Postearthquake Reconnaissance Report on Transportation Infrastructure Impact of the February 27, 2010, Offshore Maule Earthquake in Chile PublICaTIOn nO. FHWa-HRT-11-030 OctobER 2011 Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 FOREWORD On February 27, 2010, a devastating magnitude 8.8 earthquake struck off the coast of the Maule region of Chile, affecting a large area that included Chile’s two most populated cities: Concepción and Santiago, the Chilean capital. A transportation infrastructure reconnaissance team (TIRT) was organized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and performed a thorough postearthquake investigation of highway infrastructure from April 4 to 13, 2010. TIRT was assisted by Chile’s Ministry of Public Works and two local universities: Pontifical Catholic University of Chile and University of Chile, both located in Santiago. This report presents the preliminary findings of the earthquake’s effects on the transportation infrastructure, including bridges and other highway structures that the team visited during the reconnaissance. This project was funded by FHWA’s Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment program. Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz Director, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HRT-11-030 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Post-Earthquake Reconnaissance Report on Transportation Infrastructure: October 2011 Impact of the February 27, 2010, Offshore Maule Earthquake in Chile 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Wen-Huei Phillip Yen, Genda Chen, Ian Buckle, Tony Allen, Daniel Alzamora, Jeffrey Ger, and Juan G. Arias 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center Federal Highway Administration 11. Contract or Grant No. 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101 Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology 1401 N. Pine St., Rolla, MO 65409 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Nevada Reno 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV 89557 State Materials Laboratory Washington State Department of Transportation P.O. Box 47365, Olympia, WA 98504 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Final Report: Federal Highway Administration December 2009–Present 6300 Georgetown Pike 14. Sponsoring Agency Code McLean, VA 22101-2296 15. Supplementary Notes The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) was W. Phillip Yen, HRDI-50. 16. Abstract This report documents the findings and lessons learned from the February 27, 2010, M8.8 offshore Maule earthquake in Chile. Fewer than 0.15 percent of the bridges in Chile’s inventory, most built after 1995, collapsed or suffered damage that rendered them useless. Many spans of precast prestressed discontinuous girder bridges with continuous decks fell off their supports, probably due to significant in-plane rotation of the superstructure as a result of severe shaking. Lateral steel stoppers used to provide both vertical and lateral restraints on girders were largely unsuccessful due to their inadequate connection detail to cap beams and abutments. Reinforced concrete shear keys performed well as fuses limiting the transfer of excessive seismic loads from the superstructure to the foundation of bridges even though they could be optimized for maximum energy dissipation as part of the lateral restraint system at the bottom flange of girders. Vertical seismic bars were widely used to restrain the vertical motion of decks, and they also performed well. Bridge substructures (foundation, column, and cap beam) generally behaved satisfactorily except for two columns that suffered shear failure due to ground settlement and lateral spreading. All mechanically stabilized earth walls exceeded the expected performance. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Seismic performance, Bridge damage, Superstructure rotation, Retaining No restrictions. This document is available wall, Soil liquefaction, Lateral spreading to the public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Road Alexandria, VA 22312 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 214 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 ILLUMINATION fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2 *SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................1 1.2 THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE RECONNAISSANCE TEAM ....4 1.2.1 Objective .....................................................................................................................4 1.2.2 Team Members ...........................................................................................................4 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................5 CHAPTER 2. GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GROUND MOTIONS .............................7 2.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................7 2.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY ...................................................................................7 2.3 GROUND MOTIONS .....................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 3. OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE PERFORMANCE AND SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN CHILE ...................................................................................................23 3.1 OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE PERFORMANCE .............................................................23 3.1.1 Damage Statistics ......................................................................................................23 3.1.2 Bridges Visited By Reconnaissance Team ...............................................................23 3.1.3 Damage Summary .....................................................................................................26 3.2. SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR BRIDGES ...........................................27 CHAPTER