of pier caused, possibly, byliquefaction-induced lateral spread.

Ezaki hashi

Concrete box
girder, concrete
wall piers

1982

9

586 m

Flexural/shear cracks in piers at/near rebar
termination. Inclined shear cracks in piersin weak direction.

SendaiTobu
Viaduct

Steel plate girders(8) and steel box
girders (3-5) on
single- and2-column steel
columns2000

NA

4.4 kmFailure of steel stoppers and elastomericbearings at two locations. Buckled and/or
severely distorted girder stiffeners, gusset
plates, and cross frames. Some minor
column yield at base.

BridgeType

Shida hashi

DamageFailed steel bearings, anchor bolt pullout,abutment pedestal and back wall damage,settlement of superstructure over pier withbearing damage .Flexural cracking at
mid-height in piers at/near rebar
termination.
Infill panel damage between original andnew substructure units. Some
delamination of fiber wrap retrofits ofsubstructure units due to relative
movement between units.
Flexural/shear cracks in columns at/near
rebar termination. Pin fracture inolder-style steel bearings.

Sendai-Tobu Viaduct
The damage to this 4.4 km long, multi-span viaduct in north Sendai was largely confined to a 10-spansection between Piers 52 and 62. Built in 2000, this section of the viaduct was being widened at thetime of the earthquake. New on- and off-ramps were under construction between Piers 54 and 56 toconnect Route 10, carried by the viaduct, to Route 141 below. The superstructure comprises eight steel
plate girders (I-girders) between Piers 50 and 52, three, four, or five steel box girders between Piers 52
and 56, and eight steel plate girders between Piers 56 and 63. Elastomeric bearings are used
exclusively with external stoppers to restrain transverse movement at almost every pier. Piers 54, 55,
56, 58, 59 and 60 had recently been converted from single steel box columns to two-column steel box
frames to accommodate new on- and off-ramps (Figure 2). The remaining piers (51, 52, 53 and 57) aresingle-column steel boxes (Figure 3).
The bridge suffered moderate-to-major damage during the earthquake but no span collapsed. Thisdamage included the failure of 40 steel stoppers and 18 elastomeric bearings. Another 14 stoppers and3 bearings were heavily damaged. In addition, girder stiffeners, gusset plates, and cross-frames were
buckled or severely distorted.

1365

Fig. 2 Two-column frame, Pier 56, Sendai-Tobu Viaduct(photo: E. Monzon)
The bearing damage was concentrated in a region of the viaduct where, as noted above, it was being
widened and there was a corresponding change in lateral stiffness – from single-column hammerhead
piers at Pier 57 to two-column frames at Piers 54, 55 and 56, for example. There was also a significant
change in the in-plane stiffness of the superstructure in this section, from eight I-girders in Spans 52
and 57 to multiple single-cell box girders in Spans 53 to 56. This section of the viaduct was therefore
relatively stiff (and particularly Spans 55 and 56) compared to sections to the north and south. It istherefore possible that when earthquake loads were applied, this difference in stiffness generated highlateral forces in the stoppers at the two interfaces (over Piers 52 and 56) leading to their failure and thetransfer of load to the bearings.

Fig. 3 Single-column pier, Pier 57, Sendai-Tobu Viaduct(photo: E. Monzon)
Inspection of the damage to the bearings showed that many had ruptured completely through theelastomer, as if in direct tension. Others showed damage to the internal shims which had been severely

1366

distorted (Figure 4). Typical dimensions of the bearings at Pier 56 were 820 x 870 x 508 mm, with 8 x
33 mm layers of elastomer, 7 x 4.5 mm shims and 2 x 45 mm end plates. The masonry and sole plateconnections were detailed to transfer both shear and axial forces (tension and compression) to thebearings.
It seems possible that the bearings failed due to the combination of two effects. First the highlateral forces in the steel stoppers at Piers 52 and 56 were probably not evenly distributed amongst thethree effective stoppers. (Although there are six stoppers at each pier, only three are effective at any
point in time.) This uneven distribution can arise in situations where the gaps between the stoppers andthe sole plates of the bearings are not identical and one stopper engages before the others. Overloadingof this stopper may then lead to its failure, followed by the transfer of load to the other stoppers which
fail in turn. Once all the stoppers have failed the transfer of load to the bearings places them undervery high shear strain.
The second effect is the generation of high tensile forces in the bearings at these same locations
due to the difference in pier type. For example Pier 56 is a 2-column frame and Pier 57 is a single
column hammerhead pier. Under lateral load the hammerhead rotates about a longitudinal axis
twisting the superstructure about the same axis. But the pier cap in the 2-column frame at Pier 56 does
not rotate in this manner and this frame resists the twisting of the superstructure. High tensile forces
are developed in the bearings as a result. The simultaneous occurrence of high tension and high shear
in the bearings could have led their failure.
The shim damage seen in Figure 4 most likely occurred when a ruptured bearing impacted atoppled stopper puncturing the cover rubber layers and distorting the edge of the shim plate.
It is noted that the above scenario (multiple stopper failure followed by multiple bearing failure)
implies the occurrence of many cycles of large amplitude motion over an extended period of time,
which is possible given the long duration of this particular earthquake.
Other damage to the superstructure included buckled cross-frame members, gusset plates andstiffeners, possibly due to the abrupt change in load path where the transverse member changes from apartial height diaphragm to a full depth cross-frame. But a more likely scenario is that this damage isdue to the failure of the bearings below the girders leading to differential ‘settlement’ of thecross-frames and corresponding distortion and distress.

Fig. 4 Damaged elastomeric bearing from Pier 52
Sendai-Tobu Viaduct (photo: I. Buckle)

1367

BRIDGE DAMAGE DUE TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION
Twelve bridges on Route 45 were seriously damaged by the tsunami, which had wave heights from
Sendai to Hachinohe ranging from 6.2 to 11.8 m. Typical damage included loss of superstructure in
non-integral bridges (bridges with bearing-supported girders), loss of approach fills and underminingof foundations due to scour. The performance of two of these bridges, and two nearby rail bridges, isdescribed in this section.
Koizumi Highway and Rail Bridges
The Koizumi bridge spans the Tsuya River on Route 45 south of the city of Kesennuma. The bridge
was constructed in 1975, has six 30.1-m spans (total length 182 m), and is 11.3-m wide. The
superstructure comprises four steel plate girders supported by concrete piers on deep foundations. The
bridge is without skew and only a slight vertical curve. The superstructure segments were continuous
over three spans with expansion joints at the abutments and at the center pier (Pier 3). Piers 2 and 4
had fixed bearings, while Piers 1 and 5 had sliding bearings in the longitudinal direction.
The bridge had been seismically retrofitted using hydraulic dampers at the abutments. It is notknown if similar restrainers or dampers had been installed at the expansion joint over the center pier.
All six spans were swept away during the tsunami (Figure 5). Wave heights of the order of 11.8 m
were registered at Ofunato City just north of this site and the tsunami clearly overtopped this bridge
taking all six spans upstream. Based on damage to the levee on the north bank of the river (Figure 6),some of these spans were swept along the top of the levee on the north bank, then over the levee
altogether on the north side, and later back over the levee into the main channel where they came torest about 400 m upstream from the bridge (Figure 7). Other spans took a different path and came torest about 300 m upstream but on the south side of the levee on the south bank of the river. Four of thefive piers are still standing, but the center pier (Pier 3) was overturned and believed to be under waterin the river channel just upstream of the bridge (Figure 5).

Fig.5 Remaining piers of Koizumi Bridge shown at low tide. Temporary bridge is underconstruction on seaward-side of bridge (photo: E. Monzon)1368

Fig. 6 Drag marks on top of levee caused by girders from
Koizumi Bridge (photo: E. Monzon)

Fig. 7 Girders from Koizumi Bridge 400 m upstream in
Tsuya River channel (photo: E. Monzon)

It is clear that the longitudinal dampers installed at the abutments and the transverse keys (stoppers)
over the piers, offered little restraint to the lateral loads imposed by tsunami. Once these devices failed,
the relatively light weight of the steel I-girders, together with the buoyancy effects of air trapped
between the girders, enabled the superstructure to be easily lifted and carried significant distances
upstream. The loss of Pier 3 was probably due to scour but this could not be confirmed. Despite thelow tide at the time of the visit, this foundation was still underwater.
About 900 m upstream of the Koizumi Bridge, the JR East rail line to Kesennuma crosses the
Tsuya River on a multispan, prestressed concrete girder viaduct. Five of these spans were washed out,
but the piers survived (Figure 8). The in-coming tsunami apparently breached the levee behind thepiers allowing flow oblique to the channel. The piers are tilted toward the breach, and the simple span,
three-girder superstructures came to rest on the opposite side of the levee.
Of interest is the damage to the lower portions of the piers. The exposed reinforcement seen on theleft side of each pier appears to have been pulled outward from the center of the column, rupturing the1369

Fig. 8 Damaged piers of the JR Rail Viaduct crossing the
Tsuya River (photo: S. Dashti)
relatively light transverse steel. This type of behavior is seen in the failure of beams that are
unreinforced for shear, where a shear crack precipitates failure and tearing of the tensile reinforcementfrom the beam. In the case of the JR East piers, potential buoyancy of the superstructure due to trapped
air and the hydrodynamic forces produced lateral loads on the piers along with eccentric verticalloading. The piers may have failed in shear above the foundation after plastically deforming under the
combined lateral and vertical effects. Following the loss of shear capacity at the base, the tension
reinforcement was torn from the piers.
In this postulated mode of failure the tilting of the pier is due to structural failure and not to scourand subsequent rotation of the foundation. Inspection of the columns and footings below the water line
is required to confirm this behavior.
Nijyu-ichihama Highway and Rail Bridges
The Nijyu-ichihama highway bridge spans a small stream on Route 45, south of the Koizumi andSodeo-gawa bridges. This bridge was built in 1971 and is a single-span prestressed concrete I-girder
bridge supported on tall, cantilever abutments, which are in turn supported on steel pipe piles. The
bridge has no skew, no curve and essentially no grade. The span is 16.64 m and the total width of theoriginal structure is 8.7 m. End diaphragms engage each of the eleven I-girders comprising the deckand in turn, and were anchored to the abutment seats with tie-down rods in each bay. These same
diaphragms acted as transverse shear keys restraining the lower flange of each girder from lateral
movement.
The bridge had been widened on both sides at some time in the past using precast double-tee
beams spanning between new abutments each founded on steel piles with heads at a much higher
elevation than those of the original structure. The tsunami washed out the backfill behind bothabutments and temporary approach spans, using steel I-girders, were placed to open the bridge totraffic. These spans are seen in Figure 9. Temporary steel towers to support these spans may also beseen in this figure.

1370

Fig. 9 Loss of backfill on both approaches to single-span
Nijyu-ichihama Bridge (photo: I. Buckle)
Apart from the loss of the seaward extension, this bridge has performed remarkably well from astructural point of view. It is essentially intact and the principal reason for closure was the loss of backfill due to erosion. Despite the buoyancy of trapped air, the superstructure was well anchored bothvertically and laterally to the abutment seats and was not dislodged by the tsunami despite being
overtopped. It is of course possible that the erosion of the abutment backfills and the creation of twoalternative hydraulic channels took load off the bridge, but nevertheless the performance of this bridge
is noteworthy.
About 100 meters upstream from the Nijyu-ichihama bridge is the JR East line to Kennesuma,
which runs a distance of several hundred meters across the valley between tunnels at either end. Thissection of rail line was supported on a long fill embankment, two box culvert roadway underpasses,
and a prestressed concrete, single span bridge over the river (Figure 10). The unprotected embankment
appeared to be a granular material. As the wave overtopped the embankment, it displaced the tracks
and significantly scoured and removed the upper 4 to 5 m of the fill. Apart from the loss of theapproach fills, all the bridges in the valley appeared to be intact.

Fig. 10 Exposed wingwalls of JR Rail Bridge 100m
upstream from Nijyu-ichihama Bridge due to loss ofapproach embankment (photo: D. Frost)

1371

DESIGN IMPLICATIONS
The performance of the bridges described above has the following implications for the seismic designof new bridges (AASHTO 2007, AASHTO 2010), and the seismic retrofitting of existing bridges in
the United States (Caltrans 2010, FHWA 2006):
1. Despite the magnitude and duration of this earthquake, bridge damage outside of the coastalzone was not heavy. This is believed to be due to the fact that capacity design principles were
implemented in Japan for new bridges in the mid-1990s (JRA 1996), and an active retrofit
program was undertaken for older bridges, following the Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake
in 1995. Such performance endorses the design philosophy in the AASHTO specifications andin particular, the recent adoption of the displacement-based seismic design guidelines(AASHTO 2010) as an alternate to force-based provisions (AASHTO 2007). The success ofvarious retrofit measures confirms the best practices adopted by both Caltrans and FHWA
(Caltrans 2010, FHWA 2006).
2. Retrofitting is an effective means for minimizing earthquake damage in older bridges. Most of
the observed structural damage due to ground shaking occurred in older bridges that had not yet
been retrofitted, or only partly so. It is recommended that strong encouragement be given toowner agencies in the United States to accelerate their retrofit programs.
3. With the exception of several spans of the Sendai-Tobu Viaduct, elastomeric bearings
performed well and considerably better than older-style, steel bearings. The reason for the poor
performance of the Sendai-Tobu bearings needs to be determined quickly for it has widespread
implication on the use of these devices as expansion and seismic isolation bearings in the UnitedStates. It is noted that the damage to the superstructure of this Viaduct reinforces the recent
move in the U.S. to require superstructures be explicitly designed for seismic loads and the needfor the lateral load path to be clearly identified and designed.
4. Damage to several older, un-retrofitted, bridge piers was concentrated in the reinforcement
termination zone, and this vulnerability should be considered when prioritizing bridges for
retrofitting in the United States.
5. Design methods to mitigate tsunami damage from inundation should be developed. Strategies tokeep superstructures in place (such as using integral connections and venting trapped air toreduce buoyancy and equalize hydrostatic pressures on deck slabs) should be explored, alongwith armoring techniques to prevent undue scour of foundations and approach fills. In addition,
the cost of deeper foundations should be weighed against the potential loss of a pier and the needfor replacement of one or more spans.
6. Until analytical studies are complete it is not known to what extent the duration of thisearthquake affected the observed damage, but it is expected to have been significant (e.g. in the
Sendai-Tobu Viaduct). The effect of duration on structural response should be investigated and,
if its importance is confirmed, methods should be developed for inclusion in design loadings
and/or detailing.

1372

CONCLUSIONSThe performance of the above sample of bridges leads to two major conclusions:
1. Capacity-based design is an appropriate philosophy for the design and retrofit of bridges subject
to strong ground motions, and
2. Bridges can be designed to survive tsunami inundation with minimal damage. Survival isclearly dependent on superstructure type and bridges with integral connections appear to havethe least vulnerability to loss-of-span. If approach fills are not severely eroded and the piers areof sufficient depth to be unaffected by scour, full functionality may be quickly restored.
Other conclusions relate to the vulnerability of older steel bridge bearings, columns with rebar
termination at or near mid height, substructures on foundations in liquefiable soils, and superstructureswith inadequate load paths for lateral loads. The effect of duration on response is inconclusive andrequires further analysis.
It is noted that these conclusions are based on observations made and data recovered duringreconnaissance visits in June and November 2011. They are therefore of a somewhat speculative
nature due to the small number of bridges investigated and the absence of detailed field data such as
foundation and soil details, bearing and tie-down details, superstructure weights, wave heights, andvelocity profiles at each site. It follows that the above implications for U.S. practice and Conclusions,are likely to change as additional data becomes available and more detailed studies are completed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A joint EERI/FHWA/GEER reconnaissance team visited the affected area June 2-6, 2011, andinvestigated eleven bridges, some of which are reported in this paper. A follow-up visit was conductedby a subset of this team on November 9-12, 2011.
The team was hosted in Japan by Task Committee G of the UJNR Panel on Wind and Seismic
Effects. Membership was as follows:
U.S. Members:
Ian Buckle, University of Nevada Reno, Reno
Shideh Dashti, University of Colorado at Boulder, BoulderDavid Frost, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Lee Marsh, Berger/ABAM Engineers, Seattle
Eric Monzon, University of Nevada Reno, Reno
W. Phillip Yen, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC
Japan Members:
Taku Hanai, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba
Jun-ichi Hoshikuma, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba
Kazuhiko Kawashima, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo
Teturou Kuwabara, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba
Hideaki Nishida, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba
Keiichi Tamura, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba
Shigeki Unjoh, National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management
Acknowledgement is also made of generous funding provided by EERI under NSF Award CMMI
1142058, FHWA under Contract DTFH61-07-C-00031 to the University of Nevada Reno, and by
GEER under NSF Award #CMMI-1138203 to University of California, Davis.

1373

REFERENCES
AASHTO (2007) “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”, Fourth Edition with 2008 and 2009 Interims,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO (2010) “Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design”, Third Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
CALTRANS (2010) “Seismic Retrofit Guidelines for Bridges in California”, Memo to Designers 20-4,
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
FHWA (2006). “Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1-Bridges”,
FHWA-HRT-06-032, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
FHWA (2011). “Bridge Performance in the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011”,
Reconnaissance Report, to be published, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC.
JRA (1996). “Design Specifications for Highway Bridges, Part V: Seismic Design”, Japan Road
Association.

1374