Performance-Based Seismic Retrofit Design of a Long-Span

Truss Bridge—Minato Bridge—Using New Control

Technologies

Hidesada Kanaji, Manager
Dr. Eng., Hanshin Expressway
Management Technology Center,
Osaka, Japan
Summary
This paper describes performance-based seismic retrofit design for a long-span
truss bridge, Minato Bridge in Osaka, Japan, against maximum credible ground
motion, using new response control technologies. The target performance is the
early reopening of the bridge after a severe earthquake; the main members that
support gravity load should remain in the elastic region while sub-members may
reach the inelastic region only within a moderate range. To achieve the perfor-
mance criteria, new response control technologies are adopted: seismic isolation
of floor decks for the longitudinal direction and buckling restrained braces for
the transverse direction. Optimization of the design is also discussed. The retrofit
design is verified by nonlinear dynamic analyses.
Keywords: long-span bridge; seismic retrofit; buckling restrained brace; floor
deck isolation; damage control design.

Introduction plates on existing members for strength-

Yozo Fujino
Prof., Ph.D., University of Tokyo, Tokyo,
Japan
Eiichi Watanabe
Prof. Emeritus, Ph.D., Dr. Eng., Kyoto
University, Kyoto, Japan
Peer-reviewed by international ex-
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board
Paper received: October 31, 2007
Paper accepted: April 4, 2008
The Minato Bridge shown in Figs. 1
and 2 was completed in 1974. It is the
third longest cantilever-truss bridge in
the world, with a main span of 510 m.
After experiencing the 1995 Hyogo-
ken Nanbu earthquake (widely known
as the Kobe earthquake), the Japanese
seismic design code was revised. The
seismic capacity of this bridge was
found to be below the new seismic de-
sign criteria, showing a need for proper
retrofit.1
Conventional seismic retrofit of steel
truss bridges consists of splicing steel
Fig. 1: Minato Bridge
ening. This is not suitable for long-span
bridges because of the large inertia
force produced by additional weight,
construction difficulties and cost.
Base-isolation using rubber isolators
can be an attractive solution for ordi-
nary bridges and actually has been
widely used in retrofit and restoration,
as well as in new construction. However,
this is not applicable to large bridges,
especially those already in existence
because it is impossible in practice to
replace gigantic steel bearings suppor-
ting the main truss in the large-weight
superstructure with rubber isolators.
Thus, isolation of heavy floor decks
using sliding bearings and rubber bear-
ings was examined and adopted for the
seismic retrofit design of the Minato
Bridge as a means to reduce the large
longitudinal inertia force.
Another seismic response control
was the use of energy absorption devi-
ces. Many new tall buildings in Japan
employ viscous or steel dampers in
inter-floor spaces of the building
frames. For the Minato Bridge, it was
decided to replace some of the truss
members with the buckling restrained
braces (BRBs) to increase the damping
to a level adequate to reduce the trans-
verse response.
The objective of this paper is to desc-
ribe the seismic retrofit design using
these new response control technolo-
gies and to demonstrate that seismic

Structural Engineering International 3/2008 Science and Technology 271

x328.indd 271 7/16/08 6:02:24 PM

 22,5 m
Floor deck isolation
980 m
235 m 510 m 235 m

68,5 m
M M
F F
Tower Tower
Pier10 Hinge Pier13
Pier11 Pier12 Tower

Cantilever span 450 m Suspened span 180 m Cantilever span 450 m

Buckling restrained brace

1,2,-----------------------------13,14,----------------------------------27 Chord member location # M Movable support F Fixed support

Fig. 2: Configuration and structural control of truss bridge used in this study

performance of the Minato Bridge is = 70 m/s, live load and dead load. The
adequately improved to meet the de- bridge has double floor decks with six
sign requirements.2,3 plate girders, which were supported by
conventional steel bearings on cross
beams of the main truss. It should be
Seismic Assessment of the noted that the weight of the two floor
existing Minato Bridge systems amounts to approximately 200
MN, which is as much as about 40% of
Bridge Description and Modeling the total weight of the superstructure.
Considerations
A three-dimensional nonlinear model
The Minato Bridge consists of a 510 m of the whole bridge including the
central span and two 235 m side spans soil–foundation–structure interaction
as shown in Fig. 2. This bridge is well was developed to evaluate the overall
known as the first one which used the behavior of the bridge under seismic
high-strength steel extensively to resist excitations. The connections of main
the design wind load considering Vmax members such as chord, vertical and
diagonal members were modeled as
rigid connections while the connec-
tions between cross beams of the super-
structure and the main members were
modeled as pinned connections. Floor
decks were fixed to the main truss in
the several parts reflecting the actual
support systems.
Figure 3 shows dominant vibration
modes of the existing structure for the
longitudinal and transverse directions
under seismic excitations.
Design Ground Motions
The site-specific earthquake ground
motions were simulated using the fault
rupture models or slip models.4 The
outline of the procedure is shown in
Fig. 4. Design ground motions were
obtained by the waveform synthesis
from the short period waves by the
statistical Green’s function5 and long

First mode (T = 2,8 sec.)

Peripheral
faults

Range attenuation
Asperities
Second mode (T = 1,4 sec.)
Earthquake source fault
(a) Longitudinal direction (Elevation) and fault parameter

Short periods Long periods

Statistical Green's 3D fluctuation

function propagation analysis
First mode (T = 4,4 sec.)

Waveform
synthesis

Second mode (T = 1,9 sec.)

Design ground
(b) Transverse direction (Plan) motion

Fig. 3: Dominant vibration modes Fig. 4: Design ground motion

272 Science and Technology Structural Engineering International 3/2008

x328.indd 272 7/16/08 6:02:30 PM

 Longitudinal (h = 2%) Transverse (h = 2%)
10000 10000
Asperity–a Asperity–a
Asperity–b Asperity–b
Asperity–c Asperity–c
1000 Design–1974 1000 Design–1974 (a) Longitudinal direction
Acc. (gal)

Acc. (gal)
100 100

(b) Transverse direction

2nd mode 1st mode 2nd mode 1st mode
10 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Period (sec.) Yield Elastic Buckling
Period (sec.)
gi < − 1,0 −1,0 < gi < 1,0 gi > 1,0
(a) Longitudinal direction (b) Transverse direction
Fig. 5: Acceleration response spectra Fig. 6: Demand/capacity ratios for the
as-built structure

period waves by three dimensional
(3D) fluctuation propagation analysis
as well as the fault rupture models.6
The design acceleration response spec-
tra are presented in Fig. 5 where their
natural periods in the longitudinal and
transverse directions are plotted and the
design spectra used in the original de-
sign are also presented for comparison.
The complex fault system considered
for the scenario earthquake consists of
five sub-faults. The fault rupture sce-
nario can be classified into three types
that would have the different proper-
ties. The asperity a, b and c show the
representative ground motions, which
were produced due to the rupture of
all five subfaults, three subfaults near
the bridge, and one dominant sub-fault
respectively.
This shows that the acceleration res-
ponse of the first mode of the existing
structure in the longitudinal direction
is quite larger than that of the origi-
nal design spectra (solid lines in the
figure), suggesting that the elongation
of the first period would be very effec-
tive to reduce the seismic force. On the
other hand, in the transverse direction,
the period elongation could make the
dominant response near the second
mode larger. Therefore, increasing the
damping would be an effective choice.
A linear response analysis using de-
sign ground motions was carried out to
evaluate seismic performance of each
members of the existing structure. The
results revealed that several structural
members exceeded the acceptable
demand/capacity ratio. The demand/
capacity ratio g i for each member is
defined as follows.
γ i = Rmaxi / Rai
where Rmaxi and Rai are the maximum
response and the required member
capacity based on the specifications by
the Japan Road Association for mem-
ber number i (= 1, 2, …total number of
members), respectively.
Figure 6 shows the distribution of g i of
the members, where one can find that
response in the longitudinal direction
caused yielding (g i < –1,0) or buck-
ling (g i > 1,0) near the edge of a side
span and around a hinge. In contrast,
response in the transverse direction
reached the inelastic region in a wide
range in the cantilever span.
Retrofit Design
Performance Criteria
Three levels of the performance crite-
ria (Table 1) are discussed in the ret-
rofit design. For Level 1, all structural
elements should be elastic even during
a maximum credible ground motion.
Assuring this complete performance
requires a high retrofit cost. Level 2 re-
quires a moderate performance where
the main members remain elastic,
while nonmain truss members such as
sway bracings or lateral bracings may
Level Performance requirements of the
bridge
1 Fatal accident/bridge collapse
avoided
Fully opened to traffic
2 Fatal accident/bridge collapse
avoided
Almost fully opened to traffic
3 Fatal accident/bridge collapse
avoided
(1) Rebuilding or repair and
reinforcement are needed
Table 1: Performance requirements and criteria
be inelastic within a repairable level.
In Level 3, the main truss and nonmain
truss may suffer severe damage, requir-
ing large reconstruction or repairing
cost afterwards. To obtain an optimum
performance for this bridge with both
retrofit cost and risk (expected loss)
taken into account, life cycle cost for
each case was calculated. Here, risk
consists of loss of life, loss in toll rev-
enue, time loss and reconstruction cost.
The results showed that Level 2 would
be optimum performance criteria for
this bridge.7
Damage Control Design
There are two choices in retrofit design
of bridges: (a) strengthening and/or
increasing of ductility and (b) apply-
ing structural control solutions, such
as seismic isolation. For long-span
bridges like the one in the current
case, strengthening of truss members
or other structural elements is not
favorable because of the difficulties
in carrying in and installing the addi-
tional plates inside the box, as well as
the need for a large amount of tempo-
rary scaffolding. Hence the structural
Performance criteria
All members should remain elastic.
Damage controlling devices provide
damping.
Main truss members should remain
elastic, although damage in nonmain
members truss may be tolerated.
Damage controlling devices provide
damping.
Damage of all members may be
tolerated, but without collapse.
Damage controlling devices provide
damping.

Structural Engineering International 3/2008 Science and Technology 273

x328.indd 273 7/16/08 6:02:31 PM

 control solution is preferable. For the were carried out to check the effective-

Horizontal Force/Dead Load

Minato Bridge, a possible method is to
allow minor or repairable damage in
sub-members resisting lateral forces.
This requires dampers and isolators to
be installed. The main members sup-
porting vertical forces including dead
and live loads should remain within the
nearly elastic range. In other words, the
bridge is expected to have only small
residual deformation to remain open
to traffic even after an extremely large
earthquake, at reasonably low resto-
ration cost and economic loss from
its closure. In order to achieve these
requirements, several retrofit design
strategies were examined and evalu-
ated. It was found that the floor deck
isolation for the longitudinal direction
and BRBs for the transverse direction
would minimize the total cost including
the expected loss due to the damage.
Floor Deck Isolation
A sliding isolation system that consists
of sliding bearings, which are not fric-
tion-pendulum type but flat type, and
rubber bearings, which are not high
damping rubber bearings but laminated
rubber bearings without lead-core was
selected as floor deck isolation for the
Minato Bridge (Fig. 7). A flat sliding
bearing provides isolation and damp-
ing effects but does not have restoring
force and period adjustment perfor-
mance. Therefore a hybrid system with
a rubber bearing, which has them, was
applied. In this system, stiffness of rub-
ber bearings and friction coefficient of
sliding bearings were the key design
parameters. A series of experiments
Floor deck
Cross beam
(a) Layout
ness of this system8 and a parametric
study was conducted to find optimal
values with member forces and dis-
placements taken into account. In the
parametric study a simplified equiva-
lent linear model (Fig. 8) was applied,
and natural periods of floor decks using
rubber bearings (T) and friction coef-
ficients (m) of sliding bearings were va-
ried. Equivalent damping, equivalent
stiffness, maximum displacement and
dead load give friction coefficient of a
sliding bearing as follows.
Equivalent damping, elastic potential
energy, and area of hysteresis loop
are expressed by Eqs. (2), (3) and (4),
respectively. Substitution of Eqs. (3)
and (4) in Eq. (2) leads to Eq. (5).
1 ⎛ ∆W ⎞
heq = ⎜⎝ ⎟ (2)
4π We ⎠
1 with a decrease in the friction coeffi-
We = Keq ⋅ ue 2 (3)
2
∆W = 2( Rd ⋅ µ ) ⋅ 2ue
(4)
µ = π ⋅ heq Keq ue 2 Rd (5)
where heq, the equivalent damping; Keq,
equivalent stiffness; ue, maximum dis-
placement; Rd, dead load; ∆W, energy
dissipation per cycle; We, elastic strain
energy.
Figure 9 shows the relationship be-
tween the bearing displacement ratio
ub/uba, and the axial force ratio N/N0 of
the critical chord member for various
T/T1, where displacement response is
Rubber spring
Sliding bearing
Krubber
m
Keq
ue
Bearing displacement ub
Fig. 8: Isolation bearing model
ub, the allowable displacement is uba,
the axis force response of the isolated
structure is N, and that of the exist-
ing structure is N0. T1 is the period of
the longitudinal first mode shown in
Fig. 3.
The result shown in Fig. 9 demonstrates
that the member force decreased and
the bearing displacement increased
cient when T was larger than T1, T/T1 =
1,1 and 1,3. On the other hand, decrease
in the friction coefficient for a natural
period of the floor deck shorter than T1
resulted in increase in both the member
force and bearing displacement. With
displacement limit for the gap (uba)
of adjacent girders of the bridge and a
margin of 10% taken into account, T/T1
= 1,1 with m = 0,05 was considered to be
optimum combination.
Relationship between the strain ener-
gy ratio E/E0 of the main truss and the
properties of the isolation bearing was
also examined to check its effect on
the entire bridge. E is the total strain
energy of the bridge and E0 is the
strain energy from the combination of
T/T1 = 1,0 and m = 0,15. It is obvious
from Fig. 10 that the floor deck isola-
tion works very effectively in reducing
the response of the whole bridge when
T is larger than T1 and smaller friction
coefficient (m) is selected.
1,20
T/T1= 0,7
0,05 T/T1= 0,9
1,10 0,10 T/T1=1
1,00 T/T1= 1,1
0,15
T/T1= 1,3
0,15 0,10 0,05
N/N0

0,90
0,15 0,05
0,80 0,10 0,05
m = 0,15

0,70 m = 0,10
m = 0,05
0,60
0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20
ub/uba
(b) Rubber and sliding bearings (c) Sliding bearing Fig. 9: Axial force ratio of critical member
Fig. 7: Floor deck seismic isolation system by floor deck isolation

274 Science and Technology Structural Engineering International 3/2008

x328.indd 274 7/16/08 6:02:35 PM

 1,8 Figures 11 and 12 show the dimen- of a cross-shaped core steel using low
1,6 sional data of sliding bearings and rub- yield-point steel (LY225) and outer
1,4 ber bearings which are used in practice steel which prevents the buckling of
1,2
in the bridge. the core steel as illustrated in Fig. 13.
1 In a conventional brace, the buckling
E/E0

0,8 Buckling Restrained Brace strength is usually lower than the tensile
T/T1= 0,7
0,6 yielding strength. Because of this, ade-
T/T1= 0,9 For the vibration in the transverse
0,4 T/T1= 1,0
quate hysteretic damping due to cyclic
direction of the Minato Bridge, steel loading cannot be expected. Mean-
T/T1= 1,1
0,2
T/T1= 1,2 BRB was adopted as a hysteretic while, the core steel of BRB behaves
0 damper. Experimental works were car- elasto-plastic response without buck-
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20
m
ried out to examine the performance ling and works as a hysteretic damper.
of several types of BRB and select the BRB can be used for lateral bracings
Fig. 10: Strain energy ratio of the bridge by
best one.9 The selected damper consists or sway bracings in steel structures. In
floor deck isolation
Japan, the development was initiated in
L
the early 1990s and the applications for
Upper plate tall buildings over 60 m in height has
increased since the 1995 Hyogo-ken
Nanbu earthquake. The application for
H

bridges has just begun recently.

Stainless steel with Sliding plate
D In this bridge, some of the tower brac-
PTFE coating Middle plate
Bottom member ings and lateral bracings would buckle
L
under the very severe design ground
5 5
motions in the transverse direction.
For this reason, replacing these braces
with BRBs should be a better solution
Transverse

than using other devices such as fric-

tional or hydraulic dampers.
W

The layout of BRBs was determined

based on the strain energy ratio for
each truss member obtained from the
Longitudinal modal analysis. Braces to be replaced
with BRBs of large strain energy
were selected so that modal damping
D H L W
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
would increase. Those selected for the
Type1 100 80 1500 490
replacement at the preliminary stage
Type2 110 82 1500 490
Type3 135 89 1540 490
Type4 135 76 1540 550
Type5 145 93 1540 490
Type6 145 80 1540 550
Type7 145 80 1540 630

Fig. 11: Dimensional data of sliding bearings

Hg

(a) Before erection

∇Level

B L

K L B Hg
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Type1 1442 580 580 397
Type2 925 580 380 422
Type3 1349 590 560 414
Type4 967 560 380 394
Type5 1864 650 650 379
Type6 1654 610 610 380
K; Horizontal stiffness (N/mm) (b) After erection
Fig. 12: Dimensional data of rubber bearings Fig. 13: Buckling restrained brace

Structural Engineering International 3/2008 Science and Technology 275

x328.indd 275 7/16/08 6:02:38 PM

 60 suggest almost no yielding of the

Cumulative energy (103 kNm)

50 BRB or very little hysteretic damping.
β = 0,2 Consequently, b = 0,2 was selected as
40 β = 0,3
the optimal value which would allow
30 β = 0,03 BRBs to remain elastic under a mode-
β = 0,1
20
rate earthquake, since this cannot be
β = 0,5
achieved with b = 0,1.
10
β = 0,8
0
Figures 18 and 19 provide strain energy
(a) Lower laterals in the side span 0 10 20 30 in the chord members for each layout.
Time (sec) The performance criteria require these
Fig. 16: Cumulative strain energy with members to remain within almost elas-
BRBs in lower laterals tic range. The member locations along
the horizontal axis are described in
45
Fig. 2. These figures show effectiveness

Cumulative energy (103 kNm)

40 of the BRBs in each of Part 1, Part 2,
β = 0,2 and Part 3.
35
30 β = 0,3
25
Figure 18 shows that BRBs in Part 1
20 β = 0,1 β = 0,03
successfully reduced the strain energy
15 in upper chords #7 to #15, and that
β = 0,5 significant reduction was achieved in
10
(b) Tower braces 5 β = 0,8 almost all upper chord members by
Fig. 14: BRB layout study
0 BRBs in Part 3. BRBs in Part 2 were
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
not effective as compared to those in
Time (sec)
Part 1 or Part 3. Figure 19 suggests
were lower lateral braces near the Fig. 17: Cumulative strain energy with that BRBs in Part 2 worked most effe-
edges (Part 1), those near the towers BRBs in tower braces ctively for the strain energy reduction
(Part 2) and sway braces of the towers in lower chord members. BRBs in
(Part 3) as shown in Fig. 14. b = 0,03 imply that yielding of BRB Part 3 showed some effect, but those
started at early stage due to the low in Part 1 caused strain energy to incre-
Optimal Yield Force and Layout yield strength, while values for b = 0,8 ase near the tower. Consequently, the
It was necessary to determine yield
force and stiffness of the BRB for
400
proper control of the bridge response.
Original
A bi-linear model of the BRB is given 350
Part1
in Fig. 15, with yield force presented
Strain energy (kNm).

300 Part2
by bF0. F0 is the elastic force response 250 Part3
of the existing structure obtained from
200
time history analysis using the design
earthquake. K1 is initial stiffness, and 150
stiffness after yielding K2 was found to 100
be 0,03 K1 from the test results. 50
Cumulative strain energy with hystere- 0
tic damping in the lower lateral BRBs 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

and in the tower BRBs as shown previ- Edge Tower Center

ously in Fig. 14 is presented in Figs. 16 Member location #

and 17. These figures show that BRBs Fig. 18: Strain energy in the upper chord members
with yield forces of b = 0,1 and 0,2
absorbed large energy. Values for
2500
Original
1,0 2000 Part1
Elastic response
Strain energy (kNm).

Part2
1500 Part3

β
FyBRB/F0

K2=αK1 1000
(α=0,03)

500

K1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Edge Tower Center
BRB displacement Member location #

Fig. 15: BRB model Fig. 19: Strain energy in the lower chord members

276 Science and Technology Structural Engineering International 3/2008

x328.indd 276 7/16/08 6:02:42 PM

 tl

Core steel

Bf
Ls

tf

Bs
ts
Core steel Lbg Outer steel
Lb

Bl

(a) Side (b) Cross section

Py Ls Lb Lbg Bs ts Bl tl Bf tf
(kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Lateral Type1 2106 8300 9840 8040 171 30 409 19 110 42
brace Type2 2741 13900 15440 13480 218 30 576 22 170 42
Type3 3738 15700 17200 15220 237 38 635 30 190 50
Type4 4685 16100 17600 15600 293 38 691 33 190 50
Type5 6766 8700 10120 8420 379 42 677 26 140 54
Tower Type1 7371 9700 11500 9400 411 42 729 28 150 54
brace Type2 5865 9700 11460 9400 362 38 680 25 150 50
Fig. 20: Dimensional data of buckling restrained braces

combination of Part 2 and Part 3 was
selected as the optimum layout for
BRBs.
Figure 20 shows the dimensional data
of BRBs used in the bridge.
displacement response, reducing the re-
sidual deformation of the whole bridge
and preventing the vulnerable hinges
at the center span from diddling.
Conclusions
applying damage control strategy. In Proceed-
ings of IABSE Conference, Copenhagen, 2006.
[2] Kanaji H, Hamada N, Ishibashi T, Suzuki N,
Mino T, Cardenas FD, Sakugawa T. Performance
of hysteretic steel damper for seismic retrofitting
of a long-span Truss Bridge. In Proceedings of
IABMAS’04, Kyoto, 2004.

Retrofit Performance [3] Kanaji H, Takada Y, Suzuki N, Mino T, Car-

Dynamic analyses were conducted in
order to confirm the effect of floor
deck isolation and BRBs, using the
same design ground motion which
was applied in the assessment of the
existing structure. From the result-
ing demand/capacity ratios shown in
Fig. 21, it is obvious that the number
of yielding or buckling members was
smaller than that in the existing struc-
ture shown in Fig. 6.
This proves that floor deck isolation
and BRBs successfully reduced the
member force. They also reduced the
(a) Longitudinal direction
(b) Transverse direction
Yield Elastic
gi < − 1,0 −1,0 < gi < 1,0
Fig. 21: Demand/capacity ratio after retrofit
From this study, several conclusions
can be drawn as follows.
Floor deck isolation and BRBs based
on damage control design provide
very effective solutions for retrofitting
a long-span bridge such as the Minato
Bridge.
Optimum combination of the vibra-
tion period and friction coefficient
can be properly determined based on
the relationship between the bearing
displacement and the response ratio
obtained from a parametric study for
the floor deck isolation properties.
The current study also suggests an
optimum yielding strength and BRB
layout. BRBs used for lower lateral
braces and sway braces of towers are
extremely effective in providing prop-
er damping.
Construction of the seismic retrofit of
the Minato Bridge started in 2001 and
will be completed in 2007. So far, it is
estimated the entire project cost to be
approximately 4 billion Yen.
Buckling
References
gi > 1,0
[1] Kanaji H, Fujino Y, Watanabe E, Suzuki N.
Seismic retrofit of a long-span truss bridge
denas FD, Azumaya O. Replacement of conven-
tional bearings with sliding isolation bearings
for seismic retrofitting of a Long-Span Bridge.
In Proceedings of IABMAS ‘04, Kyoto, 2004.
[4] Somerville PG, Irikura K, Graves R, Sawada
S, Wald D, Abrahamson N, Iwasaki Y, Kagawa T,
Smith N, Kowada A. Characterizing crustal
earthquake slip models for the prediction of
strong ground motion, Seismological. Res. Lett.
1999; 70: 59–80.
[5] Irikura K. Prediction of strong acceleration
motion using empirical Green’s function. In
7th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium,
Tokyo, 1986, 151–156.
[6] Graves RW. Simulating seismic wave propa-
gation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid
finite differences. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1996; 86:
1091–1106.
[7] Kanaji H, Fujino Y, Ishibashi T, Tokumasu T.
Risk management for seismic retrofit of a long-
span truss bridge applying damage-controlled
design. In Proceedings of the 23rd edition of the
PIARC World Road Congress, Paris, 2007.
[8] Kanaji H, Suzuki N, Iemura H, Takahashi Y,
Mino T, Takada Y. Shaking table test and ana-
lytical study on low friction sliding bearings for
floor deck isolation system. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng.
A 2006; 62(4): 758–771.
[9] Kanaji H, Hamada N, Ishibashi T, Amako M,
Watanabe E. Structural design and elasto-plas-
tic performance of buckling restrained brace for
seismic retrofit of a long span bridge. J. Struct.
Eng. 2005; 51A: 859–870.

Structural Engineering International 3/2008 Science and Technology 277

x328.indd 277 7/16/08 6:02:45 PM