2021-ESp-Evolution of Bridge Codes in Chile-Wilches

Engineering Practice Paper
Earthquake Spectra
Evolution of seismic 1–31
Ó The Author(s) 2021
design codes of highway Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
bridges in Chile DOI: 10.1177/8755293020988011

journals.sagepub.com/home/eqs
José Wilches, M.EERI1,2 , Hernán Santa Maria, M.EERI2,3,

Roberto Leon, M.EERI1, Rafael Riddell3, Matı́as
Hube, M.EERI2,3, and Carlos Arrate2
Abstract
Chile, as a country with a long history of strong seismicity, has a record of both a
constant upgrading of its seismic design codes and structural systems, particularly for
bridges, as a result of major earthquakes. Recent earthquakes in Chile have produced
extensive damage to highway bridges, such as deck collapses, large transverse residual
displacements, yielding and failure of shear keys, and unseating of the main girders,
demonstrating that bridges are highly vulnerable structures. Much of this damage can
be attributed to construction problems and poor detailing guidelines in design codes.
After the 2010 Maule earthquake, new structural design criteria were incorporated
for the seismic design of bridges in Chile. The most significant change was that a site
coefficient was included for the estimation of the seismic design forces in the shear
keys, seismic bars, and diaphragms. This article first traces the historical development
of earthquakes and construction systems in Chile to provide a context for the evolu-
tion of Chilean seismic codes. It then describes the seismic performance of highway
bridges during the 2010 Maule earthquake, including the description of the main fail-
ure modes observed in bridges. Finally, this article provides a comparison of the
Chilean bridge seismic code against the Japanese and United States codes, consider-
ing that these codes have a great influence on the seismic codes for Chilean bridges.
The article demonstrates that bridge design and construction practices in Chile have
evolved substantially in their requirements for the analysis and design of structural
elements, such as in the definition of the seismic hazard to be considered, tending
toward more conservative approaches in an effort to improve structural perfor-
mance and reliability for Chilean bridges.
1
Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
2
Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management (CIDIGEN), Santiago, Chile
3
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Corresponding author:
José Wilches, Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, 200 Patton Hall,
Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA.
Email: jdwilches@vt.edu
2 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)
Keywords
Highway bridges, seismic design, construction of bridges, earthquake, damage, codes,
seismic performance, seismic hazard
Date received: 7 April 2020; accepted: 1 December 2020
Introduction
In recent decades, many regions of the world have been affected by earthquakes that have
resulted in significant damage to transportation networks and to bridges in particular.
Notable among these in the past three decades are the 1989 Loma Prieta (Mitchell et al.,
1991) and 1994 Northridge (Fenves and Ellery, 1998) events in the United States, the 1995
Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kawashima and Unjoh, 1997) and 2011 Tohoku (Takahashi and
Hoshikuma, 2013) in Japan, the 1999 Chi-Chi (Chang et al., 2000) in Taiwan, and the
2011 Christchurch (Wood et al., 2012) in New Zealand.
Chile has not been an exception as it is located next to a 5000-km-long fault with a sub-
duction rate of more than 7 cm/year, making it the most active subduction zone in the
world (Lomnitz, 2004). Throughout its history, the country has been hit by many severe
earthquakes, which have provided data for important advances in earth science and the
development of structural design codes. For example, in 1835, the cities of Concepción and
Talcahuano were affected by a devastating combination of earthquake and tsunami, which
was also accompanied by volcanic activity. This seismic event provided the first reliable
geodetic survey along a subduction zone (Darwin, 1851). After the 1906 Valparaiso earth-
quake, which affected the most important port in the country (Rodriguez Rozas and
Gajardo Cruzat, 1906), the first scientific commission for the study of earthquakes was cre-
ated (Greve, 1960). After the 1928 Talca earthquake, the first regulations related to earth-
quake resistance were created (Paz, 1994). The 1960 Valdivia earthquake (Mw = 9.5),
which caused more than 5000 deaths and is rated as the largest recorded earthquake in
world history, continues to provide valuable information for research in the coastal mor-
phology of Chile (Lomnitz, 1970). With the 1985 Algarrobo earthquake, the first Chilean
seismic design criteria for bridges were created (Willie et al., 1986). This earthquake pro-
vided seismic records that were used to study the behavior of existing structures and to
design new structures. Finally, the 2010 Maule earthquake (Mw = 8.8), which caused the
death of at least 550 people, injuring thousands more and causing devastating damage,
provided both criteria for the improvement of seismic design regulations (Grossi et al.,
2010) and information on the kinematics of cortical faults, such as Liquiñe-Ofqui
(Cembrano and Lara, 2009), Pichilemu (Aron et al., 2015) and San Ramón (Estay et al.,
2016), and the incidence of these in the seismic behavior of the structures.Table 1 sum-
marizes the influence of some earthquakes on the historical development of the Chilean
seismic codes.
During Chilean earthquakes, many highway bridges have been damaged or destroyed.
For example, in the 1960 Valdivia earthquake (Mw = 9.5) about 20 bridges were dam-
aged (Steinbrugge and Flores Álvarez, 1963) (Figure 1a). The main damages were failures
in the abutments due to the collapse of embankments and tilting of the piles due to ground
failure; in many cases, these failures led to the collapse of the deck (Duke, 1960). In the
1985 Algarrobo earthquake (Mw = 8.0) 40 highway bridges were damaged (Figure 1b).
The predominant failures were related to the settlement of abutment fill and the sinking of
highway fillings (Willie et al., 1986). In the 2010 Maule earthquake (Mw = 8.8) around
Wilches et al. 3
Table 1. Historical earthquakes and resulting code changes

Date Mw Event and Resulting Code Changes
1570 –7.5 Epicenter on the high seas; destroyed Concepción; large tsunami.
1647 –8 Shook Santiago with extraordinary violence; demolished most major buildings
and houses.
1730 –8.7 Considerable damage to the buildings between La Serena and Concepción.
1835 –8.5 Affected Concepción and Talcahuano with a combination of earthquake, tsunami,
and volcanic activity.
1868 –9 Affected the Arica region and the Chilean coast as well as a large part of
southern Peru.
1906 –8.2 Affected Valparaı́so; intensity in the area close to the epicenter has been
estimated as IX in the Mercalli Modified Intensity Scale (MMI).
Codes: The government of Chile creates the first scientific commission for the
study of earthquakes.
1922 –8.5 Affected Vallenar and Huasco, Atacama region; followed by devastating tsunami.
1928 –8.3 Centered on the Maule region; destroyed Talca.
Codes: The government passed a law that created a committee to propose
regulations related to earthquakes. In 1935, a construction code known as the
General Ordinance of Constructions and Urbanizations was made official.
1939 8.3 Affected Chillán; generated most human losses and material damage in Chilean
history; felt strongly as far as Buenos Aires.
Codes: The government appoints several committees to study the current seismic
codes and propose modifications. These modifications came into force officially in
1949. Resulted in the creation of the Development and Reconstruction
Corporation (CORFO) to start the industrialization of the country.
1943 8.2 Affected Ovalle; tsunami accompanied the earthquake.
1958 7 Significant damage in the highway infrastructure and hydroelectric plants in the
metropolitan region of Santiago.
Codes: A governmental body known as INDITECNOR, which eventually changed
its name to the National Standards Institute (INN), began to review the design
practices of the Ordinance.
1960 9.5 The largest earthquake ever recorded, destroyed Valdivia. It generated tsunamis
that devastated the coasts of Japan, Hawaii, the Philippines, and the west coast of
the United States.
Codes: Creation of the Chilean Association of Seismology and Earthquake
Engineering (ACHISINA), created in 1963.
1965 7.4 Affected the central zone of Chile. Major damage to adobe and masonry
structures.
Codes: Development of the first seismic design standard for buildings begins,
issued in 1972.
1971 7.7 Affected Illapel. Many old adobe and brick buildings collapsed.
Codes: Better construction techniques and materials are established in all types of
buildings: reinforced masonry, reinforced concrete, etc.
1985 7.8 Considerable damage to adobe buildings, reinforced concrete and bridge failures
in Algarrobo and the entire central zone of Chile.
Codes: Improvement of seismic codes, especially in construction methods and
details.
1996 7.7 Affected the north of Chile, especially Antofagasta. Landslides were recorded,
and communications collapsed.
2007 7.8 Damage to government buildings in Tocopilla, as well as essential road routes.
2010 8.8 Collapses of buildings and bridges in the Maule region. Damage in extensive areas
due to soil liquefaction.
Codes: Modifications to the design and construction codes. Greater use of
isolated structures and seismic protection systems.
2015 8.5 Affected the Coquimbo region, produced displacements of more than 1 m west
of Chile.
Figure 1. Seismic intensity and location of damaged bridges: (a) 1960 Valdivia earthquake, (b) 1985
Algarrobo earthquake, and (c) 2010 Maule earthquake. The numbers 1 through 3 indicate the seismic
zones by existing codes (data from Risk Management Solutions, 2010; Steinbrugge and Flores Álvarez,
1963; Willie et al., 1986).
300 highway bridges were damaged (Buckle et al., 2012) (Figure 1c). The failures ranged
from small cracks to the total collapse of the superstructure. The most common types of
damage observed included transverse displacement and excessive rotation of the deck, col-
lapse of segments of bridges due to the loss of vertical support in abutments or bents, fail-
ure of skewed highway bridges associated with insufficient seat support length, damage to
the precast girders due to pounding of the girders with the external shear keys, and diago-
nal tension failure of the external shear keys (Elnashai et al., 2012b; Kawashima et al.,
2011; Schanack et al., 2012; Toro et al., 2013; Yashinsky et al., 2010). Therefore, the seis-
mic safety of existing bridges is a major concern in Chile.
It is important to understand that unlike many other countries, Chile has specific defi-
nitions for seismic hazard and seismic demands for each of its design codes (such as, for
example, bridges, buildings, industrial facilities). In the case of the Chilean Highway
Manual (Ministerio de Obras Públicas, 2017), three zones are defined (hazard zones 1, 2,
and 3 as shown in Figure 1 separated by dashed lines). Acceleration values increase with
increasing with seismic hazard: zone 1 corresponds to Ao = 0.2 g, zone 2 to Ao = 0.3 g,
and zone 3 to Ao = 0.4 g, where Ao is the effective peak acceleration (EPA) and g the
gravitational constant.
Since 1928 several regulatory documents related to seismic design have been published
in Chile, adopting ever-stricter requirements after each major earthquake. Despite the
presence of seismic design requirements in existing codes, catastrophic consequences have
Wilches et al. 5
been observed after all major earthquakes (Booth, 1985; Buckle et al., 2012; Steinbrugge
and Flores Álvarez, 1963; Willie et al., 1986). These consequences were mainly due to the
design philosophies adopted at the time of construction, to the lack of care in the design
and execution of the construction details, and to lack of redundancy and robustness typi-
cal of bridges in developing countries due to financial constraints.
Many new concepts and detailing practices have been included in each revision of the
seismic design codes in Chile after major seismic events (Buckle et al., 2012; EximoGillies
and Hopkins, 1985; Hsu and Fu, 2004; Wood et al., 2012). These changes reflect global
trends, but primarily follow updates to codes in Japan, New Zealand, and the United
States (Kawashima, 2000). However, in almost all major Chilean earthquakes, bridges
designed according to existing codes have collapsed or have been severely damaged when
subjected to earthquakes with accelerations lower than those specified by the codes.
The objective of this article is to trace the evolution of highway bridge seismic design
codes in Chile, with emphasis on bridge types, construction processes, type of materials,
and the effect of the evolution of international bridge design codes on seismic bridge per-
formance. The intent is to show how effective a number of these design improvements
have been to a diverse bridge inventory in the most seismic country in the world. First, a
chronology of the most important earthquakes in Chile and their influence on the design
codes is discussed (Table 1). Second, a detailed discussion of the development of codes
and construction techniques for Chilean bridges is presented. Subsequently, a discussion
on the seismic performance of bridges designed to the existing Chilean Highway Manual
(Ministerio de Obras Públicas, 2008, and previous editions) during the Maule earthquake
in 2010 is presented. Then, a brief comparison of seismic design practices in Chile, Japan,
and the United States is provided. Finally, comments and conclusions that the authors
consider pertinent are presented, considering the future seismic design regulations for the
Chilean Highway Manual.
Development of Chilean codes and construction of bridges

Historical context
Before 1940, design engineers and bridge builders in Chile were guided by the experience
and existing guidelines (Ministerio del Interior, 1936), which excluded seismic design con-
siderations. Subsequently, bridge designs were strongly influenced by European regula-
tions, mainly the German ones (Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1978). The bridges were
built with the most common and accessible materials of each era. About 84% of highway
bridges built before 1940 were made of reinforced concrete (RC) (Figure 2a). The most
used structural configurations at that time were continuous beams (77%) or simply sup-
ported beams (11%) (Figure 2b). Subsequently, in the 1940–1949 decade, the use of wood
increased sharply, with wooden bridges reaching 26% of the total (Figure 2a), while
bridges in steel increased slightly (1%). The first arch and suspension bridges began to be
built in this era (Figure 2b).
Since 1953, the design and construction of Chilean Highway Manual began to be
reviewed and authorized by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure (Ministerio de
Obras Públicas, MOP henceforth). The first bridges with prestressed concrete (PC) beams
and composite bridges (steel beams with RC slabs) began to be built, the number of
steel bridges increased, and the construction of wooden bridges decreased significantly
Figure 2. Classification of bridges during the years 1920–2018: (a) materials and (b) structural typology.
(Figure 2a). The most used structural typologies were continuous bridges (31%), simply
supported bridges (38%) and Gerber (cantilever truss) bridges (22%) (Figure 2b).
Figure 3 shows the structural configuration of a typical steel bridge built in the 1950s. It
corresponds to the Chiu-Chiu Bridge built in 1958. As can be seen, it is a single-span bridge
(Figure 3a), with two steel longitudinal beams and a concrete slab (Figure 3b). At the ends, the
bridge rests on RC abutments (Figure 3c) with fixed and sliding metal bearings (Figure 3d).
Between 1960 and 1969, steel became the most used material for the construction of
bridges, with 73% of bridges being built; however, the use of prestressed bridges (13%)
also began to increase (Figure 2a). After the 1960 Valdivia earthquake, the structural sys-
tem of bridges that showed the best performance was that of beams simply supported by
elastomers, so the use of this typology increased during this decade to 84% of the total of
built bridges (Figure 2b).
An unusual aspect present in prestressed bridges built in the decade of the 1960s was
the use of X-shaped seismic reinforcement at the supports in lieu of a typical solid dia-
phragm (Figure 4). The intent was to reduce the transverse and vertical unseating of the
bridges during seismic events. It is important to note that, at the time, most prestressed
bridges used rigid diaphragms at the ends of the girders but did not include shear keys.
The cross section of Figure 4 corresponds to the Juan Pablo II Bridge built in 1964 in the
city of Concepcion.
Between 1970 and 1972, a preliminary version of the Chilean Highway Manual was cre-
ated (Ministerio de Obras Públicas, and Consultores, E. y F. I, 1972). However, this design
Wilches et al. 7
Figure 3. General configuration and details of the representative bridge used in the decade 1950s: (a)
longitudinal section, (b) cross section, (c) abutment, and (d) support.
Figure 4. Details of the cross-section Juan Pablo II Bridge.
manual did not contemplate any requirement for the seismic design of bridges. The bridge
design requirements for bridges were based on American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 1973) standard specification and the experience
of the engineers of the time.
In the decade of the 1970s, the preference for construction of steel bridges was main-
tained, but with a slight reduction in comparison with the previous decade. The develop-
ment of prestressed bridges began to stand out, reaching 32% of the total built (Figure 2a).
Figure 5. Details of the cross-section La Posada Bridge: (a) typical cross section of the deck and (b)
diaphragm.
This is attributed to the ease of construction and the reduction in the execution times,
mainly because most of the bridge was prefabricated in the workshop. The 1985 Algarrobo
earthquake confirmed the excellent behavior of prestressed beams simply supported on
elastomeric bearings, establishing them as the most efficient structural typology against
earthquakes. By the end of the decade, 92% of the bridges were designed and built with
this structural typology (Figure 2b).
Figures 5 and 6 show the cross sections corresponding to the bridges La Posada (steel,
simply supported) and Cancura (prestressed, simply supported) built in the years 1977 and
1978, respectively. Figures 5a and 6a show the typical transversal cross sections of bridges
built during the 1970s decade. During this time, the use of X-shaped seismic reinforcements
is reduced, and seismic bars (vertical or nearly vertical bars, Figures 5b to 6b) started to be
used as the main element to control the vertical displacement of bridges. The horizontal
and transverse displacements were absorbed by elastomeric bearings (Figure 6b). It is
important to mention that the elastomeric bearings were not mechanically connected to
either the superstructure or the substructure. Therefore, they could move during strong
earthquakes. Both PC and metal bridges had rigid diaphragms at the ends of the beams
(Figures 5b to 6b).
After 1980 and until 1989, there was a slight decrease in the proportion of PC bridges
and steel bridges constructed (Figure 2a) as a result of a considerable increase of compo-
site bridges. The structural system of simply supported PC girders with elastomeric bear-
ings was the most used (94%) (Figure 2b). In the 1980s, bridges were characterized by
well-defined structural details, that is, long seat lengths in abutments and bents, improved
expansion joint details, seismic bars, and RC blocks to control the transverse displacement
of the deck (Willie et al., 1986). The above can be seen in Figure 7, where the structural
details of the Lo Gallardo Bridge (Region V, San Antonio Province) built in 1985 are
shown. After the 1985 Algarrobo earthquake, seismic design recommendations for
Chilean bridges began to be developed in earnest (Booth, 1985; Willie et al., 1986).
After 1990, the construction of prestressed bridges increased, reaching 62% of the total
constructed bridges (Figure 2a). The structural system of simple supported PC girders on
elastomers is the most used typology with 95% (Figure 2b).
In the mid-1990s, private concessions were introduced in Chile for the construction and
operation of transportation facilities (Cruz Lorenzen et al., 2001). The bridges built at that
time were designed following the AASHTO (1996) standard specifications and the experi-
ence acquired by the Chilean bridge engineers. For example, the shear keys did not have a
defined geometry and were generally rectangular to facilitate construction. However,
Wilches et al. 9
Figure 6. Details of the cross-section Cancura Bridge: (a) typical cross section of the deck and (b)
typical section of the deck and elastomeric bearings.
Figure 7. Detail of the cross-section Lo Gallardo Bridge: (a) diaphragm, (b) seismic bars, (c) bent, (d)
bent—cut B-B, (e) dilatation joint, (f) elastomeric bearings.
although rigid diaphragms were used at the ends of the beams (Kawashima et al., 2010), it
was not clear in the design standards in which seismic zones it was mandatory to use these
elements. Figure 8a shows the cross section in the support area of a typical Chilean PC
bridge in the mid-1990s.
In 2002, the MOP published a new version of the Chilean Highway Manual (MOP,
2015). This design manual was based on the AASHTO (1996) standard specifications and
the experience of the Chilean engineers, with modifications to reflect the good performance
of the bridges during the 1985 earthquake and local conditions such as seismicity, charac-
teristics of the soils, the properties of materials, and the effect of river flow (Buckle et al.,
2012). This version officially incorporated the following seismic design criteria:
1. The longitudinal girders of bridges located in seismic zone 3 (A0 = 0.4 g, where A0
is the EPA and g the gravitational constant, see Figure 1 for zones) must be con-
nected at their ends by transverse diaphragms.
Figure 8. Cross sections of typical Chilean bridges built by concessionaires in the 2000s.
2. A vertical seismic coefficient of Kv = A0/2 must be used to design the vertical seis-
mic anchor bars, considering that only the seismic force acts upward and neglecting
the contribution of the self-weight loads.
3. The abutments and bents should consider shear keys to restrict the transverse dis-
placement of the deck.
4. For the design of each shear key, half of the total horizontal seismic force acting in
the transverse direction and a gap set between the shear key and the deck, equal to
the expected seismic displacement plus 50 mm, must be used.
5. The design and testing for the use of seismic isolators as support elements were
regulated as per the AASHTO (1996) Standard Specifications.
A new version of the Chilean Highway Manual was published in 2008 (MOP, 2015).
However, the seismic design criteria remained the same as in the 2002 version (MOP,
2015).
Before the 2010 Maule earthquake, many bridges built under the concession system
were designed and built by foreign companies, who introduced modifications to the seis-
mic design required at that time. The main change was to eliminate the external shear keys
and the diaphragms that connected the ends of the girders (Figure 8b). Most of these mod-
ifications were focused on the reduction of construction time and costs. Figure 8b shows
the typical pre-2010 bridges built by concessionaires.
After the 2010 Maule earthquake, new seismic criteria were developed for the design of
highway bridges in Chile (Unión et al., 2010), which were formally included in the 2015
Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2015). The seismic criteria incorporated after the 2010
Maule earthquake in the Highway Bridge Manual were strongly influenced by the
Japanese code (Japan Road Association, 2002). Some of the new criteria included the
following:
1. All bridges should consider external and mid-span transverse diaphragms, without
any distinction by seismic zone nor type of girder (steel, post-tensioned or
prestressed).
2. The interaction of the diaphragm with the shear keys must be designed with an
acceleration of A0.
Wilches et al. 11
Figure 9. Cross section of the Loa Bridge: (a) cross section of bridge bent, (b) cross section of bridge
abutment, and (c) seismic bars.
3. The anchor seismic bars shall be calculated considering a vertical acceleration equal
to A0.
4. The abutments and piles shall consider shear keys that restrict the excessive trans-
verse displacement of the deck on the seat support length, considering intermediate
and external shear keys.
5. External and intermediate shear keys must be designed considering an acceleration
equal to A0.
6. Each shear key must be able to withstand all the transversal force of the deck
divided by the number of intermediate shear keys.
7. The gap between shear keys and the deck must be the maximum height (H) of the
support (seismic isolators or elastomeric bearing) at the shear keys plus 50 mm for
intermediate shear keys, and H plus 70 mm for the external shear keys (Figure 8c).
The latest version of the Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2017) was published in 2017.
The most significant change compared to the 2015 version was that a site coefficient was
included for the estimation of the seismic design forces in the shear keys, seismic bars, and
diaphragms. This site coefficient depends on the type of soil. Wilches Están et al. (2017)
had already demonstrated the need to incorporate this coefficient into the seismic design of
Chilean highway bridges. In addition, each interior shear key must be introduced into the
diaphragms in a shear key shape to redirect any damage to the diaphragm itself in order to
avoid damaging the girders (Figure 8d).
The prevalence of PC bridges for the decade 2000–2009, as well as the structural system
of simply supported prestressed beams, was maintained in comparison with the previous
decade (Figure 2).
Between 2010 and 2017, simply supported PC girders with elastomeric bearings were
the most used (Figure 2). Figures 9 and 10 show typical structural configurations devel-
oped for Chilean bridges after the 2010 Maule earthquake. Figure 9 corresponds to Loa
Bridge (Region II, Calama Province) built in 2012. In the Loa Bridge, both external and
internal shear keys are present and the diaphragm is intended to work integrally with the
internal shear keys. However, it is observed that the geometry of the external shear keys in
the bents (Figure 9a) is different from the external shear keys in the abutments (Figure
9b). This difference appears to have no technical reason; it is probably an attempt to expe-
dite the construction process. In addition, it is observed how the diaphragm is extended at
the ends to reduce damage to the beam at the moment of impact of the superstructure with
the external shear key. The seismic bars, shown in Figure 9c, are located between the gir-
ders and the internal shear keys. In summary, the new structural configurations after the
Figure 10. Cross section: (a) Carrizo Bridge and (b) Gabriela Mistral Bridge.
2010 Maule earthquake aim to significantly reduce the probability of collapse in Chilean
bridges (Wilches Están et al., 2019a). Figure 10a shows the Carrizo Bridge (Region II,
Antofagasta) built in 2010. This bridge is very similar to the Loa Bridge, but with the dif-
ference that it presents a transversal inclination of the superstructure and the seismic bars
are located directly on the shear keys.
Figure 10b shows the cross section of the Gabriela Mistral Bridge (Region I, Iquique)
built in 2014. In this bridge, the internal shear keys do not form a link with the diaphragm.
Unlike the Loa and Carrizo Bridges, on the Gabriela Bridge, the girders can directly
impact the shear keys, which increases the potential for damage to the girders at the time
of an earthquake.
Seismic demand definition for the bridge design codes in Chile

To understand the evolution of the bridge design codes in Chile, it is important to under-
stand that each relevant modernization carried out has been driven by the experiences
derived from a major earthquake. This is the reason why every time the code has been
modernized, this has included changes both in the design requirements and the definition
of the seismic design demands, so these aspects cannot be reviewed separately but as a
whole.
The first structural design code in Chile, to include a definition of the demands from a
seismic event, was the DFL N8437 of 1936 of the Ministry of Interior (Ministerio del
Interior, 1936), called the ‘‘Ordenanza General Sobre Construcciones y Urbanización’’
(General Requirements for Buildings and Urbanism). This document regulated the con-
struction, reconstruction, repair, and rehabilitation of buildings, in addition to the urban
development of cities, in accordance with the provisions of the ‘‘Ley General Sobre
Construcciones y Urbanización DFL N8458’’ (General Law for Buildings and
Urbanization) of the time. The code definition of seismic demand established in it was the
first officially used in the design of Chilean bridges.
This code defines the loads associated with seismic events, such as a horizontal basic
acceleration on the structure, between 0.05 and 0.10 g, according to the geological and seis-
mic characteristics of the zone. In addition, it indicates that the basic acceleration must be
amplified according to the type of soil on which the structure was based, according to the
factors shown in Table 2.
In 1949, the DFL regulation N8437 of 1936 (Ministerio del Interior, 1936) was replaced
by DFL N8884 of 1949 (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Vı́as de Comunicación, 1949) of
Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Transportation Networks. This code had the same
objective and scope as its predecessor, but with several modernizations, including a new
definition of seismic demands. It defined the seismic loads as an equivalent static
Wilches et al. 13
Table 2. Amplification factors of horizontal seismic forces, MI DFL N°437/1936 (Ministerio del Interior,
1936)
Amplification factors of the seismic coefficient according to the type of soil
Type of soil Min Max
Sandstone soil 1.0 2.4

Non-compact sand 2.4 4.4
Non-compact soils and fillings 4.4 11.0
Table 3. Amplification factors for horizontal seismic forces, MOPVC DFL N°884/1949 (Ministerio de
Obras Públicas y Vı́as de Comunicación, 1949)
Seismic coefficient according to the type of soil (g)
Principal modal period of the structure (s) Soil a Soil b Soil c Soil d
0.00–0.40 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.12

0.40–0.75 0.05 0.12 0.10 0.15
Soil a: Rock.
Soil b: Non-compact soil with concrete floor slabs.
Soil c: Compact soil.
Soil d: Non-compact soil without concrete floor slabs.
Table 4. Maximum permitted horizontal soil displacement, MOPVC DFL N°884/1949 (Ministerio de
Obras Públicas y Vı́as de Comunicación, 1949)
Lateral displacement of soil, due to the seismic wave (cm)
Soil a Soil b Soil c Soil d
2.00 5.00 4.00 6.00
horizontal acceleration on the structure, which depended on the type of soil on which the
structure is supported, and its fundamental period of vibration as shown in Table 3.
Regarding vertical acceleration, DFL N8884 of 1949 (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y
Vı́as de Comunicación, 1949) considered it as an effect with a magnitude of half of the
horizontal demand. Regarding structural analysis, the new regulations established that it
should be done as indicated by the physics and dynamics of structures of that time, with-
out defining a specific methodology or procedure for it. An innovative aspect was the
incorporation of a definition of the maximum displacement of the ground, according to
the type of foundation soil, as shown in Table 4.
In 1962, the engineer Rodrigo Flores Álvarez (RFA) used the results of the research
carried out by Blume (1963) on the behavior of chimneys of the Huachipato steel mill in
Concepción in the 1960 Valdivia earthquake (Mw = 9.5) to create the RFA design spec-
trum (Instituto Nacional de Normalización, 2003) (see Figure 11). The spectrum quickly
became the most used in industrial seismic design offices, establishing the bases of the defi-
nitions of seismic demands in the country for the design of highway structures, mining,
and industrial structures. This design spectrum represents the beginning of the reputation
Figure 11. Design base shear, known as the RFA spectrum (Instituto Nacional de Normalización, 2003).
for Chilean seismic design, as it has been used for some of the most important port infra-
structure, highly complex industrial facilities, oil refineries, copper smelters, mining
facilities, power plants, and electrical facilities, and remains in use until today (Instituto
Nacional de Normalización, 2003). Its definition is shown in equations 1, 2, and 3
(Figure 11):
Qo = CðT Þ P ð1Þ
"
min 0:15
T 0:30 (g) T <1:0(s) ð2Þ
CðT Þ = pffiffiffi
max 0:15T
0:10 (g) T .1:0(s) ð3Þ
Qo is the base shear design; C(T ) is the design acceleration coefficient; P is the seismic mass
of the structure. Although the elaboration of the spectrum does not indicate how to calcu-
late the seismic mass, a review of the project library of RFA Ingenieros shows that it was
calculated as the weight of the structure plus 50% of the live load. T is the fundamental
period of the structure.
It is was not until 2002 that MOP published a version of the Chilean Highway Manual
(MOP, 2015) with a definition of specific seismic hazard and demands for the design of
highway bridges in Chile. This definition of this seismic design demand is through an elas-
tic pseudo-acceleration, which is defined based on the concept of an EPA as defined in
NCh2369:2003 (Instituto Nacional de Normalización, 2003). The seismic demand is
defined according to the zone of seismic hazard where the structure is located, the seismic
classification of the foundation soil (associated with its dynamic properties), the category
of importance of the structure (associated with applying higher safety coefficients, to
reduce the uncertainty with respect to seismic demands), the vibration periods of the struc-
ture, and the plastification capacity of the structure. The latter is associated with the struc-
tural system of the bridge substructure, and is different depending on the direction of the
response of the bridge, which may be longitudinal (i.e. in the direction parallel to the main
axis of the bridge, factor RL) or transverse (i.e. perpendicular to the bridge, factor RT).
The pseudo-spectrum of elastic accelerations is defined by equation 4:
Wilches et al. 15
Table 5. Coefficient relative to the importance of the use of the structure, Chilean Highway Manual
(Ministerio de Obras Públicas, 2015)
Value of the I factor, relative to the importance of the structure and to the reduction of the uncertainty
of the seismic hazard
Category Use of the building K1
I Bridges and structures cataloged by the MOP—DGOP—Dirección de 1.0

Vialidad as essential
II Other 0.8
Table 6. EPA and PGA, according to seismic hazard zone, Chilean Highway Manual (Ministerio de Obras
Públicas, 2015)
Value of the factors modulating the intensity of the seismic hazard
Seismic hazard Description Ao (g) ao (g)
zone (EPA) (PGA)
1 Zone close to the Andes mountain range. It is the one 0.20 0.30
with the lowest seismic hazard
2 Predominantly valleys zone 0.30 0.40
3 Predominantly coastal zone. It is the one with the highest 0.40 0.50
seismic hazard
Ao (PGA) with a probability of exceeding 10% in 50 years, which corresponds to a return period of 475 years.
2
1:5 K1 S aO Tm <T1
6 K K Sa
Sa(Tm) = 4 1 2 0 ð4Þ
2 Tm .T1
3
Tm
Sa(Tm ) is the pseudo-spectrum acceleration corresponding to the vibration mode ‘‘m’’; Tm is

the vibration period of mode ‘‘m’’; T1 is the value of the period associated with the end of
the plateau of pseudo maximum accelerations, according to the seismic classification of the
soil; K1 is the factor of the importance of the structure (Table 5); ao is the EPA (Instituto
Nacional de Normalización, 2003) (EPA) (Table 6); K2 is the amplification factor of the
zone outside the plateau of accelerations, associated with the seismic classification of the
soil (Table 7); S is the amplification factor, according to the seismic classification of the soil
(Table 7). Modified as appropriate by the RL and RT factors in Table 8.
The seismic hazard for bridges is based in the seismic code for buildings (Instituto
Nacional de Normalización, 1996). The country is divided into three seismic hazard zones
(Table 6) defined according to the boundaries of each municipality of the country. The
discrete values of the EPA can affect the design of bridges such that two bridges located at
short distance, but at different municipalities may have up to 33% difference in the lateral
design force. In fact, a study of 88 underpasses (Toro et al., 2013) located along Route 5,
the main highway in Chile, showed that of three underpasses that collapsed, all three were
located in seismic zone 2 but at a very short distance from seismic zone 3.
As a result of the above definition, the elastic response spectra of displace-
ments, pseudo-velocity, and pseudo-acceleration can be obtained. Figure 12 shows the
pseudo-acceleration (PSa), pseudo-velocity (PSv), and displacement (Sd) spectra associated
with seismic zone 3, the zone with the highest acceleration.
Table 7. Value of the parameters associated with the seismic classification of the soil, Chilean Highway
Manual (Ministerio de Obras Públicas, 2015)
Value of the factors dependent of the seismic classification of the soil
Seismic soil classification T1 (s) K2 S
I Rock 0.20 0.513 0.90

II Soil with vs greater than 400 (m/s) in the upper 10 (m) and 0.30 0.672 1.00
growing, gravel and dense sand, hard cohesive soil
III Permanently unsaturated sand and gravel, cohesive soil with Su 0.70 1.182 1.20
between 0.025 and 0.10 MPa or saturated sands with NSPT
between 20 and 40
IV Cohesive saturated soil with a minimum thickness of 10 (m) 1.10 1.598 1.30
Table 8. Reduction factors of the response RL and RT, associated with the possibility of plasticization,
Chilean Highway Manual (Ministerio de Obras Públicas, 2015)
Modification factors of the longitudinal (RL) and transversal (RT) response
Elements RL RT Elements RL RT
Superstructure Foundation
Abutment 3 2 Shallow footing 1 1
Bent with footing Group piles 1 1
Individual column 3 3 Single pile 1 1
Vertical columns 3 4 Deep footing 1 1
Inclined columns 3 2 Connections
Bent with piles Expansion joints 0.8 0.8
Individual column 3 3 Bearings 0.8 0.8
Vertical columns 3 4 Shear keys 1 1
Inclined columns 3 2 Base plates 1 1
A relevant aspect of its definition is the incorporation of a constant acceleration plateau

for short periods in the pseudo-acceleration response spectrum, which is a common
Chilean practice. This is associated with the use of response modification factors, RL and
RT, which have a constant value independent of the modal periods of the structure.
The modification factors RL and RT represent the capacity of the structure to indepen-
dently dissipate energy, which is the mechanism that allows the designer to reduce the
forces obtained through the use of the normative elastic spectrum to the design forces.
The Chilean design code considers the use of different values of the response modification
factor for the longitudinal direction (RL) and the transversal direction (RT), as does the
AASHTO (1996) standard specification. Its objective is to represent the difference in struc-
tural typology and structural redundancy between the two directions. The modification
factors RL and RT used are shown in Table 8.
This standard does not have a definition of the vertical seismic demand. However, it does
require special provisions for the design of elements especially affected by this type of demand,
such as the case of the seismic bars (Wilches Están et al., 2017). The definition of the seismic
demands for these elements is established in the Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2015).
Over the years, significant efforts have been made to improve seismic hazard definition
and design spectra. However, these efforts have not been able to generate a definition from
Wilches et al. 17
Figure 12. Elastic spectra: (a) pseudo-acceleration (PSa), (b) pseudo-velocity (PSv), and (c) displacement
(Sd) defined in the Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2015).
which structural designs with uniform structural reliability will result, independent of the
seismic classification of the soil, the seismic hazard zone, and the fundamental periods of
the structures. These defects have been observed by Wilches Están et al. (2017; Wilches
Están et al., 2019b), through the development of fragility curves and the determination of
the failure mechanisms of the different structural configurations associated with highway
bridges in Chile.
Seismic performance of highway bridges during the 2010 Maule

earthquake
The main area affected by the 2010 Maule earthquake was the south-central region of
Chile, including the urban areas around Santiago, Valparaı́so, Viña del Mar, and
Concepción (Moehle et al., 2010). There were approximately 12,000 highway bridges
located in the disaster area, of which 10,150 were public bridges and 1850 were private
bridges operated by private concessionaires (Unión et al., 2010). Around 300 highway
bridges were damaged: 221 public bridges were damaged and 11 collapsed, while 91 con-
cession bridges were damaged or collapsed (Buckle et al., 2012). Of the damaged conces-
sion bridges, 10 were overpasses, 14 underpasses, 52 pedestrian bridges, and 15 other
types of bridges. These damaged bridges represent 1.6%, 2.9%, 11.8%, and 2.3% of the
total number of overpasses, underpasses, pedestrian bridges, and other types of bridges,
respectively, operated by concessions (Unión et al., 2010).
A concentration of damaged bridges and pedestrian bridges was observed in areas of
soft soils (Toro et al., 2013), same as was observed for RC buildings in several cities
(Jünemann et al., 2015).
Figure 13. Damage distribution in Chilean bridges during the 2010 Maule earthquake (Mw = 8.8): (a)
type of bridge and (b) type of damage.
Principal modes of failure

Most highway bridges in the regions of Valparaı́so, O’Higgins, Maule, Biobı́o, Araucanı́a,
and Metropolitana were reported to have suffered damage ranging from minor to very
severe. Figure 13 shows the distribution of damaged bridges and of type of damage for 80
surveyed bridges.
As can be seen in Figure 13a, the most damaged bridges were simply supported ones
with precast girders (67%), followed by the simply supported bridges with concrete or steel
girders (16%). Figure 13b shows the different types of damage that occurred in different
hazard seismic zones. The total number of damaged bridges exceeds 80 because a damaged
bridge often presented more than one type of damage. Of the inspected bridges, 50% were
located in seismic zone 2 (A0 = 0.3 g) and 50% in seismic zone 3 (A0 = 0.4 g). Damage
in shear keys, precast girders, displacement of the deck, seismic bars, and elastomeric bear-
ings was present in 88%, 83%, 49%, 37%, and 26% of the bridges, respectively, for the
seismic hazard zone 3. Similarly, for seismic hazard zone 2, the values were 33%, 17%,
Wilches et al. 19
Figure 14. Continued

Figure 14. Main damage of the Chilean bridges during the 2010 Maule earthquake: (a) Vespucio-
Independencia bridge, (b) Perquilauquen bridge, (c) Llacolen bridge, (North), (d) La Pena bridge, (e)
Underpass Azufradero bridge, (f) Llacolen bridge (North access), (g) La Pena bridge, (h) La Mochita
bridge, (i) Llacolen bridge (South access), (j) Las Mercedes bridge, (k) Raqui bridge (Access 1), (l)
Overpass Copihue bridge, (m) Tubul bridge, (n) Anotonio Matta bridge, (o) Lo Echevers bridge, (p) Raqui
bridge (Access 1), (q) Access La Mochita bridge, (r) Access Overpass Copihue bridge, (s) Mayo FF.CC
bridge, (t) Champa bridge, (u) Anotonio Matta bridge (Quilicure), (v) FF.CC km.250 bridge, (w) Juna
Pablo II bridge, (x) Bio-bio Viejo bridge.
Wilches et al. 21
33%, 50%, and 50%, respectively. The types of damage described below were those that
induced significant changes in the Chilean regulations.
Shear keys. A recurrent type of damage in abutments and bents was observed in the exter-
nal shear keys, which showed diagonal shear failures (Buckle et al., 2012) (Figure 14a).
Sacrificial shear keys are used in the abutments and bents of the bridges to restrict the
transverse and rotational movement of the deck under extreme lateral displacement
demands, preventing the deck from losing its vertical support and collapsing. During the
maximum considered earthquake, it is expected that the shear keys will be severely dam-
aged by the impacts of the superstructure (AASHTO, 2011; California Department of
Transportation [CALTRANS], 2006) before damage occurs on the walls of the abutment
or in the columns of the bridge bents, and thus shear keys are characterized as sacrificial
elements. The term sacrificial element is not used in the code, and thus heavy damage to
these elements may be seen as poor performance; in fact, the opposite is probably true
form the negineering standpoint. Unfortunately, provisions for repair of damages shear
keys are not part of the current design philosophy.
Typical observed damage included a diagonal tension crack, indicating that the ductile
behavior of the shear keys (Bozorgzadeh et al., 2006; Megally et al., 2002; Xiang and Li,
2016) prevented excessive lateral displacements (Buckle et al., 2012; Schanack et al., 2012).
As in many cases, they successfully prevented the loss of the bridge; their design principles
can be accepted as achieving the desired performance (Figure 14b). Their behavior can be
classified as ductile as they achieved their performance objective by yielding and deform-
ing as envisioned in the design. Figure 14c shows damage to an internal shear key, which
prevented the collapse of the superstructure. However, before the 2010 Maule earthquake,
there were few bridges that had internal shear keys.
Although significant advances have been incorporated in the Chilean Highway Manual
(MOP, 2017) with respect to the seismic design of shear keys, there are several remaining
shortcomings: (1) how to consider the seismic hazard simultaneously with the seismic clas-
sification of the soil type in determining the seismic design forces (Wilches Están et al.,
2017; Wilches Están et al., 2019b), (2) introducing minimum aspect ratios, (3) how to con-
sider biaxial loadings, and (4) determining important design differences between external
and internal shear keys’ design methodologies. These issues require additional joint analy-
tical/experimental research to help develop clear design methodologies. Efforts are cur-
rently being made in this direction. For example, the authors of this research are
developing a new philosophy for the seismic design of shear keys for highway bridges.
Girders. During the Maule earthquake, girders suffered considerable damage, especially in
the web, as can be seen in Figure 12d. The absence of diaphragms at the ends of the girders
made them very vulnerable. It is important to note that the girders that suffered the most
damage were the external ones because these were the ones that collided with the external
shear keys (Figure 14e). However, some internal girders suffered damage in their cross sec-
tion due to the clash between girders in the joints (Figure 14f).
Sliding of elastomeric bearings. Sliding between the deck and the elastomeric bearings was a
very common issue, in which the connection between the superstructure and the elastomer
was destroyed, causing excessive residual displacements of the superstructure (Figure 14g
to i). Sliding of the elastomeric bearings occurred because the elastomeric bearings were
not mechanically connected to the superstructure nor the bridge substructure (Buckle
et al., 2012; Elnashai et al., 2012b). It is not clear why Chilean codes allow this design.
Seismic bars. Seismic bars are structural elements that have been used in recent years in
Chilean bridges in order to control and reduce the deck uplifting. During the 2010 Maule
earthquake, serious damage was reported in these elements (Elnashai et al., 2012b; Yen
et al., 2011). The most common types of damage were yielding (Figure 14m) of the seismic
bars and detachment of bars from the cap beam and the superstructure (Figure 14j to l).
Deck collapse. The collapse of several bridges was caused by a combination of the following
reasons: some bridges lacked shear keys, some shear keys did not work as sacrificial ele-
ments, most of the seismic bars did not accomplish their function of controlling the vertical
displacement of the deck (Figure 14m), the seat support length of the girders at the piles
and abutments was insufficient (Figure 14n), and/or excessive rotation in skewed bridges
(Figure 14o).
Embankment failures. Damage in the embankments was produced by several factors, which
include construction processes at the time of filling behind the abutments, quality of the
filling material, accidental eccentricity between the center of mass and center of the rigidity
of the superstructure of the bridges and uneven soil properties. In Figure 14p to r, some
bridges that showed this type of failure are shown.
Abutments. The most common damage of the abutments occurred in the wing wall (Figure
14s), the stem wall (Figure 14t), and the shear keys (Figure 14u). This damage was caused
by impact of the deck and by differential settlements produced by the strong active seismic
pressure of the filling materials on the abutment, causing significant movement in the foun-
dations (Elnashai et al., 2012a; Schanack et al., 2012).
Bents. The bents are the intermediate supports of the bridge. They are generally formed by
columns and a cap beam that supports the superstructure; in exceptional cases, walls are
used. During the Maule earthquake, most of the columns did not suffer damage because
the shear keys worked as sacrificial elements. However, there were several cases in which
the columns of the bents failed due to large differential settlements (Kawashima et al.,
2011; Moehle et al., 2010) (Figure 14v to w). Other special cases that occurred were in
wall-type bents; for example, Figure 14x shows the failure of a wall that caused the bridge
to collapse.
Comparison of the Chilean seismic code with the US

and Japanese codes
Even though the Chilean (MOP, 2017) requires following AASHTO LRFD seismic speci-
fications (AASHTO, 2011), provisions for the design of bridges, special seismic require-
ments are defined that are different from those of AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications.
A brief comparison between Chilean (MOP, 2017), US (AASHTO, 2011), and Japanese
(Japan Road Association, 2012) seismic design provisions is given here. This comparison
is not intended to be comprehensive, but only to give a sense of some of the main differ-
ences between them.
Wilches et al. 23
Design philosophy and performance criteria

The Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2017) indicates that the required seismic forces are
based on a 90% probability of not being exceeded during the assumed life of the bridge
(50 years), which is equivalent to a return period of 475 years. It is expected that, although
the structure may suffer damage during an earthquake, the probability of collapse is very
low, and the damage is repairable. Bridges designed following the requirements of the
Manual are expected (1) to perform in the elastic range for moderate-intensity earth-
quakes, (2) to have limited damage in non-structural elements for medium intensity earth-
quakes, and (3) to be seriously damaged but not collapse for extremely severe earthquakes.
Only the design earthquake is defined in the Manual, which is used to design the bridge by
verifying the aforementioned performance level 2.
AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) define as its performance cri-
teria that bridges shall be designed for the life safety performance objective considering a
seismic hazard corresponding to a 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years, which corre-
sponds to a return period of 1034 years (also called the design event). Life safety implies
that the probability of collapse is small, but significant damage may occur, and disruption
of service is possible. Partial or complete replacement of the bridge may be required for
some bridges, but in most cases, the structure can be repaired. Important bridges can, and
often are, subject to more stringent functionality criteria.
The Japanese code (Japan Road Association, 2012) considers for the seismic design of
bridges the verification at two levels of ground motion. The first one corresponds to an
earthquake with a high probability of occurrence during the life of the bridge (the Level 1
Earthquake Ground Motion), while the second one corresponds to an earthquake that can
produce critical damage (Level 2 Earthquake Ground Motion). Two types of earthquakes
are considered for Level 2 earthquake: a large magnitude interplate earthquake and a near-
field earthquake. Three seismic performance levels are defined: (1) Level 1 performance,
for which the bridge keeps functioning after an earthquake; (2) Level 2 performance, for
which the bridge has limited damage during an earthquake and recovers in a short time;
and (3) Level 3 performance, for which the bridge sustains no critical damage during an
earthquake. Also, two classes of bridges are defined according to the importance of the
bridge. Finally, performance objectives are defined for each class of bridge: all bridges
should perform as Level 1 when subjected to a Level 1 earthquake, and subjected to a
Level 2 earthquake, standard importance bridges shall have a Level 3 performance, while
high importance bridges shall have a Level 2 performance. The Japanese code (Japan
Road Association, 2012) explicitly states, as part of its seismic design principles, that
unseating of superstructures must be prevented.
Seismic loads and site effects

To calculate the seismic forces, for static or dynamic analysis, all three codes take into
account the type of soil in which the bridge is supported, the seismic zone where the bridge
is located, and the fundamental period of the structure. The shape of the response spectra
in the Japanese code depends on the type of the soil, of which three are defined irrespective
of the zone. The Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2017) defines four types of soils and,
similar to the Japanese code, has a specific shape of the design response spectrum associ-
ated with each type of soil. On the other hand, AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications
(AASHTO, 2011) define six types of soils, of which soil type F requires investigation of
site-specific response. In AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011),
coefficients are defined for each type of soil, depending on the magnitude of the peak
ground acceleration (PGA) and the site class.
The Chilean Highway Manual and the Japanese code define three seismic zones. In the
Chilean Highway Manual, an EPA (A0) is defined for each zone, which varies between 0.2
and 0.4 g and amplifies the acceleration response spectra. The zones are defined discretely
from the administrative division of the country. The Japanese code defines a modification
factor for zone (cz), with values between 0.7 and 1.0, which also amplifies the acceleration
response spectra. AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) follow a dif-
ferent philosophy. A three-point design response spectrum is defined by a PGA, a response
spectral acceleration coefficient at a period of 0.2 s (SS), and a response spectral accelera-
tion coefficient at a period of 1.0 s (S1) which are obtained from detailed maps of the
country.
The resulting design response spectra of the Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2017)
and AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) are for a damping ratio of
5% and do not include near-field ground motion adjustments. AASHTO LRFD seismic
specifications (AASHTO, 2011) require taking into account near-fault effects if the site of
the bridge is located within 6 min of an active shallow fault (as defined by the United
States Geological Survey) through a site-specific investigation. On the other hand, the
Japanese code (Japan Road Association, 2012) defines for the Level 2 earthquake a Type
II ground motion, which corresponds to an inland near-field earthquake. Three specific
acceleration response spectra are defined for this type of design ground motion.
Analysis and modeling

The Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2017) defines five methods of analysis, depending
primarily on the dimensions of the bridge:
1. Two are static analysis methods and are based on a seismic coefficient that can be
used only for bridges of one span or if the height is less than 25 m.
2. Another method, elastic response spectrum analysis, with a design spectrum that
depends on the seismic zone and soil type, can be used for bridges of up to 50 m
tall and spans shorter than 70 m. In some cases, the bridge authority may request
local seismic risk studies to define the design spectrum.
3. Two other methods, linear and non-linear time-history analyses, may be required
for special or seismically isolated bridges
Directional uncertainty in earthquake loading is considered by combining the effects of

the analysis in one direction with 30% of the effect in the orthogonal direction. The load
combination for live load with earthquake forces is defined according to AASHTO LRFD
seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011).
In AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011), the analysis procedure is
determined by the regularity of the bridge, the number of spans, and the seismic design
category. Equivalent static and elastic dynamic are the two main analysis methods
required. Non-linear time-history analysis must be performed if the P-d effect is too large
or if damping provided by a base isolation system is too large. As is in the Chilean
Highway Manual (MOP, 2017), directional uncertainty in earthquake loading is consid-
ered by combining the effects of the analysis in one direction with 30% of the effect in the
orthogonal direction. For bridges without complicated seismic behavior, the seismic
Wilches et al. 25
performances must be verified in accordance with static methods of analysis, based on a

seismic coefficient method. The analysis is performed in two orthogonal directions,
assumed to act independently. For bridges with complex seismic behavior, seismic perfor-
mance shall be verified in accordance with one of two dynamic analysis methods: response
spectrum method and time-history response method.
The Japanese code (Japan Road Association, 2012) allows the use of both static and
dynamic analyses for the verification of the seismic performance of a bridge, irrespective
of the level of earthquake ground motion. For dynamic analysis, either the response spec-
trum method or time-history response method may be used, but for verification of Seismic
Performance Level 2 and Level 3, the model and the analysis method shall be non-linear
in order to evaluate the plastic behavior of members. Dynamic analyses are considered
proper methods to verify the seismic performance of irregular bridges (curved, skewed,
flexible, and similar).
Design requirements
The AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) use displacement-based
design procedures. It requires the use of analytical models to calculate the global response
of bridges and local models to assess the displacement capacities of the individual compo-
nents. The Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2017) uses the traditional force-based R-fac-
tor method, with a simple verification of the maximum elastic displacement of the
superstructure. The Japanese code (Japan Road Association, 2012) requires the verifica-
tion of the performance levels previously indicated.
The Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2017) has requirements to ensure the ductile
behavior of RC columns and piles, such as limiting the maximum axial load to 0.2f’cAg
and the maximum longitudinal reinforcement to 0.03Ag, where Ag is the gross area of the
cross section. AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) limit to the same
maximum axial load, but the maximum longitudinal reinforcement for RC columns of
conventional bridges is larger, equal to 0.04Ag (AASHTO, 2011). The maximum longitudi-
nal reinforcement is less than the maximum allowed by AASHTO LRFD seismic specifica-
tions for RC columns of conventional bridges (AASHTO, 2011). The manual recommends
a capacity design for columns. The design of the foundations can be obtained from reduced
forces from the R factor or a capacity design assuming that plastic hinges form at the base
of the columns.
AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) define three strategies for the
design. The main one consists in designing a ductile substructure with an essentially elastic
superstructure. This is achieved by plastic hinging in columns and walls, and foundations
that may limit inertial forces by in-ground hinging. The second consists in designing an
essentially elastic substructure with a ductile superstructure; ductility is achieved by ductile
elements in the pier cross frames. Finally, for isolated bridges or bridges with energy-
dissipation devices, the design strategy consists in having elastic superstructure and sub-
structure, with the previous devices between both. AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications
(AASHTO, 2011) require verifying that the ductility demand of individual members is less
than given limits.
For Seismic Performance Level 1, the Japanese code requires that the bridge performs
elastically, so the limit states of the structural members are defined in terms of allowable
stresses. For Seismic Performance Levels 2 and 3, the deformation demand for members
that undergo plastic rotation must not to surpass certain prescribed values. For Level 2,
that value is a deformation consistent with quick functionality recovery; for Level 3, the
value is the ductility limit of the member. For bents with RC columns, a simplified hori-
zontal force-horizontal displacement response must be calculated to explicitly verify lateral
strength and ductility capacity. No limit to the axial load is imposed, as is done in both the
AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) and Chilean Highway Manual
provisions. The three codes require reinforcing details for improving the ductility of rein-
force concrete elements, including that splice of longitudinal reinforcement shall be outside
the plastic hinge region, all longitudinal bars in compression elements shall be enclosed
with transverse hoop reinforcement, and cross ties be used to provide transverse support to
the longitudinal bars. Maximum spacing and minimum diameter of lateral reinforcement
are similar for all codes. An important difference among the codes is that the Chilean and
Japanese codes require that cross ties have at both ends a seismic hook, defined as a 135°
bend with an extension 10 times the diameter of the tie, while AASHTO LRFD seismic
specifications (AASHTO, 2011) require that the ends of the cross ties have a 135° and a
90° hook, with extensions 6 times the diameter of the cross ties.
Regarding the support or seat length, the Japanese code (Japan Road Association,
2012) defines a minimum seat length (SEM) equal to 0.7 m + 0.005 L, where L is the long-
est span length supported. Additional seat length requirements are defined for skewed
bridges. In the case of AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011), the calcu-
lation of the support length for bridges in seismic design categories A, B, and C takes into
account the length of the bridge deck, the height of columns, and the skew angle. For seis-
mic design category D, AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) consider
the seismic displacement demand to calculate the minimum seat length, which has to be
larger than 24 in. The Chilean Highway Manual (MOP, 2017) includes the AASHTO
LRFD seismic specifications (AASHTO, 2011) equations to evaluate the support length
for categories A, B, and C, with no minimum value. However, the collapse of several
bridges after the 2010 Maule Earthquake led to the addition to the Manual of the Japanese
provisions for seat length. This results in longer seat lengths than the current Highway
Manual.
Even though all three codes suggest that the skew angle of the support be minimized, in
the case of the large skew angle, the seat length must be sufficient and shear keys must be
designed to avoid unseating. While the Chilean code requires exterior and interior shear
keys for all bridges, the Japanese code requires shear keys only for skewed bridges with
excessive displacements. AASHTO requires adequate interior or exterior shear keys to
provide transverse support to bridge superstructure with large skew; the shear keys can be
designed as sacrificial elements to protect the piles.
Summary and conclusion

The great earthquakes that have affected Chile during the last 70 years have demonstrated
the vulnerability of highway bridges to seismic loads and the need to develop both perfor-
mance criteria and construction processes for new bridges and retrofitting techniques for
existing ones. This document briefly describes the evolution of highway bridge seismic
design codes in Chile, with emphasis on bridge types, construction processes, type of mate-
rials, and the effect of the evolution of international bridge design codes.
The development of the Chilean seismic design code for highway bridges is strongly
aimed at the design of the predominant structural configuration in the country. This
Wilches et al. 27
corresponds to concrete slabs supported on simply supported precast or post-tensioned

concrete girders, using elastomeric pads, RC abutments, and RC bents with sacrificial
shear keys.
The 2010 Maule Earthquake revealed the existence of structural reliability problems in the
Chilean Highway Manual (Unión et al., 2010) associated with problems in the calibration of
its design requirements and the poor definition of its performance objectives, together with
deficiencies in the definition of seismic design demand. After this event, the regulations have
been updated, integrating important changes in the seismic design requirements, with the
objective of correcting part of the deficiencies detected.
The practice of bridge design and construction in Chile has evolved substantially as each
new seismic occurs. Seismic design criteria have become increasingly conservative, which
translates into an apparent increase of structural reliability for Chilean bridges. However,
the Chilean seismic design criteria have been strongly influenced by the AASHTO LRFD
seismic specifications and the Japanese codes. The comparison between these three codes is
summarized below:
1. The requirements for performance verification are similar among the codes: the
Chilean code and AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications require the verification of
only one performance objective (ultimate strength), while the Japanese requires ver-
ification of two (ultimate strength and serviceability). The main differences are in
the verification methods: while the Chilean code still uses the force-based R-factor
method, AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications uses displacement-based design
methods and the Japanese code requires elastic and non-linear methods for analysis
and verification.
2. Design philosophies differ greatly: in Chile, the probability of exceeding the design
earthquake is 10% in 50 years (return period of approximately 475 years). For its
part, AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications have a 7% probability of exceedance
in 75 years (return period of approximately 1000 years). Finally, the Japanese stan-
dard does not establish a probability of exceedance, but it does consider the verifi-
cation of two levels of soil movement for the seismic design of bridges.
3. Different from the other two codes, the Chilean code does not include near-field
ground motions in its verification of bridge performance. To calculate the seismic
forces, all three codes take into account the type of soil in which the bridge is sup-
ported, the seismic zone where the bridge is located, and the fundamental period of
the structure.
4. Skewed bridges are permitted in Chile, but the same verifications and additional
devices to restrain excessive displacements required by the Japanese code have been
introduced only in the most recent Chilean code.
5. The detailing requirements for RC columns and piers to achieve the desired ducti-
lity are similar in the three codes, but the Chilean code has a stricter limit of the
maximum longitudinal reinforcement for columns, even though column damage
was not observed in the 2010 Maule earthquake.
6. After the collapse of several bridges in the 2010 Maule Earthquake due to unseat-
ing of girders, the Chilean code upgraded its requirements for seat length to those
in AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications, along with the minimum dimensions
required by the Japanese codes.
7. A bridge designed using the current Chilean seismic design requirements would
have exterior and interior shear keys at abutments and bent caps, large columns to
accommodate a small longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and large seat lengths at
abutments and bent caps. If the bridge has large skew, additional longitudinal shear
keys or other restraining elements would be present. The same bridge designed
using AASHTO LRFD seismic specifications may have only exterior shear keys,
even if the skew is large, and shorter seat lengths, while if designed using the
Japanese requirements, it would have shear keys at the end supports of the bridge
only if the skew angle is large.
In opinion of the authors, in general, the current requirements of Chilean seismic design
should provide a robust and reliable performance in the face of major seismic events.
Regardless of the above, it is clear that, from the damage observed in the 2010 Maule
earthquake, there are deficiencies that must be remedied. With respect to this issue, this
article proposes three research fronts necessary for the improvement of the seismic-
resistant design requirements in its codes:
The development of clear design methodologies for internal and external sacrificial
shear keys, to ensure their performance as fusible energy dissipating elements. This
work is underway by the authors of this article.
The completion of a comprehensive study of structural reliability for current design
requirements, in which the necessary adjustments to the seismic demand and the
seismic design requirements must be made to guarantee levels of structural reliabil-
ity and probable failures, independent of the seismic zone, and the seismic classifi-
cation of the soil where the bridges to be built are positioned. Work in this area is
being carried out by groups working on an update of Chilean seismic normatives.
The revision of the seismic design demands and the soil classification to represent in
a more reliable way the physical phenomenon observed in Chilean earthquakes.
Acknowledgments
The authors recognize Dr Matias Valenzuela’s assistance in the data collection.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This study was supported by the funding provided by ANID (Chilean
National Agency for Research and Development) through the ANID Doctorate Scholarship and the
Research Center for Integrated Disaster Risk Management (CIGIDEN) ANID/FONDAP
15110017. ANID has funded the double doctoral studies of the first author at both the Pontificia
Universidad Catolica de Chile and Virginia Tech.
ORCID iDs
José Wilches https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0111-6323
Carlos Arrate https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8318-3292
Wilches et al. 29
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1973) AASHTO:
Standard Specification for Highway Bridges. 11th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1996) AASHTO:
Standard Specification for Highway Bridges. 16th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2011) Guide
Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design with 2012, 2014 Interim Revisions. 2th ed.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Aron F, Cembrano J, Astudillo F, Allmendinger RW and Arancibia G (2015) Constructing forearc
architecture over megathrust seismic cycles: Geological snapshots from the Maule earthquake
region, Chile. Geological Society of America Bulletin 127(3–4): 464–479.
Blume JA (1963) A structural-dynamic analysis of steel plant structures subjected to the May 1960
Chilean earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 53(2): 439–480.
Booth E (1985) The Chile earthquake of March 1985. Disasters 9(3): 190–196.
Bozorgzadeh A, Megally SH, Restrepo JI and Ashford S (2006) Capacity evaluation of exterior
sacrificial shear keys of bridge abutments. Journal of Bridge Engineering 11(5): 555–565.
Buckle IG, Hube M, Chen G, Yen W-H and Arias JG (2012) Structural performance of bridges in
the offshore Maule earthquake of 27 February 2010. Earthquake Spectra 28(S1): S533–S552.
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) (2006) Standard Specifications.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.
Cembrano J and Lara L (2009) The link between volcanism and tectonics in the southern volcanic
zone of the Chilean Andes: A review. Tectonophysics 471(1–2): 96–113.
Chang K-C, Chang D-W, Tsai M-H and Sung Y-C (2000) Seismic performance of highway bridges.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology 2(1): 55–77.
Cruz Lorenzen C, Barrientos ME and Babbar S (2001) Toll road concessions—The Chilean
experience. PFG Discussion Paper Series 124 1–36.
Darwin C (1851) Geological Observations on Coral Reefs, Volcanic Islands, and on South America.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deutsches Institut für Normung (1978) DIN 1045—Hormigon Y Hormigon Armado—Cálculo Y
Realización. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung (in Spanish).
Duke CM (1960) The Chilean earthquakes of May 1960. Science, New Series 132(3442): 1797–1802.
Elnashai AS, Gencturk B, Kwon O-S, Al-Qadi I, Hashash YMA, Roesler J, Kim SJ, Jeong SH and
Dukes J (2012a) The Maule (Chile) earthquake of February 27, 2010 (MAE Center Report N° 10-
4). Champaign, IL: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Elnashai AS, Gencturk B, Kwon O-S, Hashash YMA, Kim SJ, Jeong S-H and Dukes J (2012b) The
Maule (Chile) earthquake of February 27, 2010: Development of hazard, site specific ground
motions and back-analysis of structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 42: 229–245.
Estay NP, Yáñez G, Carretier S, Lira E and Maringue J (2016) Seismic hazard in low slip rate crustal
faults, estimating the characteristic event and the most hazardous zone: Study case San Ramón
Fault, in southern Andes. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 16(12): 2511–2528.
EximoGillies T and Hopkins D (1985) The September 1985 Mexico earthquake—Preliminary report
of the New Zealand reconnaissance team. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering 18(4): 291–312.
Fenves GL and Ellery M (1998) Behavior and Failure Analysis of a Multiple-frame Highway Bridge
in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. PEER 98/08. Richmond, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center.
Greve F (1960) Extracto de la historia de la sismologı́a en Chile. Anales de la Facultad de Ciencias
Fisicas y Matematicas 17(17): 13–21 (in Spanish).
Grossi P, Williams C, Cabrera C, et al (2010) The 2010 Maule, Chile Earthquake: Lessons and Future
Challenges. Newark: Risk Management Solutions.
Hsu YT and Fu CC (2004) Seismic effect on highway bridges in Chi Chi earthquake. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities 18(1): 47–53.
Instituto Nacional de Normalización (1996) Nch433.of1996—Diseño Sı´smico de Edificios. Santiago,

Chile: Instituto Nacional de Normalización (in Spanish).
Instituto Nacional de Normalización (2003) Nch2369.of2003—Diseño Sı´smico de Estructuras E
Instalaciones Industriales (pp. 1–119). Instituto Nacional de Normalización (in Spanish).
Japan Road Association (2002) Design Specification for Highway Bridges—Part V: Seismic Design
(pp. 1–361). Tokyo, Japan: Japan Road Association.
Japan Road Association (2012) Design Specifications for Highway Bridges. Tokyo, Japan: Japan
Road Association.
Jünemann R, de la Llera JC, Hube MA, Cifuentes LA and Kausel E (2015) A statistical analysis of
reinforced concrete wall buildings damaged during the 2010, Chile earthquake. Engineering
Structures 82: 168–185.
Kawashima K (2000) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. In: 12th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 3–4 February 2000, pp. 1–21. Auckland: New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Kawashima K and Unjoh S (1997) The damage of highway bridges in the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu
earthquake and its impact on Japanese seismic design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1(3):
505–541.
Kawashima K, Unjoh S, Hoshikuma J-I and Kosa K (2010) Damage of Transportation Facility due
to 2010 Chile Earthquake (April 5, 2010). Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
Kawashima K, Unjoh S, Hoshikuma J-I and Kosa K (2011) Damage of bridges due to the 2010
Maule, Chile, Earthquake. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15(7): 1036–1068.
Lomnitz C (1970) Major earthquakes and tsunamis in Chile during the period 1535 to 1955.
Geologische Rundschau 59(3): 938–960.
Lomnitz C (2004) Major earthquakes of Chile: A historical survey, 1535-1960. Seismological
Research Letters 75(3): 368–378.
Megally SH, Silva PF and Seible F (2002) Seismic Response of Sacrificial Shear Keys in Bridge
Abutments. UCSD / SSRP-2001/23. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego.
Ministerio de Obras Públicas (2008) Manual de carreteras—Volumen no 3—Instrucciones y criterios
de diseño. Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Obras Públicas (in Spanish).
Ministerio de Obras Públicas, and Consultores E. y F. I. (1972) Manual de carreteras (in spanish).
Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Obras Públicas, and Consultores, E. y F. I (in Spanish).
Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Vı́as de Comunicación, 1949. MOPC D.F.L. 884/1949—Reemplaza
ordenanza general de construcciones (p. 61). Available at: https://www.leychile.cl/
N?i=255402&f=1992-06-05&p= (accessed 10 September 2020).
Ministerio del Interior (1936) MI D.F.L. 345/1936—Ordenanza general sobre construcciones y
urbanizacion (D.S.437/1931). Diario oficial de la republica de Chile (pp. 394–420). Santiago,
Chile: Ministerio del Interior (in Spanish).
Mitchell D, Tinawi R and Sexsmith RG (1991) Performance of bridges in the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake—Lessons for Canadian designers. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 18(4):
711–734.
Moehle J, Riddell R and Boroschek R (2010) The Mw 8.8 Chile Earthquake of February 27, 2010.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, vol. 10. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute.
Paz M (1994) International Handbook of Earthquake Engineering (ed. M Paz). Boston, MA: Springer.
Rodriguez Rozas A and Gajardo Cruzat C (1906) La Catastrofe del 16 de Agosto de 1906 en la
Republica de Chile. Barcelona: Imprenta, Litografia y Encuadernacion Barcelona (in Spanish).
Schanack F, Valdebenito G and Alvial J (2012) Seismic damage to bridges during the 27 February
2010 Magnitude 8.8 Chile Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 28(1): 301–315.
Steinbrugge KV and Flores Álvarez R (1963) The Chilean earthquakes of May, 1960: A structural
engineering viewpoint. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 53(2): 225–307.
Wilches et al. 31
Takahashi Y and Hoshikuma J-I (2013) Damage to road bridges induced by ground motion in the
2011 great east Japan earthquake. Journal of JSCE 1(1): 398–410.
Toro F, Rubilar Moya FI, Hube M, Santa Marı́a H and Cabrera T (2013) Statistical analysis of
pedestrian bridges damaged during 2010 Chile earthquake. In: Seventh national seismic conference
on bridges and highways, Oakland, California. 20–22 May 2013, pp. 1–12.
Unión A, Guzmán M, Rivera C, Aravena L, Barrientos J, Darwiche K, Muñoz P, Godoy R, Vargas
J, Tudela I and Cabrera T (2010) Nuevos Criterios Sı´smicos Para el Diseño de Puentes En chile.
Ministerio De Obras Públicas (pp. 1–19). Santiago, Chile: Ministerio de Obras Públicas (in
Spanish).
Wilches Están J de J, Marı́a HS, Riddell R and Arrate Letelier C (2019a) Fragility curves for a
typical Chilean highway bridge. In: Bridge Engineering Institute Conference 2019 (BEI-2019),
vol. 2019. Singapore: Bridge Engineering Institute (BEI), pp. 1–4.
Wilches Están J de J, Santa Marı́a H, Riddell R and Arrate Letelier C (2017) Influence of the use of
external shear keys on the seismic behavior of Chilean highway bridges. Engineering Structures
147: 613–624.
Wilches Están J de J, Santa Marı́a H, Riddell R and Arrate Letelier C (2019b) Effects of changes in
seismic design criteria in the transverse and vertical response of Chilean highway bridges.
Engineering Structures 191: 370–385
Willie L, Bolt B, Durhin M, et al. (1986) The Chile earthquake of March 3, 1985—Damage to
bridges and highways. Earthquake Spectra 2(2): 411–427.
Wood JH, Chapman HE and Brabhaharan P (2012) Performance of Highway Structures during the
Darfield and Christchurch Earthquakes of 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011. New Zealand
Transport Agency. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Transport Agency.
Xiang N and Li J (2016) Seismic performance of highway bridges with different transverse unseating-
prevention devices. Journal of Bridge Engineering 21(9): 0000909.
Yashinsky M, Oviedo R, Ashford S, Fargier-Gabaldon L and Hube M (2010) Performance of
highway and railway structures during the February 27, 2010 Maule Chile Earthquake. EERI/
PEER/FHWA Bridge Team Report, EERI, PEER, FHWA, March.
Yen W-H, Chen G, Buckle IG, Allen T, Alzamora D, Ger J and Arias JG (2011) Post-earthquake
reconnaissance report on transportation infrastructure: Impact of the February 27, 2010, offshore
Maule Earthquake in Chile. Report no. FHWA-HRT-11-030, October. Georgetown Pike McLean.

2021-ESp-Evolution of Bridge Codes in Chile-Wilches

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021-ESp-Evolution of Bridge Codes in Chile-Wilches

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Practice Paper

bridges in Chile DOI: 10.1177/8755293020988011

José Wilches, M.EERI1,2 , Hernán Santa Maria, M.EERI2,3,

Table 1. Historical earthquakes and resulting code changes

Development of Chilean codes and construction of bridges

Figure 4. Details of the cross-section Juan Pablo II Bridge.

Seismic demand definition for the bridge design codes in Chile

Sandstone soil 1.0 2.4

0.00–0.40 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.12

2.00 5.00 4.00 6.00

I Bridges and structures cataloged by the MOP—DGOP—Dirección de 1.0

Sa(Tm ) is the pseudo-spectrum acceleration corresponding to the vibration mode ‘‘m’’; Tm is

I Rock 0.20 0.513 0.90

A relevant aspect of its definition is the incorporation of a constant acceleration plateau

Seismic performance of highway bridges during the 2010 Maule

Principal modes of failure

Figure 14. Continued

Comparison of the Chilean seismic code with the US

Design philosophy and performance criteria

Seismic loads and site effects

Analysis and modeling

Directional uncertainty in earthquake loading is considered by combining the effects of

performances must be verified in accordance with static methods of analysis, based on a

Summary and conclusion

corresponds to concrete slabs supported on simply supported precast or post-tensioned

Declaration of conflicting interests

Instituto Nacional de Normalización (1996) Nch433.of1996—Diseño Sı´smico de Edificios. Santiago,

You might also like