Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Site effect and site classification in areas with large earthquakes

⁎
Ramón Verdugoa, , Felipe Ochoa-Cornejob, Javiera Gonzalezc, Guillermo Valladaresc
a
CMGI – Chile Virginia Opazo, Santiago, Chile
b
University of Chile, Chile
c
CMGI Ltda., Chile

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This work presents an alternative methodology to establish seismic site classification. Also, the use of the new
Site amplification spectral parameters, named Spectral Threshold Displacement (STD) and Spectral Threshold Acceleration (STA),
Site classification allow identifying the relevance of the displacement spectrum with the structural damage, which is also related to
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering both the stiffness and drift of the structure. The analysis of the new spectral variables with respect to the
response spectra defined by the seismic codes of Chile, Japan, Europe, and the USA demonstrates that local
properties/conditions of soil deposits determine the damage caused by large earthquakes. The results set the
context for a new methodology that uses the “Equivalent VS30-E” and the fundamental period TH/V (obtained with
H/V spectral ratios) of the site as the key components to classify sites for seismic design

1. Introduction
Empirical and theoretical observations suggest that the intensity of
ground surface motion strongly depends on the site characteristics such
as soil type, soil properties, as well as the thickness of the soil deposit
(Montessus de Ballore [1], Seed et al. [2], Pitilakis et al. [3], among
many others). On one hand, the evidence indicates that, after large
earthquakes, sites with rock outcrops or stiff soil present limited or null
damage to urban and industrial structures, placed on this type of
ground. On the other hand, significant damage is observed on sites
consisting of deep deposits of soft soils (Borcherdt [4]; Seed et al. [5],
Singh et al. [6]). Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that soil sites
tend to amplify the shaking at low frequencies (high period), but rock
sites tend to have more significant intensity motions at high frequencies
(low periods). In terms of accelerations, rock outcrops could be more
demanding in a certain range of frequencies; however, in terms of
displacements, soft soil sites present a higher demand. Therefore, the
site conditions determine the motion at the ground surface, in addition
to the characteristics of the seismic sources/mechanisms.
Accordingly, seismic design codes consider the local site conditions
by defining “Site Classes/Types,” which are associated with different
design spectra. In its pioneer work, Seed and co-workers [2] analyzed
earthquake records with peak ground accelerations greater than 0.05 g
and proposed normalized spectral forms that include site-dependent
ground motion characteristics such as the depth and the stiffness of the
sites. Fig. 1 presents the average acceleration response spectra for dif-
ferent site conditions obtained by Seed and co-workers [2]. Soil
deposits consisting of soft to medium clays and sands present a max-
imum amplification that is smaller than the one observed in stiffer soils,
covering a much wider range of periods, i.e., from 0.3 to 1.1 s. On the
contrary, the spectrum associated with stiff soils presents a well-defined
period of amplification, and it presents the higher amplification at a low
period.
The seismic provisions developed in most of the countries affected
by earthquakes have established the Soil Class taking into account the
soil properties of the upper 30 m of the ground, regardless the actual
thickness of the soil deposits and the properties of the existing soils
below a depth of 30 m. This simplification may induce significant errors
in the estimation of the main characteristics of the seismic response at
the ground surface (Verdugo [7]).
This work presents a proposal to establish criteria for site classifi-
cation for seismic ground response purposes. This proposal uses the
stiffness of the upper 30 m, through an equivalent shear wave velocity,
VS30-E and the predominant period of the site evaluated with the ana-
lysis of H/V spectral ratio calculated from the measurement of ambient
vibrations.
Likewise, using empirical correlations between the height of a
building and its fundamental period in combination with the maximum
allowable drift roof-base of different type of structures, the spectrum
threshold displacement and the spectrum threshold acceleration are
established for reinforced concrete, steel, and reinforced masonry
structures. These thresholds represent the boundaries between no-da-
mage and initiation of damage in structures; between elastic and in-
elastic structural behavior. The application of this concept to the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rverdugo@cmgi.cl (R. Verdugo), fochoa@ing.uchile.cl (F. Ochoa-Cornejo), jgonzalez@cmgi.cl (J. Gonzalez), gadares@cmgi.cl (G. Valladares).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.02.002
Received 7 August 2017; Received in revised form 30 January 2018; Accepted 2 February 2018
0267-7261/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Verdugo, R., Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.02.002
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Six largest earthquakes in the world (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/
largest-world.php).

Name - Country Date Magnitude

1 Valdivia – Chile May 22, 1960 9.5

2 Alaska – USA March 28, 1964 9.2
3 Sumatra - Indonesia December 26, 2004 9.1
4 Tohoku - Japan March 11, 2011 9.1
5 Kamchatka - Russia November 4, 1952 9.0
6 Maule - Chile February 27, 2010 8.8

Fig. 1. Average acceleration spectra for different site conditions [2].

available records of the 2010 Maule Earthquake is in a good agreement

with the observed seismic damage.
The final product of this work is a seismic site classification proposal
that includes site parameters and structural recommendations. It is an
alternative methodology that is discussed in detail.

2. 2010 Maule earthquake, Mw = 8.8

The Maule earthquake, of moment magnitude Mw = 8.8, is the

sixth largest seismic event instrumentally recorded in the world. It
struck the south-central part of Chile on February 27th, 2010 (3:34 a.m.
local time). After the main shock, several aftershocks hit the region,
being the magnitude of the largest event Mw = 6.2, 20 min after the
main shock. The Maule earthquake was a thrust-faulting type earth-
quake originated in the boundary between the Nazca and South
American plates.
A significant portion of the Chilean territory is located right next to
the frictional interaction boundary created by the collision between the
oceanic plate (Nazca) and the continental South-American plates. As a
result of this collision, the Nazca plate is submerged beneath the South
American plate, generating a subductive seismic environment
(Trenkamp et al. [8]). Different measurements indicate that Nazca plate
is continuously moving toward the South American continent in the
North-East direction, at a rate of 50 mm/year, approximately (Pardo‐-
Casas and Molnar [9]).
In the past 60 years, Chile has been hit by several mega-earthquakes
of magnitudes equal or higher than Mw = 8.0; Table 1 summarizes
these seismic events, which have been of the thrust-faulting type of Fig. 2. Rupture zone of 2010 Chile Earthquake (modified from www.tectonics.caltech.
earthquake, originated in the boundary between the subducting Nazca edu/slip_history).
Plate and the overriding South American Plate. The available historical
information indicates that two out of the six largest earthquakes ever Earthquake (Mw = 8.8) compromised a rupture area on the interface
recorded instrumentally have occurred in Chile (see Table 2). The oc- between the plates, at an average depth of 35 km. This area is equiva-
currence of these earthquakes has set the context to develop, and per- lent to a rectangular zone, with a length of 550 km and a width of
manently revise, the seismic code of structural design. This highly ac- 170 km, as illustrated in Fig. 2 [10]. The large extension of the rupture
tive seismic condition has allowed the Chilean community to verify and area is confirmed by the empirical correlation found by Strasser et al.
improve the seismic provisions after each large magnitude event. [11] that is presented in Fig. 3, which includes the earthquake rupture
Mega-earthquakes involve a large rupture zone. The 2010 Maule lengths induced by the 1985 Valparaiso (L = 170 km) and 2010 Maule
(L = 550 km) seismic events.
Table 1 The fundamental implication of the large rupture zone involved in a
Mayor Chilean earthquakes in the last 60 years.
mega-earthquake is associated with the obsolescence of the usual con-
Epicenter Date Magnitude cept of hypocenter, which is commonly seen as a point from where the
seismic energy is generated, and from where the attenuation of the
Valdivia May 22, 1960 9.5 shaking with the distance is evaluated. Mega-earthquakes present an
Valparaíso March 3, 1985 8.0
extensive zone from where the seismic energy is released. From this
Antofagasta July 30, 1995 8.0
Maule February 27, 2010 8.8 perspective, near to this zone, the attenuation is significantly less re-
Iquique April 1, 2014 8.2 levant than the site amplification due to local characteristics of soil
Illapel September 16, 2015 8.4 deposits. In any case, it is important to keep in mind that at a medium-

2
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Empirical relationship between earthquake magnitude and rupture length [11].

to-large distance, the intensity of the ground motion, especially in the

high-frequency range, decreases significantly with the distance from the
fault (see for example Abrahamson et al. [12]).
Fig. 4 shows location and names of the 24 stations, located –prac-
tically- above the rupture zone that recorded the acceleration time
histories of the Maule Earthquake. Therefore, these particular records
are mainly the results of both seismic source and site effect. Although
the source effects may modify the ground motion considerably from site
to site, the local site effects in most cases dominate the resulting mo-
tions.
The horizontal peak ground accelerations recorded on rock outcrops
and soil deposits are indicated in Fig. 5. The PGA and duration of the
acceleration records obtained in soil deposits and rock outcrop are
presented in Tables 3, 4, respectively.
These stations, located above and in the vicinity of the rupture zone,
show that the common expected attenuation of the peak accelerations
with the distance is not observed. In this context, it is interesting that
the largest peak acceleration of the ground, 0.94 g, was recorded in
Angol, located to the south of the rupture, whereas the second largest
peak acceleration, 0.78 g, was recorded in Melipilla, to the north of the
rupture, while in Talca, located between the previous two stations, the
horizontal peak acceleration reached a value of 0.47 g. In any case,
away from the rupture zone, the seismological theory and observations
indicating that ground motion intensity decreases with increasing dis-
tance from the source hold valid.
The duration of the acceleration records was evaluated as com-
plementary information, using the “Bracketed Duration Method” pro-
posed by Bolt [13]. This procedure computes the elapsed time between
the first, and last, acceleration amplitude greater than 0.05 g. Tables 3,
4 shows the durations obtained for the available horizontal acceleration
records, while Fig. 6 shows the bracketed durations computed for re-
cords on soils as a function of their location relative to the rupture zone
(Gonzalez and Verdugo [14]). The maximum duration is close to 160 s,
in the city of Concepcion, while the minimum duration in the rupture
zone is about 50 s, evaluated in some stations in the city of Santiago, the
capital of Chile.
Fig. 4. Seismic stations in the rupture zone that recorded the acceleration histories of
Maule Earthquake.
3. Site classification used by seismic codes

The modal spectral analysis is commonly used for the seismic design
of structures. In this procedure, the seismic demand is characterized by

3
R. Verdugo et al.
Fig. 5. Recorded peak horizontal accelerations of Maule Earthquake.
a design spectrum, which is defined by the ground conditions when
factors such as seismic hazard level and type of seismic source are
given. The seismic codes of Europe, United State, Japan and Chile
[15–18] establish design spectra according to ground conditions con-
sidering different seismic hazards.
The European seismic community considers that there are sig-
nificant uncertainties in the estimation of future earthquakes; in the
magnitude, location, modes of propagation of the seismic waves, and
time of occurrence, including others. Therefore, the deterministic ap-
proach has been discarded, and the seismic hazard of a site has been
assessed by employing the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The
seismic hazard is established using a single parameter: the peak ground
acceleration on “Type A” ground, usually identified as a rock. In this
scenario, the seismic code of a country subdivides the territory into
different seismic regions/zones. In each region of this subdivision, the
seismic hazard is considered constant. In each seismic zone, the peak
ground acceleration (PGA) on type A ground is associated with a
probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years, which is equivalent to
475 years of return period.
In Japan, a more determinist seismic hazard is considered through
the definition of the Level 2-I Earthquake, corresponding to events with
a periodicity established as “very rare,” and associated with the inter-
plate subduction-type earthquake, of magnitude around, Mw = 8. In
this context, the structural seismic design has the objective of pre-
venting the collapse of buildings and prevent the harm of human lives
during the occurrence of this type of earthquake. Also, a second type of
seismic source is considered; Level 2-II Earthquake, which represents
inland seismic events of magnitude, Mw = 7, that may occur at a very
short distance by a nearby fault, like the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. The
recurrence interval of this type of ground motion is estimated to be
longer than the Level 2-I, although it is recognized that its evaluation is
difficult.
In the USA, the situation is rather different; what matters when
dealing with earthquake resistance design is the probability of struc-
tural failure or structural collapse. This pragmatic consideration as-
sumes that structural collapse is, eventually, the main cause of ca-
sualties. If it is assumed that there is no uncertainty in the collapse
capacity of a structure, the probabilistic uniform-hazard, i.e., 2% of
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
exceedance in 50 years, ground motions would render a uniform
probability of collapse. However, there are uncertainties in the collapse
capacity of structures, mainly due to the lack of actual information
related to the resistance of the “as-built” material, construction quality,
and real live loads, among other issues. Therefore, the probabilistic
uniform-hazard ground motions do not provide uniform levels of per-
formance for structures. Consequently, a new risk-targeted probabilistic
ground motion was introduced in the ASCE7-10, adjusting the ground
motion values to obtain a uniform collapse probability of 1% in 50
years. The Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
ground motion is nominated MCER ground motion. The MCE ground
motion for a specific site in the USA is the minimum between the
probabilistic and the deterministic ground motions. Places that are
close to major active faults such as California, and areas near the New
Madrid fault, are governed by the deterministic ground motion. In sites
where the deterministic earthquakes control the seismic design, the
resulting ground motions are as low as 40% of their probabilistic
counterparts (Luco et al. [19]).
It is interesting that seismic codes developed in seismic countries are
based on probabilistic or deterministic seismic hazard analyses since
the assessment of seismic hazard using these methods is presented as if
they were antagonistic approaches. However, they may certainly
complement each other for estimating the ground motions for design.
The EC8 applied a probabilistic analysis approach, whereas the
Japanese codes are based on deterministic seismic hazard analysis. In
this scenario, the USA represents a singular case; both approaches have
been applied, and the maximum credible earthquake ground motion for
a site is selected as the minimum output from these two analyses.
In Chile, the seismic hazard adopted in the provisions has been
defined at a uniform 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
However, the 2010 Maule Earthquake of Mw = 8.8 in central-south of
Chile showed the need for an enhancement of the Chilean code.
Accordingly, the main lessons learned from the 2010 Maule Earthquake
have been included in the provision DS61.
In seismic regions, where active continental faults and tectonic
boundaries generate the largest seismic events, expected to occur every
100–200 years, the deterministic seismic hazard analysis is more sui-
table, providing valuable empirical information about ground motion
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Table 3 (continued)

PGA and durations of recorded accelerations records 2010 Maule Earthquake. SOIL
DEPOSITS. Station Location (°) PGA Duration

Station Location (°) PGA Duration Latitude Longitude (g) (s)

Latitude Longitude (g) (s) Angol 37.79 72.71 0.94 84.2

0.70 79.1
Viña Centro 33.03 71.55 0.22 34.6 0.29
0.33 39.9 Duration: Bracketed Duration
0.18 PGA N-S or L
Viña El Salto 33.05 71.51 0.35 57.5 E-W or T
0.34 63.1 Vertical
0.26
a
Valpo. Almendral 33.05 71.62 0.22 35.7 Instrument located in a building.
0.27 46.8
0.14
Table 4
Casablanca 33.32 71.41 0.29 45.2
PGA and durations of recorded accelerations records 2010 Maule Earthquake. ROCK
0.33 50.3
OUTCROP.
0.23
Stgo - Las Américas 33.45 70.53 0.31 50.4
Station PGA Duration
0.23 54.9
(g) (s)
0.16
Stgo – FCFM a
33.46 70.66 0.17 43.0
Valparaiso-UTFSM 0.132 20.3
0.16 46.7
0.301 21.3
0.14
0.070
Stgo Centro 33.47 70.65 0.22 45.0
Santa Lucia 0.320 51.0
0.31 43.6
0.224 59.8
0.18
0.220
Stgo – FSR 33.48 70.53 0.25 62.6
Convento Viejo 0.186 58.5
0.24 57.2
0.147 61.9
0.18
0.184
Stgo – Maipú 33.51 70.77 0.56 47.2
Rapel 0.198 43.3
0.49 50.2
0.195 43.0
0.24
0.137
Stgo - Peñalolén 33.50 70.58 0.30 40.1
Melado 0.141 68.6
0.29 45.7
0.138 57.7
0.28
0.162
Stgo - La Florida 33.51 70.61 0.19 42.3
Duration: Bracketed Duration
0.13 44.0
PGA N-S or L
0.10
E-W or T
Stgo - Antumapu 33.57 70.63 0.23 44.5
Vertical
0.27 45.9
0.16
Stgo - Puente Alto 33.58 70.58 0.27 46.7
0.27 45.4
0.13
San José 33.64 70.35 0.47 70.0
0.48 68.4
0.25
Llolleo 33.62 71.60 0.33 63.8
0.56 67.6
0.68
Melipilla 33.69 71.21 0.57 60.2
0.78 58.8
0.39
Matanzas 33.96 71.87 0.34 63.9
0.29 59.2
0.24
Hualañe 34.98 71.87 0.38 102.1
0.45 97.8
0.38
Curicó 34.98 71.24 0.48 91.2
0.41 91.3
0.20
Fig. 6. Durations evaluated from acceleration records of Maule Earthquake.
Constitución 35.34 72.41 0.54 110.9
0.63 128.5
0.35 effects. For example, in central Chile, where the capital of Santiago is
Talca 35.43 71.66 0.47 112.1
located, the main historical earthquakes have occurred in 1575 (M
0.42 115.6
0.22 = 7.5), 1647 (Mw > 8.0), 1730 (Mw > 8.8), 1822 (Mw > 8.0), 1906
Concepción 36.83 73.05 0.40 104.8 (Mw = 8.2), and 1985 (Mw = 8.0) (Comte et al. [20]; Lomnitz et al.
0.29 117.2 [21]; Udias et al. [22]). This sequence suggests for this region an
0.37
average return period of approximately 82 years for large earthquakes.
San Pedro 36.84 73.11 0.65 157.5
0.60 152.1
Although the 2010 Maule earthquake affected the area of Santiago and
0.58 its surroundings, it is not considered in this series of events because its
rupture zone involved an area located to the south. Another case is the
city of Concepción, 500 km south of Santiago, which has experienced

5
R. Verdugo et al.
two mega-earthquakes in 50 years: 1) Valdivia earthquake in 1960, Mw
= 9.5, and 2) the Maule earthquake in 2010, Mw = 8.8. Thus, Chilean
structures must be designed assuming at least the occurrence of one
large earthquake during their serviceability lifetime.
Based on the several large earthquakes, and their high recurrence,
the deterministic seismic hazard is more applicable to estimate the
worst seismic scenario for Chile. In this context, the seismic char-
acteristics observed in the 2010 Maule Earthquake (Mw = 8.8), ap-
propriately represent the Chilean seismic conditions along the territory
associated with the subduction environment of the Nazca plate.
The authors acknowledge that probabilistic methods may also pro-
vide significant information for variables such as magnitude and dis-
tance. Nevertheless, deterministic versus probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, especially considering the
abundance of large earthquakes occurring in Chile periodically.
Considering that the level of seismic damage from severe earth-
quakes correlates with the local site conditions, it is required a proper
seismic site classification based on parameters that capture the site
effect fundamentally. A practical approach to site characterization uses
the shear wave velocity of the upper 30 m of the soil profile, VS30
(Borcherdt et al. [23]; Borcherdt [24]). VS30 reproduces the vertical
travel time of the shear waves propagating throughout the upper 30 m
of the ground. A depth of 30 m relates to practical considerations; it is
the typical exploration depth of borings in geotechnical engineering
practice. In this context, most of the provisions related to the seismic
design of civil structures have adopted VS30 as the key parameter for
site classification.
For the International Building Code (IBC), and ASCE7, a site can
classify from “Site Class” A to E according to VS30 as shown in Fig. 7.
Also, resistance parameters such as penetration resistance (N-SPT), and
undrained shear strength Su, for the upper 30 m of the ground, are also
considered. Furthermore, a Site Class F is established for singular soil
conditions, such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays,
and collapsible weakly cemented soils. For Site Class F, a site response
analysis is required.
Analogously, the Eurocode 8 (EC8) has adopted five “Ground
Types” (from A to E), mainly defined by VS30 (Fig. 7). However, a
general description of the stratigraphic profile and resistance para-
meters such as N-SPT and Su, for the upper 30 m of the ground, are also
considered. In particular, the Ground Type E is introduced, which is
defined as a surface alluvium material, with VS < 360 m/s and a
thickness less than 20 m, underlain by rock (VS > 800 m/s). This sin-
gular condition is associated with high impedance, and therefore, the
seismic response of the ground surface is amplified. Similar to IBC (Site
Class F), the EC8 has defined two additional Ground Types, S1 and S2,
which consist of soil deposits requiring special analyses.
In the case of Chile, the seismic site classification in the code DS-61
defines six Soil Types (identified from A to E) according to VS30 as
shown in Fig. 7. Additionally, the Chilean code has grouped as F all
those soil deposits considered singulars, such as liquefiable, organics,
fines soils of high plasticity, high sensitive soils, etc., requiring special
dynamic analysis.
These three codes use similar values of VS30 to separate the different
site classes. The exceptions are the site Class A (hard rock) defined in
Fig. 7. Sites classifications according to VS30.
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
the IBC with the intention to incorporate rock outcrops typically en-
countered in the Eastern USA, and the soil type C, defined in the
Chilean code, which was introduced to generate a smoother transition
from very dense granular material to medium dense sands and stiff
clays.
On the other hand, the Japanese provisions for seismic soil classi-
fication consider only three site conditions, identified as soil profile
types I, II, and III, which correspond to stiff, medium, and soft soils. The
Soil Type I is described as ground consisting of rock or hard sandy
gravel, geologically from the Tertiary Period, or older. The Soil Type III
corresponds to alluvium consisting of soft delta deposits, mud, re-
claimed land of marsh, muddy sea bottom, etc. Soil Type II is defined as
soils that do not classify as Soil Type I or III. Each soil type is char-
acterized by the “critical period of the soil” parameter, Tc. The values of
Tc are 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 for soil profiles type I, II, and III, respectively.
The critical period of the soil deposit, Tc, is evaluated using Eq. (1):
n
hi
TC = 4 ∑
i=1
VSi (1)
Where i represents the i-soil layer and hi and VSi correspond to its re-
spective thickness and shear wave velocity. The value of n includes all
the layers up to any rigid material characterized by Vs ≥ 400 m/s or N-
SPT ≥ 50 blows/ft.
The above-mentioned site classification systems have at least two
serious limitations. First, they do not consider the properties neither
thickness of the soils existing beneath 30 m. Second, the parameter VS30
may induce misleading results in those cases of stratified soil deposits,
because the sequence of the existing soil layers is not captured by VS30
[7]. To overcome these limitations, the use of two alternative para-
meters are proposed next.
4. General view of the seismic behavior of structures during the
maule earthquake
Technical reports on the seismic behavior of structures indicated a
more than acceptable performance during the Maule Earthquake (Lagos
et al. [25], American Red Cross [26]; Risk Management Solution [27],
among others). The good behavior of the structures is based on the
high-standard provisions ruling the seismic design which are strictly
followed by practitioners of the geotechnical, structural, and con-
struction engineering community. Although the general seismic per-
formance can be cataloged as successful, several buildings were ser-
iously damaged, and one completely collapsed in the city of
Concepción.
In Fig. 8 are shown the two collapsed buildings (Alto Rio in the city
of Concepcion and Cerro O´Higgins in the city of Constitucion) and two
of the partially collapsed buildings (Festival Building in the city of Viña
del Mar and Don Tristán Building in the neighborhood of Maipu in the
South-West of Santiago) resulting from the shaking of the 2010 Maule
Earthquake. Concepción and Viña del Mar were the most affected cities
in terms of seismic damages in residential buildings of medium height,
i.e., 8–20 stories. In the city of Constitución, most of the buildings, at
the time of Maule Earthquake, were not tall. Similar is the case in the
neighborhood of Maipú, where soil deposits are constituted by volcanic
ashes. In the capital, Santiago, several buildings experienced severe
damage, most of them located in a small suburban area named Ciudad
Empresarial, where there are saturated clayey soils significantly softer
than the dense gravelly soils in the center of the city (Assimaki et al.
[28]).
5. Structural damages and elastic displacement response spectra
From a conceptual point of view, the seismic damages that undergo
structures exposed to strong earthquakes are associated with the level
of deformation developed by the different elements of the structures.
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 8. Buildings with total or partial collapse: a) Alto Río in Concepción, b) Festival in Viña del Mar, c) Cerro O´Higgins in Constitución and d) Don Tristán in Maipú.

The deformation threshold for the structures to start suffering damage 2.5 ∙ γ ∙ λ
∆= T (meters)
is mainly controlled by the type of structural material. The lateral drift 100 (5)
ratio, γ, defined by Eq. (1), is the ratio of the horizontal roof dis-
placement, Δ, over the total height of the structure, H, (measured from This equation shows the relationship between the roof displacement
the ground surface). In this context, the lateral drift ratio can be con- and the fundamental period, T, of the structure. If the lateral drift ratio,
sidered as an index for evaluating the capacity of deformation of the γ, is selected as the threshold value above which the structure starts its
structures and also to estimate the level of the demand. non-linear behavior; Eq. (5) becomes a frontier for damage initiation,
and it can be plotted together with the displacement spectrum, and
Δ therefore, it corresponds to the Spectral Threshold Displacement (STD).
γ= ∙ 100 (%)
H (2) Threshold values of the lateral drift ratio, below which the behavior
On the other hand, there is consistent evidence correlating the is elastic and therefore, no damage is expected, are established for ty-
number of stories, or the height of the structure, H, with its funda- pical structures. It is important to mention that a well-designed struc-
mental vibration period, T. In general, the empirical correlations use ture should have a rather uniform interstorey drift distribution, and
the form: accordingly, the lateral drift ratio is numerically close to the interstorey
drift (Moehle [29]). The following threshold values of the lateral drift
T = (Number of stories)/λ (3) ratio are currently considered:
The parameter λ is an empirical factor, which usually takes the
- Reinforced concrete buildings: γ = Δ/H = 0.7–1%
value of 10 for simplified estimation of the fundamental period of frame
- Steel moment-resisting frames: γ = Δ/H = 1.0–1.5%
structures as suggested on page 72 of the ASCE/SEI 7–10. The general
- Reinforced Masonry buildings: γ = Δ/H = 0.2–0.4%
range of λ values is between 10 and 70, which can be deduced from the
data indicated in Fig. 9 [25] Alternatively, the height of the building, H,
Eq. (4) is also influenced by the parameter λ. A broad picture of this
can be assumed as the number of stories times 2.5 m (which is a
parameter can be obtained using the database of more than 2600
common height of stories). Accordingly, the fundamental period of the
concrete buildings with information correlating the height and funda-
structures is:
mental period of these structures presented by Guendelman et al. [29].
H The relation of building height, H, with the fundamental period, T, is
T= (seconds)
2.5 λ (4) shown in Fig. 9, where the structures are grouped according to the
stiffness index, H/T, as follows:
This expression is empirical and well accepted regardless of the
apparent dimensional inconsistency. Provided that it has been adopted
- Stiff buildings: H/T > 70 m/s, (λ > 28)
2.5 m as the story height, the total height of the building, H, must be in
- Normally stiff buildings: 70 > H/T > 40 m/s, (28 > λ > 16)
meters too. Additionally, the unit of the fundamental period, T, is
- Flexible buildings: H/T < 40 m/s, (λ < 16)
commonly in seconds. Therefore, the parameter λ must have units of 1/
s. Combining the lateral drift ratio, γ, (Eq. (2)) and the correlation
In this plot, the common relation, T = (number of stories) / 10, has
between the fundamental period and the height of the structure (Eq.
been added, considering the stories of 2.5 m height, which gives H/
(4)), the following expression relating the lateral drift displacement
T = 25 m/s. From this database, it is possible to realize that the
with the fundamental period of the structure is obtained:

7
R. Verdugo et al.
H / T = 150 (m/s)
Stiff
buildings
Fig. 9. Relation between fundamental period and height of Chilean reinforced concrete structures. (Slightly modified from Lagos et al. [25]).
structural design allows the control of the lateral stiffness of a structure,
which can be visualized through the parameter λ or the stiffness index,
H/T, defined by Guendelman [30].
The same concept of correlating the fundamental period, T, of a
structure with its height, H, has been developed for steel moment-re-
sisting frame structures. The empirical correlation proposed by the
ASCE7 is:
T = 0.0724(H)0.8
Similarly, with reinforced masonry, the empirical correlation to
estimate their fundamental period is given by:
T = H /70; (this meansl λ = 28)
This concept is applied to the records of the 2010 Maule earthquake
for three levels of structural stiffness (λ = 10, 16 and 28) of a re-
inforced concrete structure, and a drift threshold deformation of 1%.
Fig. 10 shows the spectral displacements obtained from the acceleration
records grouped according to the level of expected damage due to the
exceedance of the established drift threshold deformation. Fig. 10a
presents the seismic stations in the cities of Concepcion, Constitucion,
Viña del Mar, and Maipú, where the spectral displacements exceed the
thresholds defined for flexible structures (λ = 10). In addition, the
station of Concepcion also exceeds the limits for stiffer structures
(λ = 16). Fig. 10b presents the seismic stations of several cities which
spectral displacement is close to – but below – the drift limit. In Fig. 10c
are grouped all those stations where no exceedance of the limits was
obtained.
The evidence left by the 2010 Maule Earthquake is that the areas
that presented the most severe damage were in the cities of Concepcion,
Viña del Mar, Constitución, and Maipú, which is in good agreement
with the results shown in Fig. 10a. Similarly, significant less damage
was observed in cities where no exceedance of the threshold limits is
observed as shown in Fig. 10b and c.
Considering that the threshold deformation, or Spectral Threshold
Displacement (Eq. (5) with γ = 1%), is associated with a limit or a
frontier beyond which the structure has a non-linear response, and
some level of damage, it is valid to apply this concept to the pseudo-
acceleration response spectrum. These two spectra are related each
other as follows:
4π 2 4π 2 2.5∙λ∙T π 2λ
Sa = ω2∙Sd = Sd = 2 ∙ = carried out. Also, they can be modified an enlarged by increasing the
T 2 T 100 10T
Fig. 11 shows the pseudo-acceleration response spectra for the
Maule Earthquake records and the limits as defined by Eq. (6). As ex-
pected, these results confirm the previous observations. It is interesting
the particular spectrum of Angol that presents the highest PGA (0.94 g),
and the highest amplification of Sa. However, no considerable damage
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H / T = 70 (m/s)
H / T = 40 (m/s)
Normal stiff
buildings
H /T = 25 (m/s)
Flexible
buildings
was observed in this location, which is in agreement with its pseudo
acceleration spectra below the limit defined by Eq. (6).
6. Seismic codes and stiffness requirements
The concept of spectral threshold acceleration, STA, derived from
the spectral threshold deformation, STD, is analyzed from the point of
(6) view of soil types addressed by the seismic codes of Chile, Japan,
Europe, and the USA. In each case, the highest seismic demand has been
adopted; for the EC8 a maximum rock acceleration of 0.5 g was used,
for the USA the worst scenario in Los Angeles, California was con-
sidered, which means the following spectral seismic parameters: Ss
(7)
= 2 g and S1 = 0.75 g, resulting in a maximum rock acceleration of
0.53 g (Site Class B - rock). In the case of Chile, seismic zone 3 was
adopted, which is associated with a maximum rock acceleration of
0.36 g.
In Fig. 12 are presented the pseudo-acceleration response spectra,
and the STA for reinforced concrete structures with three levels of
stiffness (λ = 10, 16, and 28). It can be observed that for rigid sites,
there are almost no requirements of stiffness, except in the case of
Japan for structures with a period greater than approximately 0.8 s.
Likewise, for soft sites, the stiffness requirements must be such that
λ > 16.
For the case of steel frame structures, Fig. 13 presents the pseudo-
acceleration response spectra, and the STA, considering as a limit de-
formation 1.5% of the height. It is important to mention that for steel
moment-resisting frame structure, the relationship between the funda-
mental period, T, and the height, H, is given by Eq. (6). Therefore, the
parameter λ is not required. The results show that according to the code
there are no special stiffness requirements for steel structures, even for
soft ground.
Fig. 14 shows the results for reinforced masonry, considering a limit
deformation 0.3% of the height. Taking into account that these type of
structures are short (in general less than 7 stories), the expected fun-
damental period is less than 0.3 s, and they should not present damage
if they are designed according to the code.
As a summary, in Fig. 15 are presented the obtained spectral
threshold accelerations for reinforced concrete, steel moment-resisting
frame, and reinforced masonry structures. These curves can be used as
frontiers of adequate performance when special seismic risk analysis are
(8)
global stiffness to the structures. It is important to mention that com-
plex structures with important changes in stiffness in the height and/or
with strong torsional component cannot be analyzed in terms of the
obtained STA. In any case, areas where mega-earthquakes are expected
to occur, structures should be conceived as regular as possible, avoiding
unnecessary human-induced complexities. It is important to add that
8
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

120 4
Constitución
Concepción
λ=10 λ=28 Constitución
Concepción
110 San Pedro λ=16 San Pedro
Stgo-Maipú Stgo-Maipú
100 Viña Centro Viña Centro
Viña El Salto Viña El Salto

90 3
80

70
Sd (cm)

Sa (g)
60 2
50

40

30 λ=28
1
λ=16
20
λ=10
10

0
0.1 1 3 0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s)
Period (s)
40
Hualañé
Matanzas
4
San José λ=10 Hualañé
Matanzas
Valpo. Almendral
San José
Valpo. Almendral

30 λ=16
3

λ=28
Sd (cm)

20
Sa (g)

2
λ=28
λ=16
λ=10
10
1

0
0.1 1 3
0
Period (s) 0.01 0.1 1 10
40 Period (s)
Angol
Casablanca
Curicó 4
Llolleo
Melipilla
λ=10 Angol
Casablanca
Stgo - Antumapu Curicó
Stgo - Centro Llolleo
30 Stgo - FCFM Melipilla
Stgo - FSR λ=16 Stgo - Antumapu
Stgo - Las Américas Stgo - Centro
Stgo - La Florida 3 Stgo - FCFM
Stgo - Peñalolen Stgo - FSR
Stgo - Puente Alto
Sd (cm)

Stgo - Las Américas

Talca Stgo - La Florida
20 Stgo - Peñalolen
Stgo - Puente Alto
Sa (g)

Talca
λ=28 2
λ=16
λ=28
λ=10
10

0
0.1 1 3
Period (s)
0
Fig. 10. Displacement response spectra Maule Earthquake and spectral threshold de- 0.01 0.1 1 10
formation (STD): a) STD is exceeded, b) STD is almost exceeded, c) STD is far of being Period (s)
exceeded.
Fig. 11. Pseudo-acceleration response spectra Maule Earthquake and spectral threshold
acceleration (STA): a) STA is exceeded, b) STA is almost exceeded, c) STA is far of being
exceeded.

9
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

2.0 2.0
λ=16 λ=28
ASCE7-10 (B)
EC-8 (A) λ=10 EC-8 (B)
1.5 λ=28 1.5
λ=16
λ=10 JAPAN (I) JAPAN (II)
Sa (g)

Sa (g)
TYPE 2 - I TYPE 2 - I
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
DS61 (B)
DS61 (A) ASCE7-10 (C)
0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (s) T (s)
2.0 2.0
λ=28 λ=16 λ=28
λ=16 λ=10
λ=10 EC-8 (C)
DS61 (E)
1.5 1.5

JAPAN (II) JAPAN (III)

Sa (g)

Sa (g)
TYPE 2 - I TYPE 2 - I
1.0 1.0

EC-8 (D)
0.5 0.5
ASCE7-10 (D)
ASCE7-10 (E)
DS61 (D)
0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (s) T (s)
Fig. 12. Design pseudo-acceleration response spectra of different codes and STA for reinforced concrete structures with three levels of stiffness, λ = 10, 16, and 28.

STA is the frontier in the spectral acceleration – period plane below
which undamaged behavior is expected. Its evaluation is directly de-
rived from the frontier established previously in the spectral displace-
ment – period plane.
7. Equivalent shear wave velocity and fundamental period
The parameter VS30 corresponds to the shear wave velocity that
reproduces the same propagation time of the upper 30 m of the soil
deposit, regardless of the sequence of the soil deposit layers, which is a
significant limitation to assess seismic response. For example, two
layers, one rigid and one soft, will have the same VS30, regardless of
their configuration. However, the seismic response is actually depen-
dent on the configuration, i.e., the impedance. When the rigid layer is
underlain by the soft layer, the latter acts as a seismic isolator, but when
the soft layer is underlain by the rigid layer, the seismic waves are
amplified due to the large impedance. An example showing the transfer
functions between the base and the surface of two stratigraphic profiles,
with identical VS30, but different layer sequence is presented in Fig. 16.
In the upper plot, a 10 m-thick layer with Vs = 150 m/s is on the sur-
face, while in the bottom plot, this layer is located at a depth of 20 m. It
can be observed how different the transfer functions are. With this
simple example, the significant effect of the sequence of the layers is
clear, which cannot be captured by the parameter VS30.
To overcome this condition, it would be convenient the use of an
equivalent shear wave velocity that reproduces the same stiffness of the
upper 30 m of the site. Therefore, it is proposed the use of a shear wave
velocity that reproduces the same fundamental period of the upper
30 m of the ground [7,31]. A 1D numerical model of the soil profile of
the upper 30 m of the ground, basically characterized by the thickness
and shear wave velocity of each layer existing in these 30 m and a
fictitious rigid base, is evaluated and the fundamental period, TF-30,
obtained. Then, the evaluation of the equivalent shear wave velocity,
VS30-E, is straightforward:
VS30 − E = 4*30/TF − 30. =120/TF − 3.
Regarding the fundamental period of soil deposits, the literature
provides vast evidence of the robustness of the Nakamura Method as an
estimator of this important site parameter (Nakamura [32]). This
technique is also known as the H/V spectral ratio, using ambient noise
vibrations, that works as a powerful tool that allows distinguishing rigid
and soft grounds; while soft grounds present a clear predominant fun-
damental period, expressed as peak in the plot of the H/V spectral ratio,
rigid grounds usually evidence a quite flat H/V spectral ratio, with no
clear peak [33].
8. Proposed site classification
During large or mega-earthquakes, rigid soil deposits such as rock
outcrops, cemented soils, or very dense gravels, present limited struc-
tural damages, although the large demand in terms of accelerations in a
certain range of frequencies. On the other hand, soft soil deposits such
as the clayey material of Mexico City, the bay mud of San Francisco, or
the sandy soils of Valparaíso, have shown a dramatic number of da-
maged structures, even collapse. This observation can be explained by
the large demand in terms of displacements. Given these consistent
observations and empirical evidence, the seismic site classification must
distinguish different sites according to similar seismic behavior.
Accordingly, a more refined site classification is proposed that takes

10
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

2.0 2.0
Δ/H=1.5% Δ/H=1.5%
ASCE7-10 (B) EC-8 (B)
1.5 EC-8 (A) 1.5

JAPAN (I) JAPAN (II)

Sa (g)

Sa (g)
1.0 TYPE 2 - I 1.0
TYPE 2 - I

0.5 0.5
DS61 (B)
DS61 (A) ASCE7-10 (C)
0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (s) T (s)

2.0 2.0
Δ/H=1.5% Δ/H=1.5%
EC-8 (C)
DS61 (E)
1.5 1.5

JAPAN (II) JAPAN (III)

Sa (g)

Sa (g)
1.0
TYPE 2 - I 1.0
TYPE 2 - I

EC-8 (D)
0.5 0.5
ASCE7-10 (D)
ASCE7-10 (E)
DS61 (D)
0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (s) T (s)
Fig. 13. Design pseudo-acceleration response spectra of different codes and STA for steel moment-resisting frame structures.

into account two ground conditions and, if necessary, one structural
requirement.
First, the classical shear wave velocity, VS30, is proposed to be re-
placed by the equivalent shear wave velocity, VS30-E, that reproduces
the lateral stiffness of the actual soil profile existing in the top 30 m of
the ground.
Second, it is evident that any seismic site characterization cannot be
exclusively based on the properties of the top 30 m. Thus, it is also
proposed to use a parameter that provides important information about
the seismic response of the entire soil deposit. This parameter is the
predominant period of the site, which can be estimated using ambient
vibrations measurements (H/V spectral ratio technique). The natural
question is how these two parameters are used for classifying a site. It is
proposed to maintain the current values of the shear wave velocity that
separate the different soil classes, or soil types, including a further
consideration for the predominant period, that permits a consistency
shear wave velocity.
In the case of a simple soil deposit of thickness, H, and characterized
by a shear wave velocity, VS, the fundamental period is 4 H/Vs. Table 5
presents the computed fundamental periods for the values of shear
wave velocities that separate each Site Class, considering a soil deposit
with layer thicknesses of 30, 35, and 40 m. If a site with a given shear
wave velocity of the upper 30 m, presents a predominant period (from
H/V spectral ratios) much higher than the fundamental periods shown
in the corresponding column of Table 5, it means that the soil deposit
has higher thickness and/or the shear wave velocity decreases below
the 30 m. As a result, the site class initially categorized by the shear
wave velocity of the upper 30 m is not compatible with the actual soil
conditions of the site. Therefore, to compensate the uncertainty of not
correctly knowing neither the soil deposit thickness neither the shear
wave velocity below 30 m, the higher fundamental period measured is
used as an argument to penalize the soil classification, decreasing in
one class the classification made based on shear wave velocity. These
criteria acknowledge that the predominant period plays a significant
role in the classification of the site, and it should be considered as ad-
ditional relevant information to support/modify the result obtained
using the shear wave velocity, provided there is no information for
depths below. The requested specific values of the predominant periods
that are proposed have been established taking into account the fun-
damental periods presented in Table 5.
An additional structural request is introduced in the proposed site
classification. According to the concept developed above, associated
with the Spectral Threshold Displacement, STD, flexible structures are
strongly demanded when they are placed on soft soil. Therefore, in the
case of site constituted by soft soils, a minimum structural stiffness is
requested.
The proposed site classification is summarized in Table 6. Rock
outcrops present the best seismic behavior. Therefore, massive rock can
be classified as Site Class A, the best material, and characterized by
shear wave velocities greater than 800 m/s in the upper 30 m.
Soil deposits with high rigidity may have fundamental periods
smaller than the order of 0.3 s, and shear wave velocities greater over
500 m/s. Therefore, a Site Class B is proposed, with properties VS30-
E > 500 m/s, and predominant period of T < 0.3 s.
Using the site classification established by the Chilean code DS61,
Site Class A and B would generate low seismic demand when a large
earthquake hits an area. This statement is also supported by the dif-
ferent codes, as is shown in Figs. 12–14, where even flexible structures

11
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

2.0 2.0
λ=28 λ=28
Δ/H=0.3% Δ/H=0.3% EC-8 (B)
ASCE7-10 (B)
1.5 EC-8 (A) 1.5

JAPAN (I) JAPAN (II)

Sa (g)

Sa (g)
1.0 TYPE 2 - I 1.0
TYPE 2 - I

0.5 0.5
DS61 (B)
DS61 (A) ASCE7-10 (C)
0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (s) T (s)
2.0 2.0
λ=28 λ=28
Δ/H=0.3% Δ/H=0.3%
EC-8 (C)
DS61 (E)
1.5 1.5

JAPAN (II) JAPAN (III)

Sa (g)

Sa (g)
TYPE 2 - I TYPE 2 - I
1.0 1.0

EC-8 (D)
0.5 0.5
ASCE7-10 (D)
ASCE7-10 (E)
DS61 (D)
0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (s) T (s)
Fig. 14. Design pseudo-acceleration response spectra of different codes and STA for reinforced masonry structures.

2.0 Site Class E corresponds to soft soils with VS30-E of less than 180 m/s.
Steel Building Site Class D and E are the most seismically demanding sites, and
Δ/H=1.5% therefore, must be analyzed carefully. Site Class E may have a pre-
1.5 dominant period greater than 0.8 s. For this case, it is required that
Concrete Building reinforced concrete structures satisfy criteria of minimum stiffness,
λ=16 which can be achieved by the parameter λ. The following values of λ
Δ/H=1%
Sa (g)

are proposed in sites Class E when reinforced concrete structure are

1.0
designed:

a) Fundamental Period: TF < 1.5 s, it requires λ ≥ 16

0.5 b) Fundamental Period: TF ≥ 1.5 s, it requires λ ≥ 28
Masonry Building
λ=28 Site Class F considers those sites with singular geological-geo-
Δ/H=0.3% technical conditions such as liquefiable soil, peats, quick clays, collap-
0.0
sible soils, expansive soils, and saline soils.
0 1 2 3 4 The main parameter to classify a site is the equivalent shear wave
T (s) velocity of the upper 30 m of the site, VS30-E. Then, the predominant
period, TH/V, is an additional parameter used to confirm the classifi-
Fig. 15. Spectral thresholds acceleration curves for common structures classified as re-
cation. If the required predominant period is not satisfied, then, the
inforced concrete, steel moment-resisting frame and reinforced masonry.
resulting Site Class is degraded one class in Table 6.
To show the capability of the proposed site classification,
satisfy the codes. Figs. 17–19 show the response spectra of various sites that were com-
Semi-rigid sites can be defined by shear wave velocities in the range puted using the records of the 2010 Maule Earthquake. The Concepción
of 300–500 m/s, with fundamental periods that may range between 0.3 site consists of approximately 110 m of a sandy soil deposit with
and 0.5 s. Consequently, a Site Class C is proposed, with properties VS30- shallow water table (around 3–6 m). The Peñalolen site is a non-satu-
E > 300 m/s and a predominant period less than 0.5 s. rated clayey soil of 24 m thickness, underlain by dense gravel materials.
Site Class D relates to medium to low rigidity soil deposits, char- Concepción and Peñalolen sites present VS30-E of 240 and 290 m/s, re-
acterized by VS30-E over 180 m/s, and a predominant period of less than spectively. Hence, and based on only using the shear wave velocities of
0.8 s. the upper 30 m, these sites would classify as Site Class D (Chilean Code

12
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

150m/s 10m

550m/s 20m

700m/s 50m

550m/s 20m

150m/s 10m

700m/s Fig. 17. Response spectra of Concepcion and Peñalolen sites, evaluated from records of
50m
Maule Earthquake.

4 ANGOL
Vs30-E =422 m/s
3.5 TH/V =0.19 s

Fig. 16. Transfer functions of different sequence of soil layers in the upper 30 m of a soil
2.5
Sa (g)

deposit [29].
2 CASABLANCA
Vs30-E =341 m/s
Table 5 T H/V =0.59 s
Fundamental period of soil deposits with thickness of 30, 35, and 40 m.
1.5
Site Class VS (m/s) TF- 30 m (s) TF- 35 m (s) TF- 40 m (s) 1
A 800 0.15 0.18 0.20
B 500 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.5
C 300 0.40 0.47 0.53
D 180 0.67 0.78 0.89 0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Table 6 Periodo (s)
Proposed Seismic Site Classification.
Fig. 18. Response spectra of Angol and Casablanca sites, evaluated from records of Maule
Site Class General soil VS30-E TH/V structural Earthquake.
description (m/s) (s) request

A Rock ≥ 800 / In the case of the sites of Angol, with VS30-E = 422 m/s, and
B Very dense soils ≥ 500 < 0.30 (or Casablanca, with VS30-E = 341 m/s, they would initially be classified as
flat)
Site Class C. However, when the predominant period is included, and
C Dense, firm soils ≥ 300 < 0.50 (or
flat) similar to the case stated above, the site Casablanca must be re-classi-
D Medium-dense or ≥ 180 < 0.80 fied as Site Class D. As it can be observed, the computed spectra show
medium-firm soils better agreement with the proposed classification.
E Soft soils < 180 / RC structures The sites of Talca and Constitución present VS30-E of 787 and 508 m/
a) TF structure < 1.5 s
λ ≥ 16
s, respectively, and therefore, they would be classified as Site Class B.
b) TF structure ≥ 1.5 s However, when the predominant period is included, the site of
λ ≥ 28 Constitución, with a predominant period, T = 0.48 s, has to be re-
F Special soils – classified as Site Class C, which is in a better concordance with the
observed response spectra and along the lines of the previous cases.
RC: Reinforced Concrete; TF structure: Fundamental Period of the structure.
For λ see Eq. (3).
It has been shown that displacements reflect better than accelera-
tions the level of seismic demand. Accordingly, for the previous sites,
DS61). However, if the predominant periods are considered, the site of the corresponding elastic displacement spectra are presented in
Concepción, with period TH/V = 1.4 s, needs to be modified as this Figs. 20–22, respectively. It is observed that, in terms of displacements,
value suggests that below 30 m the soil deposit is very deep or that the the proposed soil classification is better than the current one that does
shear wave velocity dramatically decreases. Therefore, it should be not consider the predominant period of the ground. For the site class E,
classified as Site Class E, which is in good agreement with the computed the Chilean code (DS61) does not provide a design displacement
spectra. spectrum and a particular numerical analysis for the site is required. For

13
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

4.0

3.5 CONSTITUCIÓN
VS30-E = 508 (m/s)
3.0 TH/V=0.48 (s)

2.5 TALCA
Sa (g)

VS30-E =787 (m/s)

2.0 TH/V=0.14 (s)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s)
Fig. 19. Response spectra of Talca and Constitución sites, evaluated from records of
Maule Earthquake. Fig. 21. Elastic displacement spectra of Angol and Casablanca sites, evaluated from re-
cords of Maule Earthquake and design spectra of site classes C and D.

Fig. 20. Elastic displacement spectra of Concepcion and Peñalolen sites, evaluated from
records of Maule Earthquake and design spectra of site class D.
the site of Concepcion (Figs. 17 and 20), if its classification is based only
on the shear wave velocity, it would be classified as site class D, and the
spectral displacements would be seriously underestimated for struc-
tures with fundamental period greater than 1.3 s. The incorporation of
the predominant period of the ground permits to re-classify Concepcion
as site class E, which is certainly closer its actual seismic behavior.
9. Concluding remarks
Chile is permanently subjected to a substantial number of severe
earthquakes, and therefore, the deterministic seismic hazard is more
appropriate to estimate the worst and actual Chilean seismic scenario.
In this context, the Maule Earthquake (Mw = 8.8) is an appropriate
reference to define the most likely seismic disturbance that may hit the
Chilean territory, according to the framework of the subduction of
Nazca plate.
Two useful spectral parameters are developed and presented, which
relate to both the stiffness and drift of structures; the Spectral Threshold
Fig. 22. Elastic displacement spectra of Talca and Constitución sites, evaluated from
records of Maule Earthquake and design spectra of site classes B and C.
Displacement (STD) and Spectral Threshold Acceleration (STA). These
parameters set a framework to define tolerable displacements and po-
tential structural damage, highlighting the relevance of the displace-
ment spectrum with structural damage observed during large earth-
quakes. Also, the analysis of the new spectral variables with respect to
the response spectra defined by the seismic codes of Chile, Japan,
Europe, and the USA explicitly show that local properties/conditions of
soil deposits define the damage caused by large earthquakes.
The results set the context to propose a new methodology that uses
both the “Equivalent VS30-E” and the natural vibration period TH/V of
the site as the key components to classify sites for seismic design. The
classification distinguishes different types of sites according to similar
seismic behavior, based on the consistent observations and empirical
evidence observed during the 2010 Maule Earthquake. The final pro-
duct is a criterion that defines six soil types, identified from A to F.

14
R. Verdugo et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Acknowledgements Standardization; 2004.

[16] ASCE/SEI. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures [Third
Printing, Revised commentary]. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2013.
The authors acknowledge the valuable help and strong collabora- [17] Towhata I. Personal Communication; 2016.
tion provided by the colleagues of the Geotechnical Consulting Office, [18] Decreto Supremo No. 61. Diseño Sísmico se Edificios. 2 de Noviembre de (in
CMGI Ltda. Spanish); 2011.
[19] Luco N, Valley M, Crouse C. Earthquake ground motion. NEHRP Recomm Seism
Provis 2009. [FEMA P-752].
References [20] Comte D, Eisenberg A, Lorca E, Pardo M, Ponce L, Saragoni R, Singh K, Suaréz G.
The 1985 Central Chile earthquake: a repeat of previous great earthquakes in the
region? Science 1986;233.
[1] de Ballore Montessus. Seismic history of southern Los Andes south of parallel 16″.
[21] Lomnitz C. Major earthquakes of Chile: a historical survey, 1535 – 1960. Seismol
Santiago, Chile: Cervantes Barcelona press; 1911. [In Spanish].
Res Lett 2004;75(3).
[2] Seed HB, Ugas C, Lysmer J. Site-dependent spectra for earthquake-resistance design.
[22] Udias R, Madariaga R, Buforn E, Muñoz D, Ros M. The Large Chilean Historical
Bull Seismol Soc Am 1976;66(1):221–43.
Earthquakes of 1647, 1657, 1730, and 1751 from Contemporary Documents. Bull
[3] Pitilakis K, Anastasiadis A. Soil and site characterization for seismic response ana-
Seismol Soc Am 2012;102(4):1639–53.
lysis. XI ECEE, Paris, Invit Lect 1998:65–90.
[23] Borcherdt R, Gibbs J. Effects of local geological conditions in the San Francisco Bay
[4] Borcherdt R. Effect of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay. Bull
region on ground motions and the intensities of the 1906 earthquake. Bull Seismol
Seismol Soc Am 1970;60(1):29–61.
Soc Am 1976;66(2):467–500.
[5] Seed HB, Romo M, Sun J, Jaime A, Lysmer J. The Mexico earthquake of September
[24] Borcherdt RD. Estimates of site‐dependent response spectra for design (metho-
19, 1985 – relationships between soil conditions and earthquake ground motions.
dology and justification). Earthq Spectra 1994;10(4):617–53.
Earthq Spectra 1988;4(4):687–729.
[25] Lagos R, Kupfer M, Lindenberg J, Bonelli P, Saragoni R, Guendelman T, Massone L,
[6] Singh SK, Lermo J, Dominguez T, Ordaz M, Espinosa JM, Mena E, Quaas R. The
Boroschek R, Yañez F. Seismic performance of high-rise concrete buildings In Chile.
Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985 – a study of amplification of seismic
Int J High-Rise Build 2012;1(3):181–94.
waves in the Valley of Mexico with respect to a hill zone site. Earthq Spectra
[26] American Red Cross Multidisciplinary Team. Report on the Chilean Earthquake and
1988;4:653–73.
Tsunami Response. U.S. Geological Survey. .2011. Open-File Report 2011–1053,
[7] Verdugo R. Seismic site classification. Plenary keynote. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
version 1.1; 2010.
international conference on performance-based design in earthquake geotechnical
[27] Risk Management Solution, Inc., RMI. The 2010 Maule, Chile Earthquake: Lessons
engineering. Vancouver, Canada.
and Future Challenges; 2011. 〈http://www.rms.com〉.
[8] Trenkamp R, Kellogg JN, Freymueller JT, Mora HP. Wide plate margin deformation,
[28] Assimaki D, Ledezma C, Montalva G, Tassara A, Mylonakis G, Boroschek R. Site
southern Central America and northwestern South America, CASA GPS observa-
effects and damage patterns. Earthq Spectra 2012;28(1):S55–74.
tions. J South Am Earth Sci 2002;15(2):157–71.
[29] Moehle J. Displacement based design of RC structures. In: Proceedings of the 10th
[9] Pardo‐Casas F, Molnar P. Relative motion of the Nazca (Farallon) and South
world conference on earthquake engineering.
American plates since Late Cretaceous time. Tectonics 1987;6(3):233–48.
[30] Guendelman T, Lindenberg J. Cambio en solicitaciones sísmicas en edificios.
[10] 〈www.tectonics.caltech.edu/slip_history〉.
Seminario efectos del terremoto en el nuevo diseño sísmico y estructural en Chile.
[11] Strasser FO, Arango MC, Bommer JJ. Scaling of the source dimensions of interface
Nov. Instituto Chileno del Hormigón; 2010.
and intraslab subduction-zone earthquakes with moment magnitude. Seismol Res
[31] Verdugo R, Peters G. Seismic soil classification and elastic response spectra. In:
Lett 2010;81(6).
Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, 16WCEE
[12] Abrahamson N, Silva W, Kamai R. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation
Santiago Chile; 2017.
for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 2014;30(3):1025–55.
[32] Verdugo R, Pastén C. Seismic source and its effect on site response observed in
[13] Bolt BA. Duration of strong ground motion. In: Proceedings of the 5th WCEE, Rome,
Chilean subductive environment. In: Proceedings of the 6th internatinal conference
Italy; 1973.
on case histories in geotechnical engineering. Arlington, USA; 2008.
[14] González J, Verdugo R. Estimation of the duration of seismic records. In:
[33] Nakamura Y. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using
Proceedings IX Chilean conference on geotechnical engineering, Valdivia Chile (in
microtremor on the ground surface. Railw Tech Res Inst Q Rep 1989;30(1).
Spanish); 2016.
[15] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. European Committee for

15