IMPACT PROOF PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR THE

MARINE BIOLOGY STATION IN DICHATO

2016/2017

PART II
DESIGN
2 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft
Contents
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... 5
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 6
5 Design process ................................................................................................................................ 7
6 Preliminary design: Jetty ............................................................................................................... 8
6.1 Design Approach .................................................................................................................... 8
6.1.1. Configurations ................................................................................................................ 8
6.2 Structural design................................................................................................................... 10
6.2.1 Structural Configuration .............................................................................................. 10
6.2.2 Material properties ....................................................................................................... 11
6.2.3 First step: dimensioning ............................................................................................... 11
6.2.4 Load cases...................................................................................................................... 12
6.2.5 Load combinations ....................................................................................................... 13
6.2.6 Final design: Foundations ............................................................................................ 15
6.2.7 Final design: Beams ...................................................................................................... 22
6.2.8 Final design: Deck ........................................................................................................ 23
6.1.8 Final design: Drawings ................................................................................................. 24
7 Preliminary Design: Breakwater ................................................................................................. 25
7.1 Design process ...................................................................................................................... 25
7.2 Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 26
7.2.1 Offshore wave characteristics ...................................................................................... 26
7.2.2 Onshore wave characteristics ...................................................................................... 27
7.2.3 Crest height................................................................................................................... 28
7.2.4 Stone dimensions .......................................................................................................... 28
7.2.5 Breakwater design ........................................................................................................ 28
7.2.6 Differences with first iteration .................................................................................... 30
7.2.7 Deformation and pore pressures: PLAXIS2D .............................................................. 30
8 Preliminary Design: Onshore Facilities ...................................................................................... 32
8.1 EBMD building ..................................................................................................................... 32
8.1.1 Chilean principles......................................................................................................... 32
8.1.2 Approach....................................................................................................................... 32
8.2 Pavement .............................................................................................................................. 34

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 3

 8.2.1 Current pavement and design criteria......................................................................... 34
8.2.2 Design methodology..................................................................................................... 35
8.2.3 Pavement design........................................................................................................... 35
8.2.4 Compaction and drainage ............................................................................................ 35
9 Extreme Impact Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 36
9.1 Approach............................................................................................................................... 36
9.1.1 Geohazard Analysis ...................................................................................................... 36
9.2 Earthquake damage .............................................................................................................. 38
9.2.1 Jetty ............................................................................................................................... 38
9.2.2 Breakwater .................................................................................................................... 39
9.2.3 Onshore structures ....................................................................................................... 40
9.3 Tsunami damage ................................................................................................................... 43
9.3.1 Jetty ............................................................................................................................... 45
9.3.2 Breakwater .................................................................................................................... 48
9.3.3 Onshore structures ....................................................................................................... 53
9.4 Summary of risks and mitigation......................................................................................... 55
9.4.1 Jetty ............................................................................................................................... 55
9.4.2 Breakwater .................................................................................................................... 55
9.4.3 Onshore structures ....................................................................................................... 56
10 Construction Process ................................................................................................................ 57
10.1 Dredging ............................................................................................................................... 57
10.2 Construction timeline .......................................................................................................... 58
11 Cost Breakdown ....................................................................................................................... 60
12 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 61
12.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 61
12.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 62
References ............................................................................................................................................. 65

4 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5-1: Flow diagram for jetty and breakwater design process ..................................................................... 7
Figure 6-1: Three configurations [source: lecture Prof. Dechent] ....................................................................... 9
Figure 6-2: Macro Duplas ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6-3: Macro Flexural .................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6-4: Marco Aislado ................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 6-5: Definitive structural configuration .................................................................................................. 11
Figure 6-6: Individual load cases ......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 6-7: Configuration permanent loads ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 6-8: Configuration live loads .................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6-9: SPT blow count with depth for start and end of jetty, and for excavated top soils ....................... 19
Figure 6-10: Liquefaction Potential in depth and required liquefaction potential values (F.O.S. = 1.2) ......... 19
Figure 6-11: Design concrete deck and reinforcement (units in mm) .............................................................. 23
Figure 6-12: Principle detail of the connection jetty-abutment ........................................................................ 24
Figure 7-1: Flow diagram for breakwater design process .................................................................................. 25
Figure 7-2: Breakwater principle ........................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 7-3: Ultimate Limit State, Outcome Delft3D, , more detail from left to right ...................................... 27
Figure 7-4: Serviceability Limit State with north-western waves, Outcome Delft3D, more detail from left to
right ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 7-5: Dimensions of breakwater in [mm] ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 7-6: 3D visualisation of breakwater design. The waves are perpendicular on the breakwater, with their
origin at the bottom of the figure........................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 8-1: Location of redevelopment building ................................................................................................ 32
Figure 8-2: Current situation Figure 8-3: Strip to basic structure .............................................................. 33
Figure 8-4: Rebuild structural frame Figure 8-5: Apply stability elements ............................................... 33
Figure 8-6: Apply light-weight dividers Figure 8-7: Construct additional shallow foundation ................ 33
Figure 8-8: Construct independent frame Figure 8-9: Apply robust core .................................................. 33
Figure 8-10: Construct stable walls, floor and roof Figure 8-11: Final principle design ............................. 33
Figure 8-12: Overview infrastructure Marine Biology Station .......................................................................... 34
Figure 9-1: Overview of potential geohazards at Marine Biology Station ........................................................ 37
Figure 9-2: Relationship between volumetric strain and shear wave velocity for a given factor of safety against
liquefaction with limiting volumetric strain ...................................................................................................... 42
Figure 9-3: Impression of dynamic compaction method used to mitigate liquefaction ................................... 42
Figure 9-4: Sea level elevation during the tsunami of February 2010 (Martinez & Aranguiz, 2016) .............. 43
Figure 9-5 Inundation area obtained in the numerical simulation (Martinez & Aranguiz, 2016)................... 43
Figure 9-6: Configuration of tsunami loads ........................................................................................................ 46
Figure 9-6: Deformation combination TC2 ........................................................................................................ 46
Figure 9-7: Illustration of breakwater damage level .......................................................................................... 49
Figure 9-8: Estimate of damage level (Esteban, et al., 2013) .............................................................................. 51
Figure 9-9: Orientation-independent failure -probability of mass failure of the slope (Hack, 2003) .............. 54
Figure 9-10: Orientationy-dependent failure -probability of sliding failure for each discontinuity set ......... 54
Figure 10-1: Depth contours before dredging .................................................................................................... 57
Figure 10-2: Depth contours after dredging ....................................................................................................... 57
Figure 10-3: Project construction timeline ......................................................................................................... 59

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 5

 LIST OF TABLES
Table 6-1: Dimensions of structural elements .................................................................................................... 11
Table 6-2: General load cases .............................................................................................................................. 14
Table 6-3: General load combinations applicable to steel structure .................................................................. 14
Table 6-4: Load combinations applicable to concrete elements ........................................................................ 15
Table 6-5: Foundation dimensioning results ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 6-6: Characteristics of DELMAG D-12 pile driving rig, [source: www.hammersteel.com]................... 16
Table 6-7: Deformation requirements for geotechnical structures ................................................................... 17
Table 6-8: Ultimate pile settlements for vertical piles ....................................................................................... 17
Table 6-9: Governing forces -inclined piles ........................................................................................................ 20
Table 6-10: Governing forces -straight piles ....................................................................................................... 21
Table 6-11: Profile properties - Ø362/10 (Instituto Chileno del Acero, 2000) .................................................. 21
Table 6-12: Governing forces -beams ................................................................................................................. 22
Table 6-13: Profile properties -H300x150x45.8 (Instituto Chileno del Acero, 2000) ....................................... 22
Table 6-14: Properties concrete deck and reinforcement .................................................................................. 23
Table 7-1: Offshore wave heights, outcome for a narrow (NW and SW) and broad (NW-N and S-W) angle 26
Table 7-2: with translated wave heights (ULS and SLS) onshore. ..................................................................... 27
Table 7-3: Design breakwater .............................................................................................................................. 28
Table 8-1: Material for pavement layers ............................................................................................................. 35
Table 9-1: Summary of liquefaction potential calculation for onshore soil ...................................................... 41
Table 9-2. Tsunami forces acting on the jetty. ................................................................................................... 44
Table 9-3: Tsunami forces acting on the breakwater ......................................................................................... 45
Table 9-4: General tsunami load combinations .................................................................................................. 45
Table 9-5: Input for Hudson formula .................................................................................................................. 50
Table 9-6: Input for Van der Meer formula ........................................................................................................ 50
Table 9-7: Results from Hudson formula ............................................................................................................ 51
Table 11-1: Cost breakdown of design proposal ................................................................................................. 60

6 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

5 DESIGN PROCESS
Part II: Design presents the design of all relevant elements of the Marine Biology Station as
determined in the problem analysis. These elements include 1) a jetty according to the ‘Traditional’
option presented in Part I: Analysis; 2) a breakwater, also corresponding to the ‘Traditional’ option;
3) the deteriorated EMBD building which requires reconfiguration; and 4) pavement connecting
the jetty to the infrastructure of Dichato.

The onshore structures are not the focus of this project; thus they are not developed past the rule-
of-thumb stage. The jetty and the breakwater, on the other hand, are designed in phases, moving
from dimensioning to a more detailed design. Iterations are carried out to adjust dimensions so as to
avoid under- or over dimensioning. The scope, however, of the overall design which is presented
for the Marine Biology Station, is limited to a preliminary design. A definitive design will require
further iteration and detailing of connections and installations. Figure 5-1 illustrates the design
process which is adopted.

Figure 5-1: Flow diagram for jetty and breakwater design process

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 7

6 PRELIMINARY DESIGN: JETTY
For the dimensioning of the jetty and its foundation piles, consult Appendix E.

6.1 DESIGN APPROACH

According to the traditional design, as can be seen in the reference project in Coliumo (Appendix
C), a steel-concrete structural design will be made consisting of:

· Round and hollow steel piles;

· Steel H-beams and;
· Concrete deck, cast in-situ.

Professor of Strcutural Mechanics of UdeC, Dr. Dechent, presented several configurations during
his lecture of December 1, 2016. The three configurations that will be looked at in more detail in
Chapter 6.1.1.

The first step in the structural design approach is to estimate the configuration and dimensioning
of all structural element using rules of thumb.

Secondly, all load cases and load combinations will be defined apart from the earthquake actions,
using multiple Chilean building standards. When all input has been determined, a model will be
constructed with CSI software ETABS (ETABS, 2016). This program derives the self-weight and
the fundamental period needed to calculate the seismic load.

The following step is to apply all the load combinations, including seismic loads, in the program
ETABS and to derive the pile forces that can be used for the foundation design. After estimating the
minimum required pile dimensions, unity checks can be performed for all structural elements. Based
on these unity checks, it can be found out whether elements are over or under dimensioned. When
it is decided to change element dimension, it is necessary to redo the unity checks.

6.1.1. CONFIGURATIONS
So, the basic idea of the jetty design exists of a reinforced concrete deck placed on steel piles. Some
of these piles need to be placed under an angle so horizontal forces acting on the jetty can be
transferred to the soil. Three different configurations will be further investigated, as were presented
to us by Prof. Dechent during his lecture on earthquake design of December 6, 2016. These three
configurations are called Marco Duplas, Marco Flexural, and Marco Aislado. The basic designs of
these configurations are illustrated in Figure 6-1.

8 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

 Figure 6-1: Three configurations [source: lecture Prof. Dechent]

(a) Marco Duplas (b) Marco Flexural (c) Marco Aislado

The first configuration is the Marco Duplas. The basic principle of this configuration is the use of
pairs of inclined piles where necessary. Figure 6-2 shows this configuration applied to the jetty.

Figure 6-2: Macro Duplas

The second configuration is very similar to the first one. However, the difference consists of the use
of singular inclined piles instead of the pairs of inclined piles. The structure becomes more ductile
and dissipate some of the seismic energy it may be exposed to. Figure 6-3 shows this configuration
applied to the jetty.

Figure 6-3: Macro Flexural

The third and last configuration which will be researched further, is a relatively new system that is
being applied more and more all over Chile. In this system, an additional rigid frame has to be
applied on top of the piles. The isolator will then be placed in between this rigid frame and the steel
beam framework. In service conditions, the isolator acts as a bearing whereas in seismic conditions,
most of the displacement will be concentrated in the isolation layer. The structure will “sway” more
softly compared to the non-isolated structure. The structural damage will be minimized and the
operation of the structure can be continued even during and right after the seismic event (Canam
Group, 2016). Figure 6-4 shows this configuration applied to the jetty.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 9

 Figure 6-4: Marco Aislado

6.2 STRUCTURAL DESIGN

6.2.1 STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION
Three structural configurations are considered: Marco Duplas, Marco Flexural, and Marco Aislado.

Unfortunately, the last configuration will not be an option because for this type of jetty the isolators
will not act in an effective way. A more comprehensive explanation can be found in Appendix G.1
(Bustos, 2016). After excluding the Marco Aislado configuration, models are created for Marco
Duplas and Marco Flexural using software ETABS (ETABS, 2016). After researching the two
different configurations, the following things emerged:

· The fundamental period of the Marco Duplas and the Marco Flexural configuration is 0.23 and
1.35 seconds, respectively.
· As mentioned before, the fundamental period is dependent on the stiffness and the mass of the
system. Because the mass of the structure is small, the stiffness should be small too in order to
achieve this relatively high fundamental period. The low stiffness results in too high
deformations compared to the size of the jetty.
In Chilean construction practice periods of less than 0.5 seconds are commonly recommended
for this type of structure.
· The stairs are positioned outside the structure, whereby they are exposed to high (impact) loads
from, for example, the vessel.
· The inclined piles are sticking out of the concrete deck, whereby they are directly subjected to
high (impact) loads too.

For these reasons and after deliberation with UDEC professors, it is decided to come with an adjusted
design for the jetty which overcomes the previously mentioned “problems”.

The adjusted design includes a third row of steel piles which are located in longitudinal direction,
in between the two existing rows of piles. First of all, this row of piles will increase the stiffness of
the structure. Secondly, the middle row of piles provides the possibility of placing the inclined piles
in this row so they will not stick out of the concrete deck anymore. The number and configuration
of the inclined piles is extensively analysed using software ETABS (ETABS, 2016) to find an
appropriate fundamental period in both x- and y-direction. As described in paragraph 6.1.1.1, this
period should be lower than 0.5 seconds. The final configuration of the jetty is displayed in Figure
6-5.

10 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

 Figure 6-5: Definitive structural configuration

As can be seen from Figure 6-5, the stairs are now situated inside the concrete deck. As a result, a
framework can easily be created in front of the stairs which will partly protect the stairs from being
exposed to high (impact) loads. The frame exists of two longitudinal beams which will be attached
to the piles on which rubber defenders are fixed (Sandoval Munoz, 2010). By applying these rubber
defenders, the impact load from the vessel can be reduced.

Further, bollards can easily be placed on the concrete deck so loads on the bollards can directly be
transferred to the piles underneath them.

Lastly, a triangular shaped part is added at the left-hand side of the concrete deck. This part is
necessary to guarantee a good connection between the jetty and the concrete abutment.

6.2.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

From the dimensioning in Appendix E.1, it becomes clear that two main types of materials are being
used for the design of the jetty, namely reinforced concrete and steel. The reinforced concrete is
made of concrete class H30 and reinforcement class A63-42H. The steel is made of steel class A36.
For more details about the materials used, see Appendix G.2.

6.2.3 FIRST STEP: DIMENSIONING

As a starting point, the different structural elements, which include the deck, the piles, and the
beams, need to be dimensioned following the rules of thumb. (TU Eindhoven, n.d.) The frame of
the stairs is created using a steel tube profile, namely 200x150x26. The defender beams are made of
steel profile H250x200x59.64 (Sandoval Munoz, 2010). An overview of the dimensions for the
different elements is provided in Table 6-1. For more detail, please refer to Appendix G.3.

Table 6-1: Dimensions of structural elements

Element Properties
Reinforced concrete deck Thickness, t = 250 mm
Steel beams H-profile H300x300x105.5
Steel piles Round tube profile Ø262, t = 6 mm
Steel frame stairs Rectangular tube profile 200x150x26
Steel defender beams H-profile H250x200x59.64
TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 11
6.2.4 LOAD CASES
For the individual load cases, a distinction is made between loads acting from the land side, loads of
and on the jetty itself and loads acting from the sea side. The loads that need to be considered are,
together with their magnitude, summarized in Figure 6-6. In Appendix G.4, all loads are analysed
and calculated separately. The configuration of all the loads are displayed in Figure 6-7 and Figure
6-8, the former includes all the permanent load cases and the latter includes all the live load cases.

Figure 6-6: Individual load cases

12 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

 Figure 6-7: Configuration permanent loads

Figure 6-8: Configuration live loads

6.2.5 LOAD COMBINATIONS

For the analysis, different load combinations have to be considered. Before determining the
different load combinations, general load cases are defined as in Table 6-2. Wind loads are not
mentioned. The load combinations will only contain seismic based load combinations. The reason
for eliminating wind load combinations is because the wind loads are relatively small compared to
the seismic loads, so they will never govern the seismic load combinations.

In Chilean design, two approaches are commonly used, namely the Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
and the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). The ASD combinations are based on both the
code Nch2369.Of2003 (Hidalgo, 2003) and the Bachelor Thesis of S. Munoz (2010). The emerged
general combinations are described in Table 6-3 and are applicable to the design of the steel
structure.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 13

 Table 6-2: General load cases

Load case D L B I1 I2 Sx Sy Mx My
Sx
Sy
Mx
My
pDL;x;self-weight
FDL;z;crane
qDL;z;stairs
qDL;z;installations
pLL;z;variable
qLL;z;stairs
FLL;z;cargo
MLL;x;cargo
FLL;y;bollard
FLL;z;bollard
MLL;x;bollard
FLL;y;impact

Table 6-3: General load combinations applicable to steel structure

D L B I1 I2 Sx Sy Mx My
CS1 1
CS2/1 1 1
CS2/2 1 0.5 1
CS2/3 1 0.5 1
CS2/4 1 0.5 1
CS3/1 1 0.5 1 1
CS3/2 1 0.5 1 -1
CS3/3 1 0.5 -1 1
CS3/4 1 0.5 -1 -1
CS3/5 1 0.5 1 1
CS3/6 1 0.5 1 -1
CS3/7 1 0.5 -1 1
CS3/8 1 0.5 -1 -1
CS4/1 1 1 1
CS4/2 1 1 -1
CS4/3 1 -1 1
CS4/4 1 -1 -1
CS4/5 1 1 1
CS4/6 1 1 -1
CS4/7 1 -1 1
CS4/8 1 -1 -1

14 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

The LRFD load combinations are based on the code Nch3171.Of2010 (Hidalgo, 2010) and are used
for the design of the concrete elements, which in this case only includes the concrete deck. The load
combinations are defined in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4: Load combinations applicable to concrete elements

D L B I1 I2 Sx Sy Mx My
CC1 1.4
CC2/1 1.2 1.6
CC3/1 1.2 1 1.4 1.4
CC3/2 1.2 1 1.4 -1.4
CC3/3 1.2 1 -1.4 1.4
CC3/4 1.2 1 -1.4 -1.4
CC3/5 1.2 1 1.4 1.4
CC3/6 1.2 1 1.4 -1.4
CC3/7 1.2 1 -1.4 1.4
CC3/8 1.2 1 -1.4 -1.4
CC4/1 0.9 1.4 1.4
CC4/2 0.9 1.4 -1.4
CC4/3 0.9 -1.4 1.4
CC4/4 0.9 -1.4 -1.4
CC4/5 0.9 1.4 1.4
CC4/6 0.9 1.4 -1.4
CC4/7 0.9 -1.4 1.4
CC4/8 0.9 -1.4 -1.4

6.2.6 FINAL DESIGN: FOUNDATIONS

In the pile-dimensioning phase, the piles are tested for resistance to vertical and horizontal loads
and for pull-out, following the AASHTO Geotechnical Bridge Design Manual most often used in
Chile -which lacks a national geotechnical design code (AASHTO, 1998). This dimensioning is
included in Appendix E.2. Following the dimensioning phase, Table 6-5 shows the pile dimensions
required for structural soundness. However, the design is enhanced by considering construction
aspects and failure mechanisms of the foundation elements.

Table 6-5: Foundation dimensioning results

Pile type Batter No. of Dxt Pile length Profile weight Axial bearing
angle piles (mm) (m) (kg/m) capacity (kN)
Vertical - 17 262 x 6 6 37.88 550
piles
Inclined 20 8 (4x2) 362 x 6 6.4 52.68 1050
piles

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 15

6.2.6.1 Construction considerations

Pile driving equipment

In Chile, it is common practice to measure the resistance of the soil or rock during the driving
process. A certain level of pile driving distance per blow in mm/blow, is predetermined as the
point of ‘rejection’, where satisfactory bearing capacity has been reached. This method reflects the
practical approach of Chilean construction practice and highlights the extent of unknown
subsurface variability due to complex geology.

The steel pipes for the jetty are driven into the rock using a DELMAG D-12 diesel hammer, a
commonly used rig in construction across Chile. The characteristics of this machine are given in
Table 6-6, together with the calculated value for the number of blows per inch at the rejection point,
. At this point of embedment, the pile has developed sufficient bearing capacity. Considering the
harbour application, the piles must be driven from a floating pontoon. Appendix G.6.1 gives a full
computation of .

Table 6-6: Characteristics of DELMAG D-12 pile driving rig, [source: www.hammersteel.com]

Energy per blow [kg m] 3125

Piston weight [kg] 1250
[mm / blow] 32.3 (vertical pile)
13.0 (inclined pile)

Pile buckling during driving

The governing load situation for buckling of the steel pile is during pile driving. In Chile, the
American code AISC 360-05 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings is used to assess this
phenomenon (ANSI, 2005). Appendix G.6.2 gives the corresponding determination of the ultimate
compressional strength of the governing pile during pile driving, as well as a check on slenderness.
Both conditions are satisfied.

Anchoring
From the dimensioning phase, the pull-out capacity of the inclined piles subject to tension emerged
as insufficient. To retain the slender design, measures must be taken to resist pull-out. Since it is not
possible to embed the piles beyond 2m into the rock, it is necessary to anchor them. As it is assumed
that the inclined piles resist all tensional loads, it is not necessary to anchor the vertical piles.

A possible method to achieve anchoring is to drill ahead into the rock a long socket of slightly
smaller diameter than the inside diameter of the pile, followed by the insertion of a pile into the
socket with grout pipes attached it. It is then grouted up, bonding the insert pile to the walls of the
socketed hole and primary pile above (Srinivasamurthy & Pujar, 2009). This is based on a
micropiling system as illustrated in Figure G-17 in Appendix G.6.2, and is commonly applied in
Chile. A recent local application is a jetty built in the nearby Puerto Lirquén. The piles of this jetty
are set is metamorphic rock which was impossible to penetrate deep enough to develop sufficient
uplift capacity.

16 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

Corrosion
Appendix G.6.2 gives background information on steel corrosion in marine environments. For the
jetty to be constructed in Dichato, the most suitable option is sacrificial anode cathodic protection,
since applying a protective coating would require regular maintenance, which is often not carried
out sufficiently in Chilean port works. The other form of cathodic protection, Impressed Current
Cathodic Protection, is uneconomical for small jetties. The sacrificial anodes usually have a
protective limit of 5-7m of pile length and a lifetime of 10 years (PDCA, 2001). It is suggested to
apply this protection method in combination with the previously determined 4mm of added steel
thickness.

6.2.6.2 Failure mechanisms

Besides uplift and buckling, the foundation piles of the jetty may be subjected to the following two
general failure mechanisms: 1) (differential) settlement 2) liquefaction-induced failures and 3) scour.

Deformation and settlement

For a distance of 5 m between foundation elements, the following deformation restrictions apply
for geotechnical structures according to the Dutch geotechnical code for Basic requirements and
loads (NNI, 2006). The settlement for the point-bearing piles are computed in Appendix G.6.2, and
the results are presented in Table 6-8 for both the heaviest and lightest loaded piles.

Table 6-7: Deformation requirements for geotechnical structures

ULS SLS
Pile foundation settlement W, m 0.15 0.05
Structure1 settlement W, m - 0.15
Structure relative rotation 1:100 1:300

Table 6-8: Ultimate pile settlements for vertical piles

Smallest vertical pile load Largest vertical pile load

kN 34.6 (pile C19) 192.0 (pile C49)
m 0.0026 0.014
The majority of the settlement (90%) is due to the settlement of the soft sandstone, whereas the
elastic compression of the pile is minimal. Overall, the individual settlements are well within the
accepted boundaries as in. In terms of differential settlement, the rotation due to differences in
settlements over a lateral pile distance of 6m would be 0.109° or 1:500. Considering that this
simplification disregards pile group effects and the presence of the raked piles, the settlements and
resulting rotation are acceptable.

The settlement of a group of point bearing piles corresponds to the settlement of individual piles if
the piles are resting on rock. Differential settlements are unlikely to occur as all piles are embedded
in the sandstone at an equal depth. However, in general, assessing the settlement of point bearing

1 Refers to residential building. Values for harbour facilities are unknown.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 17
piles is inaccurate without test loadings; static test loadings should be performed to observe the
settlement of the pile point (Tol, 2006). The settlement analysis has been conducted only on the
vertical piles, as it is assumed that the majority of the vertical loads is resisted by the vertical piles.
However, the presence of raked piles generally improves the settlement performance besides
obvious improvement in lateral deflections and cap rotation. On the other hand, raked piles may
negatively affect the deformation performance in the presence of horizontal or vertical ground
movements due to bending moments induced in the piles (Poulos, 2006).

Liquefaction and lateral spreading

In the case of the jetty foundation, liquefaction induced by seismic activity may cause
uncontrolled or differential settlement and temporary loss of bearing capacity. These failure
mechanisms for single piles in liquefied layers are demonstrated in Appendix G.6.

To investigate the risk of any of these mechanisms to affect the stability of the jetty and its
foundation, a liquefaction potential (LP) analysis of the soil is carried out (Youd, Idriss, Andrus, &
Arango, 2001). The LP of a soil is defined as the ratio between the Cyclic Resistance Ratio CRR (the
capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction) and the Cyclic Stress Ratio CSR (the seismic demand on a
soil layer). A commonly used safety factor worldwide for this susceptibility ratio is 1.2. The
computation of both the CRR and CSR are given in Appendix G.6.2, as well as the corresponding
data tables.

Figure 6-9 shows a depth profile of SPT blow count corresponding to Appendix B.4 boreholes. Since
the soil profile varies between the proposed start and end of the jetty, the boreholes at these two
extreme locations are used in the analysis, S6 and S3, respectively. The grey line in Figure 6-9 gives
the predicted SPT profile if the soft soils lying atop the sedimentary rock were to be excavated to a
level of MSL -2.5m.

Figure 6-10 gives the results of the liquefaction analysis, see Appendix G.6.2 for the method of
computation of the liquefaction potential, LP. The full lines indicate the LP values at the start and
end of the jetty, as well as for the whole jetty after excavation. The dotted lines indicate the required
LP value with depth for a factor of safety of 1.2. At the start of the jetty the soft soil (silt, ML) is
highly liquefaction susceptible with a LP value of less than 0.2. The first two meters of soil (silty
sand, SM) near the end of the jetty, are also susceptible to liquefaction If the soil were to be
excavated to a level of MSL -2.5m along the entire length of the proposed jetty location, the
liquefaction potential criterion of 1.2 would always be satisfied (for corrected N values ( ) of
greater than 30, the soil is considered too dense to liquefy). 2

2 1.2 (required F.O.S.) is taken as the maximum possible Liquefaction Potential value in Figure 6-10
18 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft
Overall it may be concluded that it is indeed necessary to excavate to MSL -2.5m, as the soil lying
atop the sedimentary rock is highly susceptible to liquefaction at an earthquake magnitude MW of
7.5. Although the foundation piles have not been considered to obtain any bearing capacity from
these soft strata, lateral spreading may result in unforeseen lateral loads on the piles, potentially
leading to buckling or bending. Lateral spreading may be possible as the slope of the top of the upper
soil stratum approaches 2° from borehole S6 to S3, see Figure 2-5 in Part I.

However, dredging might only be a temporary solution. Due to transport by currents, sediment may
build up behind the proposed breakwater, and once again cover the bedrock. Sediment sources
include Coliumo Bay itself, primarily, and the Estero Dichato entering the bay on the southern side,
as shown in Figure 1-2. Considering that the current levels of sediment atop the sedimentary rock
are low this is a long-term problem which requires further analysis of the sediment dynamics of the
bay.

SPT blow count N

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
1
2 Start jetty
Depth below MSL

3 End jetty
4 When excavated
5
6
7
8

Figure 6-9: SPT blow count with depth for start and end of jetty, and for excavated top soils

Liquefaction Potential, LP
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0

1 Start jetty
2 End jetty
Depth below MSL (m)

3 When excavated
Required LP start jetty
4
Required LP end jetty
5
Required LP when excavated
6

Figure 6-10: Liquefaction Potential in depth and required liquefaction potential values (F.O.S. = 1.2)

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 19

Scour

Scour is a special case of sediment transport and occurs when the local transport exceeds the supply
from upstream due to a difference in velocity, turbulence, or both (Schiereck & Verhagen, 2012).
Insight into the degree of scour is necessary to evaluate the danger of instability of the structure,
and whether scour protection is required. Figure G-21 in Appendix G.6 illustrates the complex
three-dimensional flow pattern around a pier. Analytical analysis of scour depths is not possible, so
experimental correlations with water depth and pier diameter are used for design. For a first design,
the ratio between water depth ℎ and pile diameter gives an indication of the scour depth ℎ , see
Figure G-22 in Appendix G.6. In the case of the EMBD jetty, with a water depth of 2m and a pile
diameter of roughly 0.3m, tanh approaches 1.0, so ℎ ∝ . Therefore, the scour may develop
up to 0.3m in depth.

However, considering the excavatability of the thin silty sand layer overlying the sandstone,
scouring is not proposed to present a large problem, especially in the short term. In the long term,
due to lack of maintenance, sediment transport, and weathering of the sandstone, a new layer of
fine soil may be deposited on top of the rock, but since the piles of the structure do not rely on these
layers for bearing strength, scour is unlikely to affect structural stability. Thus, mitigation measures,
such as quarry stone, gabion or matted aprons, are not necessary.

6.2.6.3 Structural unity checks on pile

After the preceding considerations for construction and failure mechanisms, the pile design based
on Table 6-5 may be optimized. This is done by analysing the adjusted model with ETABS (ETABS,
2016).

According to the software, the governing inclined pile is located at grid point G2 directed in positive
y-direction. The corresponding load combination is CS3/5 which resulted into certain forces, as
described in Table 6-9. With these data, unity checks can be performed as described in Appendix
G.7. The governing unity check has a magnitude of 0.78 for a combination of bending, torsion, shear,
and compression. This means that the unity check is fine, and the steel section does not need to be
adjusted.

Table 6-9: Governing forces -inclined piles

Load Combination Axial Shear Shear Torsion Moment Moment

P Vx Vy T Mx My
CS3/5 -52,577 253 1,081 7,569 247,810 35,929 kgf, cm

The governing straight pile is situated at grid point G3. The associated load combination is CS2/4
which resulted into forces as described in Table 6-10. Unity checks are performed as described in
Appendix G.7 The highest unity check equals 1.46 for a combination of bending, torsion, shear, and
compression. Therefore, the unity check is not satisfactory and the steel section needs improvement.

20 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

 Table 6-10: Governing forces -straight piles

Load Combination Axial Shear Shear Torsion Moment Moment

P Vx Vy T Mx My
CS2/4 -5,510 7,307 112 7,210 8,264 485,612 kgf, cm

6.2.6.4 Final pile dimensions

Finally, it can be concluded that the inclined piles retain their 362 mm diameter and 6 mm wall
thickness. The straight piles needed adjustment and after performing some iterations, it is proved
that the dimensions for the straight piles have to be similar to those of the inclined piles. Again,
unity checks are executed, as described in Appendix G.7, to prove the adjusted model is satisfactory.

In order to guarantee adequate corrosion protection, the wall thickness of all piles is increased with
a value of 4 mm. The resulting profile properties for the piles are shown in Table 6-11. Overall this
means that all 25 piles may be ordered of the same diameter, which is economically favourable. The
differing length between the two types of steel piles is not a problem, as length may be altered by
cutting or welding.

Table 6-11: Profile properties - Ø362/10 (Instituto Chileno del Acero, 2000)

Property Magnitude Unity

Diameter, D 362 mm
Wall thickness, t 10 mm
Weight 86.82 kgf/m
Cross-sectional area, A 11058 mm²
Moment of inertia, I 171410824 mm4
Number of straight piles 17 -
Number of inclined piles 8 (4x2) -
Batter angle inclined piles 20 °

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 21

6.2.7 FINAL DESIGN: BEAMS
6.2.7.1 Structural unity checks on beams
From analysing the model using software ETABS (ETABS, 2016) it follows that the beam situated at
gridline 2 is governing the design. The corresponding load combination is CS2/1 which resulted into
forces, as described in Table 6-12. With these data, unity checks can be performed as described in
Appendix G.7. The governing unity check has a magnitude of 0.11 for bending. This ratio is very
low, signifying the beam is over dimensioned.

Table 6-12: Governing forces -beams

Load Combination Axial Shear Shear Torsion Moment Moment

P Vx Vy T Mx My
CS2/1 0 0 1496 21 285,683 0 kgf, cm

6.2.7.2 Final beam dimensions

After performing some iterations for the beam design, it is concluded to adjust the beam profile to
a lower profile, named H300x150x45.8. Again, unity checks are performed, as described in
Appendix G.7 to prove the adjusted design is satisfactory. More information about the beam profile
can be found in Table 6-13.

Table 6-13: Profile properties -H300x150x45.8 (Instituto Chileno del Acero, 2000)

Property Magnitude Unity

Height profile, d 300 mm
Width profile, bf 150 mm
Weight 45.8 kgf/m
Flange thickness, tf 14 mm
Web thickness, tw 6 mm
Web height, h 272 mm
Cross-sectional area, A 5832 mm²
Moment of inertia, strong axis 96000000 mm4
Moment of inertia, weak axis 7880000 mm4

22 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

6.2.8 FINAL DESIGN: DECK
The concrete deck has been dimensioned at a thickness of 250 mm. For a 5 m × 3 m grid, this is quite
a sturdy size. The only thing left to be determined is the amount of reinforcement needed for our
structure. For this calculation the code ACI-318-08 (ACI Committee 318, 2008) is followed, using
the input provided by software SAFE (SAFE, 2016) as presented in Appendix G.7.

The maximum absolute moment that occurs in the structure is (-) 409251,74 kgf-cm, see Appendix
G.7. Following the approach described in ACI-318-08 (ACI Committee 318, 2008), assuming a
concrete cover of 60 cm thickness, this requires 9 steel bars of 10 mm thickness per 1000 mm. The
final properties are summarized in Table 6-14. For practical reasons, the reinforcement will be
designed in the same way in both directions, both at the bottom and at the top of the deck. The final
design is presented in Figure 6-11.

Table 6-14: Properties concrete deck and reinforcement

Property Magnitude Unity

Thickness concrete 250 mm
Width concrete 1000 mm
Concrete cover 6 mm
Diameter of bar 10 mm
Number of bars 9 [-]

Figure 6-11: Design concrete deck and reinforcement (units in mm)

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 23

6.1.8 FINAL DESIGN: DRAWINGS
To summarize all the previous conclusions, some final drawings are attached in the Appendix. First,
a floor plan of the deck can be found in Appendix L. This drawing shows the dimensions and the
configuration of the steel frame, the steel piles, the concrete deck, the frame of the stairs, and the
defenders. The second drawing in Appendix L shows the elevational view of grid line 3 in which
the configuration of the stairs and the protection frame becomes clear.

Next, a principle detail is displayed in Figure 6-12. The detail explains the connection between the
jetty and the concrete abutment. The jetty and the abutment have different fundamental periods,
so it is important they are not attached to each other and can move independently. To guarantee
this independency, a gap of 20 mm is created between the two structures. This value is based on
about two times the deflection during the event of an earthquake. A steel plate is used to make sure
the jetty is still accessible for traffic, but it is only fixed to one end so it can move freely.

Figure 6-12: Principle detail of the connection jetty-abutment

24 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

7 PRELIMINARY DESIGN: BREAKWATER
In this paragraph the design of the breakwater is elaborated. The function of the breakwater within
the whole system of the mooring facility is to protect the mooring facility from the incoming waves.
This is necessary to create a safe climate to ensure that the facility can fulfil the required mooring
functions.

7.1 DESIGN PROCESS

The demensions of the breakwater are first designed against wind waves in the area. After that, a
damage evaluation regarding the earthquake and tsunami loads is elaborated in Chapter 9. The 2010
earthquake and tsunami event is taken as the norm. The loads caused by the tsunami and earthquake
cannot be withstand against reasonable costs and therefor only damage control should be applied.

A flowchart of the design of the breakwater is included in Figure 7-1. In summary, offshore waves
are statistically analysed, using a peak over threshold method and Weibull/ Gumbel transgression.
Via this analysis, a return period for the ULS and SLS is determined and a corresponding wave
condition. Offshore wave statistics are translated to onshore (taking into account shoaling,
dissipation etc.). For a first iteration SwanOne is used, in the second iteration Delft3D is used. The
onshore wave statistics in combination with the requirements for SLS and ULS determine the
breakwater dimensions. A geotechnical analysis is performed to check the stability and settlements
of the breakwater and eventual lead to changes in the design of the breakwater.

Figure 7-1: Flow diagram for breakwater design process

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 25

7.2 REQUIREMENTS
In the design of the breakwater, basically two different cases have to be distinguished. The
breakwater needs to protect the jetty from incoming waves, more specifically it needs to keep the
waves low for the mooring of the ship. This results in an allowable overtopping or wave transmission
of the breakwater (made clear in Figure 7-2). The allowable wave transmission is dependent on the
serviceability limit state (SLS). In other words, the allowable downtime for the jetty determines at
how many days this transmitted wave height may be exceeded. The stone size however depends on
the ULS. This means, the stones may not become unstable before the ultimate limit state is reached.
This is a rather traditional Dutch approach. The Chilean experience will be implemented in the
damage evaluation (of the tsunami and earthquake) afterwards, where damage is accepted.

Figure 7-2: Breakwater principle

7.2.1 OFFSHORE WAVE CHARACTERISTICS

The offshore waves, before being translated onshore, are as described in the boundary conditions,
mainly waves from two distinct directions. A comprehensive analysis on the wave directions is
worked out in Appendix H.1. In this analysis different scenarios are elaborated. Offshore wave
heights are calculated using Weibull, Gumbel and a peak-over threshold analysis. Scenarios with
narrow angle and a broader angle are used, because of the different outcomes. The highest values
will be used for the design, to be conservative. The outcome off this analysis is summarized in Table
7-1.

Table 7-1: Offshore wave heights, outcome for a narrow (NW and SW) and broad (NW-N and S-W) angle

Average Gumbel-Weibull
SLS Tp SLS ULS Tp ULS
Small NW 2,96 7,5 9,16 12
Large NW-N 4,11 9 10,25 13,3
Small SW 5,39 13,5 10,58 17,5
Large S-W 5,80 13,5 10,26 17,5

26 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

7.2.2 ONSHORE WAVE CHARACTERISTICS
In this second iteration, the offshore wave height is translated to an onshore wave height using
Delft3D. With Delft3D the detailed bathymetry of Dichato bay can be taken better into account
than with SwanOne in the first Dimensioning step. A comprehensive explanation of the wave
translation by DELFT3D is given in Appendix H.2.

The scenario study makes clear that the waves from the North-Western create the governing wave
conditions in Coliumo bay both for the ULS and SLS. The results of the governing scenarios are
presented in Figure 7-3, Figure 7-4 and Table 7-2.

Table 7-2: with translated wave heights (ULS and SLS) onshore.

Scenario Hs Offshore [m] Hs Onshore [m] Depth [m] Tm01 [sec]

ULS NW-N_ULS 10,25 4,49 4,76 10,74
SLS NW-N_SLS 4,11 1,71 5,36 6,45

Figure 7-3: Ultimate Limit State, Outcome Delft3D, , more detail from left to right

Figure 7-4: Serviceability Limit State with north-western waves, Outcome Delft3D, more detail from left to right

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 27

7.2.3 CREST HEIGHT
The downtime of the jetty is set on 5% per year, which is decided in the program of requirements.
This downtime results in an acceptable non-service of 18 days a year (Serviceability Limit State).
This non-service means that the ship can stay moored if it is moored, but the mooring process itself
is impossible according to the guidelines. The guidelines give a limit of 0,30m wave height in the
harbour area for ships of this size (Wijdeven, 2015). Hence, the annual probability is 18 days a year,
so on average 18 days a year there is a significant onshore wave height of 1.71 m.

With help of the software BREAKWAT3.0 (Software of the Deltares), a calculation of the crest
height is made, based on the before mentioned wave transmission. Some assumptions are made
regarding different parameters. A more detailed outcome is given in Appendix H.3.

The height of the breakwater is calculated on +2.56m MSL, using BREAKWAT3.0.

7.2.4 STONE DIMENSIONS

The (ULS) storm wave height is a value based on a probability of failure and the lifetime of the
structure. In this case the lifetime is set on 25 years and the probability of failure under normal
storm conditions (no tsunami conditions) is 10%. This is a rather average value in the range of 5%-
20% (Verhagen, d'Angremond, & van Roode, 2009). These values refer to a design storm of about
once every 250 years, sea Appendix H.1.

In this second iteration, the wave height offshore is translated to an onshore value using Delft3D.
The results are listed in Table 7-2. Using the software BREAKWAT3.0, the stone size is determined.
The outcome and calculations of BREAKWAT3.0 can be find in Appendix H.3. A weight (W50) of
10.000 kg is obtained, with an average diameter of 1.56 m.

7.2.5 BREAKWATER DESIGN

The breakwater design is rather simplistic. The breakwater is founded on a rock layer, which is not
very usual in breakwater design. Therefor no filter layers are necessary, as well as no toe- and scour
protection (because there is no outwash of material). Assumed is a slope of 1:2 and a crest width of
about 3 stones (4,5m). Because the Chile is a tsunami prone area the breakwater is just made out of
one stone dimension, this will be discussed in Chapter 9. The basic design of the breakwater in
summarized in Table 7-3, Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6.

28 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

 Table 7-3: Design breakwater

Crest freeboard (above HWL) 1.45 m

High tide +1.11m MSL

Height breakwater +2.56 m MSL

Length 40 m

Crest width 4.5 m

Average height crest (from seabed) +6.06 m MSL

Slope 1:2

Average cross section 82 m2

Total volume 4600 m3

W50 10.000 kg

Dn50 1.56m

Figure 7-5: Dimensions of breakwater in [mm]

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 29

Figure 7-6: 3D visualisation of breakwater design. The waves are perpendicular on the breakwater, with their origin at
the bottom of the figure.

7.2.6 DIFFERENCES WITH FIRST ITERATION

The main difference in the second iteration (Appendix H), compared to the first iteration (Appendix
F), are the stone dimensions. The stone dimensions have increased by a factor 2 (weight factor 10),
whereas the crest height was estimated quite well (except for the fact that the tide analysis is
improved, which leads to a higher high tide). The stone dimensions are so much bigger because of
the DELFT3D model, who is more accurate in calculating waves in detailed bathymetry, such as the
Coliumo bay. DELFT3D calculated an onshore wave height of 4.5m, instead of the 2.0m of
SwanOne. Another explanation for this increased wave height is a changed input due to a
comprehensive wave direction analysis.

7.2.7 DEFORMATION AND PORE PRESSURES: PLAXIS2D

PLAXIS 2D is used to evaluate the stability and settlement behaviour of the breakwater under its
own weight, and a flow-only computation is made to analyse the impact of the significant wave on
pore pressure development in the breakwater. To analyse the influence of the subsoil conditions on
the settlement of the breakwater two situations are investigated: 1) where a soft sandy layer overlies
the sandstone 2) where the sandy layer has been dredged and the breakwater rests directly on the
sandstone.

Overall, the breakwater settlement is minimal under gravity loading, and ranges between 10 and 30
mm depending on whether the sand layer is removed or not. The sand layer allows for more
deformation and the global stability of this configuration is a factor 1.3 less safe than if the layer
were to be removed. However, both configurations have acceptable factors of safety against global
failure. In terms of pore pressure build-up during harmonic wave loading, the generated pore

30 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

pressures at the toe of the breakwater are generally 4 times higher than those at the breakwater.
Also, the presence of the sandy layer in soil scenario 1 dampens the pore pressure build up, as it is
more porous than the sandstone.

The dimensions used for the breakwater as modelled in PLAXIS2D stem from the dimensioning
phase (i.e. first iteration) of the breakwater design. However, it is not deemed necessary to conduct
a secondary analysis considering the limited required incresae in crest height (2.2m to 2.56m) and
the relatively limited settlement, especially when the soft soils are removed. See Appendix H.4 for
the full results and visual output from PLAXIS 2D.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 31

8 PRELIMINARY DESIGN: ONSHORE FACILITIES
8.1 EBMD BUILDING
8.1.1 CHILEAN PRINCIPLES
In his lecture of December 16, 2016, architect Mr. Baeriswyl explained the basic architectural
principles of his master plan for the Dichato area Damage is acceptable (Baeriswyl, 2015). However,
after the occurrence of an earthquake and tsunami, the main goal is to provide an efficient
rehabilitation. This can be ensured by lifting the first line of structures on the coast up by applying
poles on the ground floor and by applying a robust core comprising all main functions the building
needs.

8.1.2 APPROACH
For the well-functioning of the Marine Biology Station, the redevelopment of the biggest structure
on-site proves to be the most relevant to look at, see Figure 8-1. As the remnants of the building are
heavily deteriorated, the structure will be stripped to its basic structural elements. The stability will
be improved, but it will be kept structurally “open” in case a tsunami occurs. An additional partial
layer will be built on top, which will be completely structurally independent. A strong core will be
constructed, comprising a staircase and service elements such as water pipes and electricity facilities.
The underlying principle is that the core will not be damaged in case of an earthquake and tsunami,
thus enabling quick redevelopment of the building’s functions. The step-by-step redevelopment is
presented in Figure 8-4 to Figure 8-10.

Figure 8-1: Location of redevelopment building

32 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

Figure 8-2: Current situation Figure 8-3: Strip to basic structure

Figure 8-4: Rebuild structural frame Figure 8-5: Apply stability elements

Figure 8-6: Apply light-weight dividers Figure 8-7: Construct additional shallow foundation

Figure 8-8: Construct independent frame Figure 8-9: Apply robust core

Figure 8-10: Construct stable walls, floor and roof Figure 8-11: Final principle design

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 33

8.2 PAVEMENT
8.2.1 CURRENT PAVEMENT AND DESIGN CRITERIA
Currently at the Marine Biology Station, an unpaved sandy road runs down from the coastal road
Costanera Pedro Aguirre Cerda, marked in dark grey and light grey Figure 8-12, respectively. The
traffic on the unpaved road is and will remain light: a single ¾ truck. The loads imposed by the
truck on the pavement is 50 kN in total, including its maximum loading capacity. The force is
transferred via the wheels, which are spaced 2.03m apart axially and 3.60m apart longitudinally.
Since the unpaved road has been used by the truck since 1978, the subgrade soil is well-compacted.

The current problems with the unpaved road include:

 The serviceability level of the gravel road may vary significantly within short periods of
time, for example, due to heavy rainfall.
 A high level of maintenance is required to maintain the appropriate levels of gravels.
However, this maintenance is not carried out.
 Truck transit on the road produces substantial dust emission, which is an impairment to
staff and students at the Marine Biology Station; to the natural surroundings (plants, crops,
outside aquaria etc.); and to facilities and machinery on site.
 Drainage is insufficient during the winter season.

The design criteria for the Marine Biology Station pavement are:

 To allow one ¾ truck to transit goods from the Costanera Pedro Aguirre Cerda road to the
jetty, and vice versa;
 To incorporate the possibility of reinforcing the pavement for an increase in traffic volume
(i.e. multiple trucks) without significantly altering the existing pavement structure;
 To ensure mobility of the vehicle(s) during all seasons of the year;
 To ensure pedestrian safety and;
 To control the emission of dust.

Figure 8-12: Overview infrastructure Marine Biology Station

34 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

8.2.2 DESIGN METHODOLOGY
A design is made for a low-volume traffic road according to the Chilean guideline Guía de Diseño
Estrucutral de Pavimentos para Caminos de Bajo Volumen de Tránsito (2002). The full methodology
is given in Appendix I. Design: Pavement.

8.2.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN

Following the Design Option 2 of the pavement structure highlighted in Figure I-2 in Appendix I,
the road consists of 12 cm of granular subbase of CBR 50%, topped by 16 cm of granular base of CBR
100%, in turn covered with a surface treatment layer.

Table 8-1: Material for pavement layers

Pavement layer Thickness (cm) Material Source

Granular subbase CBR 12.0 Reclaimed Concrete Demolished concrete
50% Material, RCM3 skeleton of old Marine
Biology Station building
Granular base CBR 16.0 Crushed granitic rock Waste material from
100% armourstone quarrying
Surface treatment 1.0 Microsurfacing4 Emulsified asphalt, fine
aggregate and mineral
filler (Portland cement)
8.2.4 COMPACTION AND DRAINAGE
It is assumed that the subgrade is well-compacted due to previous use. Compacting the subgrade
further is of little use, as compacting mainly influences the cohesion of a soil, and the angle of
internal friction only minimally. For coarse-grained granular subgrade without cohesion extra
compaction will not significantly improve performance.

Moisture content, on the other hand, influences both the cohesion and the angle of internal friction
of the subgrade. A Proctor test may determine the optimal moisture content for each pavement
layer for maximum compaction. Water ingresses into the pavement and subgrade due to capillary
movements or rainfall infiltration and may weaken the material. In terms of drainage, the
groundwater table is near-surface, and therefore subsoil drains may be ineffective, as it is difficult
to provide an outlet. For surface drainage it is most cost-effective to induce a transversal or
longitudinal slope in the pavement of 2-4% to allow for run-off.

3Requires processing and washing to remove fines which could plug drains or cause leachate precipitation.
4Blend of emulsified asphalt, water, well-graded fine aggregate and mineral filler. Requires maintenance
every 5-7 years.
TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 35
9 EXTREME IMPACT EVALUATION
9.1 APPROACH
What differentiates the design of coastal structures in Chile from design elsewhere, is the need to
take into account extreme events, such as earthquakes and associated tsunamis. A common scenario
for coastal structures during an extreme event (large-scale seismic event) is to experience one or
more seismic shocks, followed by subjection to multiple tsunami waves within the next few hours,
i.e. the tsunami impacts an already deformed or otherwise damaged structure.

In general, structural design in Chile is carried out according to codes which ensure life safety during
earthquake events, by considering ranges of seismic loading. For tsunamis, on the other hand, design
generally assumes evacuation of all people, and focuses on structural damage minimization.

In an Extreme Impact Evaluation, it is important to consider the idea of risk, since it may not be
possible to design structures to fully withstand all extreme impacts at all times. Risk may be defined
as the combination of the likelihood of occurrence of an extreme event and the associated level of
damage it may induce. For the following evaluation, the extreme event of the Maule 2010
earthquake and tsunami is taken as a base case, given the amount of available data of this event and
the previously investigated impacts on the Dichato coastal area.

The following evaluation thus investigates the impact of the Maule 2010 earthquake on individual
elements of the EMBD design proposal -including the jetty, the breakwater and onshore facilities-
followed by an investigation of the effects of the subsequent tsunami waves. The jetty and
breakwater are evaluated on structural stability. Furthermore, several geohazards are treated for the
jetty, the breakwater and onshore facilities.

9.1.1 GEOHAZARD ANALYSIS

Geohazards may be defined as geological and environmental conditions or states that may lead to
widespread damage or risk (IIASA, 2015). The Extreme Impact of scope in this chapter concerns the
seismic event of 2010 –the Maule earthquake and tsunami. See Appendix A.2-A.8 for information
on earthquakes, tsunamis and the relation between these events and Chile. The geohazards resulting
from seismic events, specified to the Marine Biology Station, are treated in the following chapter,
and mitigation measures are suggested for each.

From the Maule 2010 earthquake experience the following geotechnical effects emerge which may
affect the harbour complex (Yasuda, Verdugo, & Konagai, 2010):

 Cracking or failure of the connection between the foundation and the superstructure;
 Differential uplift and subsidence;
 Liquefaction and lateral spreading-induced damage including settlement and foundation
failure;
 Slope and embankment failures;

36 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

  Damage to harbour structures, induced primarily by differential deformation between the
offshore foundation and land side connection. Soil-structure interaction is a critical
phenomenon here;
 And tsunami induced effects which differ according to local topography, and may include
scouring.

Figure 9-1 depicts, conceptually, various geohazards which may affect the Marine Biology Station.
Due to the relatively thin sand layer overlying the sedimentary rock at Dichato, the amount of
seismic amplification through the soil is limited. This means the structural damage of onshore
buildings from deformations caused directly by seismic acceleration is unlikely to be problematic.
Indeed, the Maule 2010 event proved that the majority of the damage was caused by either
liquefaction-related phenomena and the tsunami ensuing the earthquake.

Figure 9-1: Overview of potential geohazards at Marine Biology Station

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 37

9.2 EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE
Structures are affected mainly by surface waves resulting from a seismic event, which exert extreme
horizontal forces on standing structures. Sudden lateral accelerations generate significant stresses in
structural elements as well as their connectors. The level of damage to a structure depends on the
subsurface, foundation type, structural ductility and strength, amongst others. See Appendix A.5 for
more information of seismic design philosophies.

Often it is not feasible to design a structure to such an extent in which it does not show any damage
after the event of a heavy earthquake. The design is therefore limited in achieving two important
objectives (Hidalgo, Norma Chilena Oficial Nch2369.Of2003, 2003). First, protection of people’s
lives needs to be guaranteed. In achieving this, structures may not collapse, fires should be avoided,
and the emission of toxic gases and liquids need to be limited. Secondly, the operation of the jetty
and breakwater cannot be obstructed for a long period of time. Essential processes may not be
interrupted or come to a standstill and the structure should still be available for inspection and
repair.

What has become clear until now, the occurrence of heavy earthquakes is not negligible in Chile.
In this report, special attention has been paid to the Maule earthquake of February 2010. Details
have already been discussed in Appendix A.8. All geohazards are evaluated using this Mw 8.8
earthquake. However, the damage to the jetty and breakwater are evaluated using seismic loads
according to the code, and not using the acceleration spectrum of Maule 2010, because the Chilean
codes already incorporate large-scale earthquakes such as Maule 2010 in the computation of seismic
loads.

9.2.1 JETTY
9.2.1.1 Structural damage
First and foremost, the influence of the earthquake on the jetty will be discussed. Before the extreme
event of February 2010, the codes for seismic design in Chile were already of good quality. For this
reason, structural damage was relatively small even with the high ground accelerations of 0.65g that
have been measured. After the event, again new experiences have been gained and the codes got
even better improvement. The current Chilean seismic codes, which are also used in the design of
this project, take into account extreme and heavy earthquakes. Because of the lack of possibilities
and time to perform a dynamic analysis including the Maule earthquake, it is decided to adhere to
the seismic static loads calculated according to the Chilean seismic codes.

In the design of the jetty, seismic load combinations which contain seismic loads from the codes
have been used. In the final design, all unity checks are fine which means that the structure will
both survive an earthquake and only elastic deformations will occur. For this reason, it can be
concluded there will be no permanent deformations in the structure when the tsunami arrives.

38 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

9.2.1.2 Geohazard: Liquefaction and lateral spreading
See Chapter 6.2.7.2: Failure Mechanisms and the corresponding Appendix G.4 for computations of
liquefaction susceptibility at the jetty piles, for an earthquake with magnitude 7.5. It was concluded
that liquefaction or lateral spreading are not hazardous when the top soil is excavated to MSL -2m
at the proposed jetty location. However, for the Extreme Impact Evaluation, the moment magnitude
under consideration is 8.8. The revised Idriss scaling factor for factor of safety against liquefaction
to correct for magnitude is

= , /

With

. .
= 10 /

Giving an for a 8.8 Mw earthquake (like Maule 2010) of 0.664. This means the Liquefaction
Potential values as in Figure 6.9 in Chapter 6.2.7.2 becomes almost twice as unfavourable for the
sand lying atop the sedimentary rock. For the underlying rock, i.e. from a depth of 3m below MSL
downwards, the liquefaction potential remains satisfactory. Therefore, as long as the top 2m of soil
is removed at the jetty location, there is no liquefaction hazard for pile stability in the case of a
seismic event like that of Maule 2010.

9.2.2 BREAKWATER
9.2.2.1 Earthquake loads
During the extreme impact event, a maximum acceleration of 0.4g m/s2 is observed (see Appendix
G.4.2). The consequences of this ‘force’ on the breakwater is widely investigated around the world.
The design of the breakwater is adapted to several conclusions of these reports;

 (Wang, Yang, Lamison, & Chen, 1978)

o Breakwaters on a rigid foundation are highly earthquake resistant
o An earthquake of less than 0.5g m/s2 would not affect the breakwater to any significant
extent.
o The failure mode is binary; settlement of the crest and a slope deformation.
 (Yang & Jin, 2015)
o The earthquake has a high effect on the hydrodynamic pressure in a breakwater is the
permeability is low.
 (Memos, Bouckovalas, & Tsiachris, 2012)
o Rubble-mound breakwaters are quite seismic resistant is resting on a rigid bed. Only
when founded on a soft bed, extra care during design should be taken.

The breakwater at the Marine Biology Station is founded on a very stiff soil, the sandy top soil of
2m is dredged. Also in the design no core is implemented, to make the breakwater permeable. This
is important to avoid high pressures in the breakwater during earthquake (and tsunami) impact. The
final result of an earthquake is a settlement of the crest, which will be low according to the literature
because of the rigid foundation. The MCE (Maximum Considered Event) is estimated to occur every
TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 39
2500 years (which has just happened in 2010) and therefore, no further adjustments to the
breakwater are necessary for the earthquake loads. Also, no extensive calculation is carried out for
this reason. This might be necessary in future research and more detailed designing of the harbour
facility.

Another reason to pay not too much attention to the exact settlement of the breakwater is the fact
that a tsunami is likely to occur after an earthquake. The tsunami will damage the breakwater more,
as is explained in Chapter 9.3.2.

9.2.3 ONSHORE STRUCTURES

9.2.3.1 Geohazard: Liquefaction and lateral spreading
The educational and research facilities part of the Marine Biology Station are founded on shallow
foundations consisting of concrete slabs resting on a sandy soil. Liquefaction induced settlements
are not a problem for the foundation per se, but if different settlements occur due to lateral
spreading, for example, unallowable rotations and strains could be induced in the concrete slab and
its superstructure.

Liquefaction

To evaluate this hazard, the liquefaction potential of the top 3m of soil as identified in the
geophysical site test is computed. The input data is derived from the geophysical test performed in
December 2016 at Caleta Villarrica and laboratory test performed on sand from Dichato in the soil
mechanics laboratory of UdeC in previous years. The sand is classified as medium dense gravelly
sand (SW)5. The liquefaction potential is calculated as in Appendix G.4 (corrected for magnitude 8.8
as opposed to 7.5) and is summarized in Table 9-1. In order to obtain a satisfactory factor of safety
against liquefaction (LP of 1.2), the blow count would need to become at least N=186, but generally
a minimum N-value of 30 is recommended by the ASTM guidelines of the U.S. In seismically active
regions.

Liquefaction may cause unallowable levels of settlement of the ground surface and correspondingly
the shallow foundations and the overlying superstructures. Yoshimine et al. (2006) have found a
relationship between the volumetric strain and shear wave velocity of a soil, for given factors of
safety against liquefaction, see Considering the factor of safety of 0.78 as given in Table 9-1, and a
shear wave velocity of the top sand layer of around 190 m/s (see Figure B.10 in Appendix B.4.3), one
can deduce a post-liquefaction volumetric strain of 2.5 %. For the sand layer of 3m depth this
accounts for 7.5mm of settlement. For residential buildings on shallow foundations in the
Netherlands7 settlement restrictions lie at 0.10m for the Ultimate Limit State and at 0.03m for
Serviceability Limit State (NNI, 2006). Therefore, the SLS would not be satisfied in the case of
liquefaction-induced settlement.

5 According to USCS: Unified Soil Classification System

6 In this case LP would become 1.34
7 Restriction values were not specified in the Chilean design code

40 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

Lateral spreading

Lateral spreading may follow liquefaction and as the ground tears and surface fissures open up,
lateral forces may be induced in the concrete shallow foundation, causing it to extend and
potentially crack. There is around 8 m difference in elevation from one end of the Marine Biology
Station to another (from the sea-side at the concrete abutment to coastal road), which is a distance
of approximately 100m. This results in an inclination of 4-5° on average, which is a theoretically
sufficient inclination to undergo lateral spreading (Haigh, 2000).

Mitigation

To mitigate the risk of structural damage in the concrete slab due to lateral spreading it is important
to ensure sufficient reinforcement to resist tensional loads by incorporating safety factors in the
design. Overall, in order to reduce the impact of liquefaction and associated lateral spreading, the
sand may be densified. The required increase of SPT blow count of the sand may be achieved
through densification by dynamic compaction, for example. This is a technique often applied to
mitigate liquefaction in loose saturated granular soils, and involves high-energy impacts to the
ground surface by systematically dropping heavy weights from heights ranging between 10 and 40
m using heavy crawler cranes. An impression is given in Figure 9-3.

Table 9-1: Summary of liquefaction potential calculation for onshore soil

Input parameters Output

, kN/m3 19.5 CSR 0.256

, kN/m3 9.5 CRR 0.302

% fines 10 Liquefaction Potential, LP 0.784

SPT blow count, N 15

Depth of evaluation, m below 1

surface

Magnitude scaling factor 0.664

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 41

Figure 9-2: Relationship between volumetric strain and shear wave velocity for a given factor of safety against
liquefaction with limiting volumetric strain

Figure 9-3: Impression of dynamic compaction method used to mitigate liquefaction

42 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

9.3 TSUNAMI DAMAGE
In this part the effects of a tsunami are evaluated. There is tried to get insight into the behaviour of
the design during a tsunami and to make an estimation of the potential damage. To introduce this
part and description of the phenomenon Tsunami is cited from section 7.2.2 of the FEMA P-55
Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA, 2011):

“Tsunamis are long-period water waves generated by undersea shallow- focus earthquakes or by
undersea crustal displacements (subduction of tectonic plates), landslides, or volcanic activity.
Tsunamis can travel great distances, undetected in deep water, but shoaling rapidly in coastal waters
and producing a series of large waves capable of destroying harbor facilities, shore protection
structures, and upland buildings... Coastal construction in tsunami hazard zones must consider the
effects of tsunami run-up, flooding, erosion, and debris loads. Designers should also be aware that
the “run-down” or return of water to the sea can also damage the landward sides of structures that
withstood the initial run-up.”

The tsunami forces are evaluated using the maximum known event. This event is called MCT
(Maximum Considered Tsunami). In case of the Coliumo bay, the MCT is defined by the tsunami
caused by the Maule earthquake of February 2010. The damage evaluation is based on the numerical
model of the tsunami of 2010 (Martinez & Aranguiz, 2016). According to the outcome of the model
study, the Maule earthquake caused a tsunami event with waves up to a height of 7 meters, see
Figure 9-4.

Figure 9-4: Sea level elevation during the tsunami of February 2010 (Martinez & Aranguiz, 2016)

The maximum inudation during the tsunami event is depicted in Figure 9-5.

Figure 9-5 Inundation area obtained in the numerical simulation (Martinez & Aranguiz, 2016)

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 43

According to the Risk and design philosophy described in Chapter 2 of Part I: Analysis, the
performance level of the design for this extreme events is: Ensure life safety and minimize the
economic damage. To ensure life safety, an evacuation procedure has to be elaborated. The
evacuation procedure is beyond the scope of the report. Conversely an evaluation of the economic
damage is elaborated.

The damage evaluation starts with the determination of the different loads which are caused by the
tsunami. The loads of the tsunami are calculated according to the FEMA (North-American)
standards. The FEMA P-646 (FEMA, 2008) describes all the different loads on buildings caused by
tsunamis. The loads acting on the breakwater and the jetty during the MCT are summarized
underneath. This are the loads of importance for evaluating the potential damage caused by the
MCT. An extensive description of the loads is given in Appendix J.1.

 hydrostatic forces;
 buoyant forces;
 hydrodynamic forces;
 impulsive forces;
 debris impact forces;
 debris damming forces;
 uplift forces; and
 additional gravity loads from retained water on elevated floors.

For both the breakwater and the jetty the different forces are determined. Depending on the forces a distinction is made
between the different parts of the jetty. The forces on the jetty are shown in Table 9-2. The forces on the breakwater are
shown in

Table 9-3. The effects of the above presented loads are elaborated for both the jetty and the
breakwater in upcoming parts.

Table 9-2. Tsunami forces acting on the jetty.

Jetty Piles Deck Total structure

Force value unit value unit value unit
Hydrostatic 14,47 kN/m length 23,84 kN/m width
Hydronamic 14,87 kN/m length 22,59 kN/m width
Impulsive 22,3 kN/m length 33,88 kN/m width
Debris Impact 1230 kN
Buoyant 3,71 kN/m2
Debris damming 492,76 kN
Uplift 0,3 kN/m2
Additional gravity 61,8 kN/m2

44 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

 Table 9-3: Tsunami forces acting on the breakwater

Breakwater
Force value unit
Hydrostatic 15,1 kN/m width
Buoyant 42,4 kN/m width
Hydronamic 41,1 kN/m width
Impulsive 61,6 kN/m width
Debris Impact 1230 kN

9.3.1 JETTY
9.3.1.1 Structural damage
As already explained in the previous section, the effect of the tsunami on the jetty will be analysed.
Different tsunami load cases are defined and calculated. Not all tsunami loads will take place at the
same time, consequently tsunami load combinations are composed. According to FEMA, P-55
Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA, 2011) the tsunami load combinations can be defined as
displayed in Table 9-4. See Appendix J.6 for more detail. The configuration of the tsunami loads is
visualized in Figure 9-6.

Table 9-4: General tsunami load combinations

D L Fh Fb Fd Fs Fi;1 Fi;2 Fdm;1 Fdm;2 Fu Fr

TC1 1.2 0.25 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC2 1.2 0.25 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC3 1.2 0.25 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC4 1.2 0.25 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC5 1.2 0.25 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC6 1.2 0.25 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC10 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC11 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
TC12 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 45

 Figure 9-6: Configuration of tsunami loads

The different load combinations are analyzed with software ETABS. (ETABS, 2016) Unfortunately,
the jetty will be severly damaged after the event of the tsunami. Most elements exceed the unity
checks, as a result plastic deformations will occur and probably lots of elements will fail. As an
example, after applying combination TC2 in ETABS including the debris impact force, the unity
check of the pile at the corner exceeds 8.0, see Figure 9-7. In order to resist the impact force, the
pile dimensions should be increased to a high extent, which is not feasible nor cost-effective for this
relatively small design. It can be concluded that for this jetty it is not benificial to design against the
impact of such a heavy tsunami.

Figure 9-7: Deformation combination TC2

46 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

9.3.1.2 Geohazard: Scour
See chapter 6.2.7.2 Failure Mechanisms in 6.2.7: Final Design: Foundations for the treatment of
scour around the jetty piles, which is assumed to not be of importance in the normal design case,
due to the excavation of the layer of sediment. Here the steady current was assumed to be
dominating. In the case of a tsunami event like that of Maule 2010, the wave may be governing.
Due to large differences in scour properties between steady currents and tsunami waves, the
tsunami-induced scour depth is a topic of much debate and current research, and an analytical
method is lacking to date. However, Tonkin et al. suggest a limiting scour depth of 3m from post-
tsunami field observations in Japan and Sumatra (2004). Thus, it is important to investigate the
weatherability and susceptibility to scour erosion of the sedimentary bedrock to determine whether
the jetty piles may be structurally affected by the theoretically proposed maximum scour depth.
Mitigation measures in the form of quarry stone, gabions or matted aprons, or blankets, may have
to applied around the piles.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 47

9.3.2 BREAKWATER
9.3.2.1 Determining tsunami damage
In this part insight is gained in the effect of the tsunami on the breakwater. This part is meant to
quantify, or at least to get an approximation of the damage caused by the tsunami. There are methods
proposed for armour stability under tsunami attack, focusing on the current velocities (Kato, Suwa,
Watanabe, & Hatogai, 2012). Though to determine the exact flow velocities at which the breakwater
is exposed would take time consuming model calculations. These calculations are beyond the scope
of this report. Therefor use is made of more general design formulae to get insight in the effects of
the tsunami.

The authors of the Handbook of ‘Coastal disaster mitigation for engineers and planners; advice to
make use of the Hudson formula for the design of armour units in tsunami prone areas (Esteban,
Takagi, & Shibayama, 2015). For a breakwater in a tsunami prone area, the armour units should first
be designed using the Van der Meer or Hudson formula against wind waves in the area. This is the
usual method in the design of any breakwater. Finally, at the end of the design procedure a check
should be made that the breakwater meets the requirement of the formula adapted to tsunamis
(Esteban, et al., 2013). The formula reads as follows:

= ( )
(9.1)

ℎ ( )
ℎ (−)
( / )
ℎ ℎ ( )
(−)
(−)
ℎ (°)

To check if the design of the breakwater meets the requirements, the ratio: actual (designed) weight
of the stones and the required weight of the stones to withstand tsunami impacts.

= (9.2)

However, the Hudson formula does not provide an indication of the degree of damage that can be
expected due to a given event. Only an estimation can be made (Esteban, et al., 2013). The Van der
Meer formula is used to try quantifying the damage of the breakwater. The Van der Meer Formula
is formulated for plunging and surging waves, where a tsunami is a surging wave (bore type of wave)
(Holthuijsen, 2007).

48 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

For plunging waves:

.
% . .
∆
= 8.68 if (9.3)
√

For surging waves:

.
% .
∆
= 1.4 cot if (9.4)
√

With the following parameters and limits:

: :

( )
ℎ ℎ ( )
( )
(−)
( / )
( / )
(−)
(−)
∗ ( / )
%/ ℎ ℎ
( )

S represents the dimensionless damage level: = (9.5)

The definition of the damage level is illustrated in Figure 9-8, the erosion area is the surface in a
cross section that is displaced.

Figure 9-8: Illustration of breakwater damage level

The calculations with the Van der Meer formula are executed with BREAKWAT3.0. For an
extensive explanation of BREAKWAT3.0, read Appendix H.3.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 49

9.3.2.2 Input to compute tsunami damage
The modelled tsunami characteristics at this location (see also paragraph 9.3) are used as basis of the
calculations. For the calculation of the required weight of armour units (W) with the Hudson
formula, the following input in used:

Table 9-5: Input for Hudson formula

Parameter Value Unit Source

Htsunami 10.4 (m) (Martinez & Aranguiz, 2016) (FEMA, 2011)
At 1 (-) (Esteban, Takagi, & Shibayama, 2015)
γ 2650 (kg/m3) (Schiereck & Verhagen, 2012)
KD Trunk section 3.5 (-) (Esteban, Takagi, & Shibayama, 2015)
KD Round head 3 (-) (Esteban, Takagi, & Shibayama, 2015)
Sr 1.5 (-) (FEMA, 2011)
α 26.6 (°) -

For the calculation to quantify the damage to the breakwater with the Van der Meer formula, the
following input is used:

Table 9-6: Input for Van der Meer formula

Parameter Value Unit Source

Hs 8 (m) (Martinez & Aranguiz, 2016)
H2%/Hs 1.0 (-) -
Tm 30 (s) -
P 0.60 (-) (Schiereck & Verhagen, 2012)
Cot(α) 2.0 (-) -
N 20 (-) -
M50 10000 (kg) -
ρw 1025 (kg/m3) (FEMA, 2011)
ρa 2650 (kg/m3) (Schiereck & Verhagen, 2012)

A value for H2%/Hs = 1 is chosen because in this case the value of Hs is also the maximum wave
height. Tm is set on 30 seconds, which is the maximum wave period in the BREAKWAT design tool.
The number of waves is set on 20 to ensure a conservative calculation. In reality the tsunami event
contains around 10 big waves.

50 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

9.3.2.3 Output for tsunami damage
The calculation of the required weight of armour units (W) with the Hudson formula (9.1) gives the
following results:

Table 9-7: Results from Hudson formula

Parameter Trunk Roundhead Unit

Wrequired 10000 12000 (kg)
Wdesign 10000 10000 (kg)
R 1 0.83 (-)
Dn50 required 1.56 1.65 (m)
Dn50 Design 1.56 1.56 (m)

According to this values, there will not be damage at the trunk section of the breakwater.
However, the roundhead of the breakwater will experience some damage. During a tsunami event,
displacements of the elements located at the roundhead will occur. Because the Hudson formula
does not provide an indication of the degree of damage that can be expected an estimation is made,
using Figure 9-9.

Figure 9-9: Estimate of damage level (Esteban, et al., 2013)

According to (Esteban, et al., 2013) value of the damage level at the roundhead of the breakwater
can be estimated as S = 1.8. This damage level is equivalent to initial damage that needs to repaired.
Nevertheless, no all-embracing rehabilitation is necessary.

The calculations made with the Van der Meer formula give a damage level of S = 0.3. The correctness
of this value can be questioned. Basically, the Van der Meer formula is not conducted for tsunami
waves. Hence, the tsunami characteristics are exceeding the limits for the Van der Meer formula.
Moreover, the damage level is much lower than can be expected. Thereby the outcome of the
calculation with the Van der Meer formula has no value.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 51

Summarizing: The tsunami will cause damage to the breakwater. Because use is made of a very
simple approximation, it is not possible to quantify the damage caused by the tsunami in detail. The
degree of damage can be estimated on a damage level of S = 1.8. The breakwater is for this reason
constructed out of just one stone dimension, to be able to recover it easily. A more comprehensive
analysis is necessary to really quantify the movement of the stones. This study should consider
currents instead of normal waves.

52 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

9.3.3 ONSHORE STRUCTURES
9.3.3.1 Geohazard: Scour
Building 11 in Figure 2-17 of Part I: Analysis is a critical onshore building, as it is the largest
structure, is selected for redevelopment and it is located relatively close to the shore. Therefore, this
building is considered for scour.

Scour could cause the soil underneath and between the footing to be removed, uplifting or tilting
the structure, as observed elsewhere in Dichato during the Maule 2010 tsunami. Relationships exist
describing tsunami induced scouring, such as that by Tonkin et al. (2003). However, data gathered
for local scour depths induced by the 2011 Tohoku Tsunami in Japan (Tonkin, Francis, Bricker, &
J.D., 2014) around structures suggest the following relationship between scour depth and flow depth

= 1.2
max =3

There is no apparent correlation of scour depth to soil type, possibly due to a very high Shield’s
parameter. An added effect to tsunami induced scour is that of liquefaction due to rapid drawdown,
which from the data seemed the dominating contributor to scouring around structures (Tonkin,
Francis, Bricker, & J.D., 2014).

In the case of EMBD building 11, the maximum flow depth here was 7m during the Maule
2010 event. This would give a scour depth which would be limited by the maximum of 3m, which
is indeed realistic in this case as the geophysical test has delineated the presence of rock at 3m below
ground surface.

Mitigation measures include placing the top of the foundation slab below the scour depth of 3m.
This is unrealistically deep and not cost-effective for a shallow foundation slab. Short piles may be
a better foundation option to avoid scour effects, but given the lack of application of deep
foundations for low-rise buildings in Chile this is unlikely to be implemented, either.

9.3.3.2 Geohazard: Slope failure

Tsunamis have in past seismic events triggered major landslides in the Concepcion area, see
Appendix K for more theory behind slope failures and past event in the area. During site visits it
was observed that several slopes behind the Marine Biology Station at Punta Villarrica showed
evidence of past failures in the form of debris at the toe and exposed slide surfaces. A slope along
profile I-I’ in Fig K-4 in Appendix K1 is situated right behind the Marine Biology Station and
presents a possible hazard to the Station. If the slope were to fail in its entirety, it could impact the
road running along structures at the EMBD site.

A slope stability rating system, Hack’s Slope Stability Probability Classification, is used to analyse
both the mass and local instability of the slope in question. The SSPC is a three-step classification
system based on the probabilistic assessment of independent failure mechanisms as a result of field
records of the slope.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 53

An outcrop of the slope under consideration under consideration is shown in Figures K-2 and K3 in
Appendix K.1. The rock in question is soft sandstone from the Curanilahue formation, with thin to
thick bedding and two other identified discontinuity sets. Thin slabs of the rock break easily in the
hand. For a filled out SSPC-form, see Appendix K.1.

The SSPC results are as follows: in terms of global failure the slope is highly unstable (<5%
probability of stability), see Figure 9-10. This is caused by the low intact rock strength of the
material. In terms of discontinuity-dependent instability, the bedding plane is only 5% stable, whilst
joint set 1 is highly stable at >95% probability of stability. Figure 9-11 indicates that joint set 3 is
unstable but in fact its apparent dip coincides with the slope dip and therefore the probability of
sliding failure is low.

Figure 9-10: Orientation-independent failure -probability of mass failure of the slope (Hack, 2003)

Figure 9-11: Orientationy-dependent failure -probability of sliding failure for each discontinuity set

54 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

9.4 SUMMARY OF RISKS AND MITIGATION

9.4.1 JETTY
Failure mechanism Natural Risk (=probability x Mitigation measures
event consequence)
Collapse due to high Earthquake Low, structure designed Design with appropriate
lateral displacements for lateral seismic loads safety factors
Pile-short effect Earthquake Low because all piles Maintain dredged water
have same length depth
Liquefaction-induced Earthquake Low due to the Maintain dredged water
differential settlement, excavated overlying depth; low slope angle;
or bending and buckling sand and avoid build-up of
of piles loose sediment
Foundation scour Tsunami Low due to the Maintain dredged water
excavated overlying depth and avoid build-up
sand of loose sediment
Pounding from adjacent Earthquake Low, enough space in Ensure and maintain
structure (abutment) between two structures enough space in between
guaranteed structures

9.4.2 BREAKWATER
Failure mechanism Natural event Risk (=probability x Mitigation measures
consequence)
Global instability Earthquake / Low None
Tsunami
Settlement crest Earthquake Low probability and easy None, rehabilitation
to rehabilitate afterwards, if necessary.
consequence.
Slope deformation Earthquake Low in comparison to None, rehabilitation
tsunami. afterwards, if necessary.
Individual stone Tsunami Probable when extreme Heavy stones (W50 10.000
displacement impact occurs, with as kg)
major consequence the
hitting of the jetty piles.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 55

9.4.3 ONSHORE STRUCTURES
Failure mechanism Natural event Risk (=probability x Mitigation measures
consequence)
Structural failure Earthquake / Low consequences: Ensure resilience and
tsunami building is constructed rehabilitation capacity: all
to be resilient primary functions in top
floor.
Liquefaction and Earthquake Top 3m of sand are Dynamic compaction of
lateral spreading susceptible to sand.
liquefaction, high risk of
unallowable settlement.
Foundation scour Tsunami High level of uncertainty Place top of foundation at
in tsunami-induced least 3m below ground
scour depth prediction surface.
Slope failure Tsunami High probability of mass Drainage measures on
failure / debris flow of slope; prevent toe erosion
slope behind EMBD, by tsunami through added
could affect major part of support; and ensure
scope area. resilience in structures
which could be affected.

56 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

10 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
10.1 DREDGING
The breakwater and jetty have been designed according to certain water depth and subsurface
conditions, which must be established before construction of either of these two elements.
Therefore, after the accessibility of the site is ensured, a first step of this project is the dredging of
soft soils and some rock removal at the locations of the breakwater and the jetty. The sand layer on
top of the sedimentary rock may be removed by backhoe on a pontoon, whilst the removal of
weathered top layer of sandstone may be carried out with a cutter tool. The depth contours before
and after the dredging are shown in Figure 10-1 and Figure 10-2.

Figure 10-1: Depth contours before dredging

Figure 10-2: Depth contours after dredging

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 57

10.2 CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE
Figure 10-3 shows a rough timeline for the construction of the various elements part of the EBMD
design proposal. Note that because prior to construction, a license and funding must be granted by
the local Department of Port Works, and these aspects are not included in the time planning in the
figure. Therefore, the start time of actual construction is uncertain.

The critical path (in orange) shows the main dependencies and the resulting total construction time,
which is estimated at 35 weeks. The optimal time of the year to construct is after August, since
storms before this time could hinder the construction of the breakwater. It is also important to finish
construction before the summer holidays in February, which would otherwise interrupt work for
at least a month.

In theory, the construction of the breakwater, the redevelopment of the building onshore and the
placement of the pavement can start simultaneously as soon as site preparation has been carried out.
The construction of the jetty may commence as soon as the breakwater has been placed and has
ensured calm waters.

Some main uncertainties in the planning lie in the dredging works around the jetty and the pile
driving, due to inherent unknowns in subsurface conditions, and relative inexperience with
dredging involving some rock removal. There are also many uncertainties in the redevelopment of
the building. It is unknown to what extent the current concrete frame is structurally sound and
problems with the concrete, reinforcement or foundation slab may only be discovered upon
stripping.

58 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

Figure 10-3: Project construction timeline

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 59

11 COST BREAKDOWN
A more detailed cost breakdown, including general preparatory work and the construction of the
pavement and redeveloped building are given in Table 11-1. For source of prices please consult
Chapter 4.2 of Part I: Analysis.

Table 11-1: Cost breakdown of design proposal

Nu m ber Unit Unit price (CLP) Costs (CLP) Costs (EUR)

Site preparation $ 6,200,000 € 8,986
Dredging works $ 15,750,000 € 22,826
GENERAL $ 21,950,000 € 31,812

Vertical piles 17 no. $ 362,498 $ 6,162,473 € 8,931

Inclined piles 4 no. $ 386,665 $ 1,546,660 € 2,242
Pile driving 21 no. $ 475,000 $ 9,975,000 € 14,457
Pile anchoring 4 no. $ 10,000,000 $ 40,000,000 € 57,971
Beams purchase 16 no. $ 362,498 $ 5,799,974 € 8,406
Beams placing (5 men + crane) 5 days $ 2,100,000 $ 10,500,000 € 15,217
Construction formwork deck 198 m2 $ 6,699 $ 1,326,402 € 1,922
Reinforcement deck 0.45 m3 $ 4,056,000 $ 1,825,200 € 2,645
Concrete deck 45 m3 $ 80,000 $ 3,600,000 € 5,217
Purchase installations 1 - $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 € 5,797
Placing installations (5men) 5 days $ 100,000 $ 500,000 € 725
Crane purchase (1000kg) 1 no. $ 1,380,000 $ 1,380,000 € 2,000
Placing Crane (2 men + crane) 1 days $ 2,040,000 $ 2,040,000 € 2,957
Purchase steel mooring stairs 1 no. $ 14,000,000 $ 14,000,000 € 20,290
Placing stairs (7 men + crane) 3 days $ 2,140,000 $ 6,420,000 € 9,304
JETTY $ 109,075,709 € 158,081

Armour stones and placement 4600 m3 $ 20,000 $ 92,000,000 € 133,333

BREAKWAT ER $ 92,000,000 € 133,333

Stripping and construction 720 m2 $ 120,000.00 $ 86,400,000.00 € 125,217

REDEVELOPED BUILDING $ 86,400,000.00 € 125,217

Waste material from armourstone quarrying 57.6 m3 $ 6,342 $ 365,299 € 529

Crushed Concreet (process) 43.2 m3 $ 2,600 $ 112,320 € 163
Microsurface 18 m3 $ 6,000 $ 108,000 € 157
Machinery and labour 118.8 m3 $ 6,549 $ 778,021 € 1,128
PAVEMENT $ 1,363,640 € 1,976

SUBTOTAL $ 310,789,349 € 450,419

Unforeseen costs 20% of sub-total $ 62,157,870 € 90,084

Maintenance 1% of sub-total per year 25 years $ 3,107,893 $ 77,697,337 € 112,605
T OTAL $ 450,644,557 € 653,108

60 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 CONCLUSIONS
 Currently the EBMD of UdeC cannot perform its main objectives of scientific and academic
research in a safe and efficient manner, especially since the destruction following Maule 2010.
A jetty is proposed as a mooring facility, in combination with a breakwater to protect it and the
EBMD vessel from waves, which are determined to be relatively high in this part of Coliumo
Bay.
 A ‘Traditional’ jetty design is proposed with steel piles in a Marco Duplas configuration in order
to provide a suitable structural period to cope with seismic loading (i.e. not too flexible to avoid
large deformations, and not too rigid in order keep the design slender). The concrete deck rests
on steel beams. All elements are dimensioned to be structurally sound.
 The construction of a breakwater in the front of a jetty protects the jetty and the moored vessel
from wave impact under normal design wave conditions. However, it does not protect the jetty
during a tsunami event. The breakwater consists of armour stones of median diameter 1.56m
and median weight 10.000 kg.
 Neither the breakwater or the jetty are likely to suffer severe damage during a large-scale
earthquake event. The ensuing tsunami, however, may cause damage to the round-head of the
breakwater, but this damage is repairable with the existing stones. Debris impact may cause
extensive deformations of parts of the jetty.
 The EBMD as a whole is upgraded through the redevelopment of a building which is designed
with resilience in mind as a tsunami mitigation method currently very popular in Chile. Also,
the upgrade of the pavement using a surface protection layer prevents the necessity of regular
maintenance and solves on-site dust emission problems.
 Dredging must be carried out prior to construction to remove the soft soils overlying the
sedimentary rock. These soils are susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake, and
associated lateral spreading and scouring. In the design of both the jetty and the breakwater it
is assumed that the structures rest on bedrock.
 The construction is estimated to take around 35 weeks and ought to be carried out preferably
between the months of October and May. The costs associated with the construction of the
various elements of the design as well as a 25-year maintenance period are estimated at 450 mil
CLP or 650,000 EUR. This estimation of construction time and costs does not include
preliminary site investigation, planning or obtainment of permits.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 61

12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations include considerations that ought to be made for a next design
phase; some draw-backs of the current design; and missing information which would aid a final
decision on the feasibility of the design proposal.

Overall, to attract funding for the project from the Department of Port Works of the Bío-Bío region,
a further design phase may involve the widening of the scope to include more stakeholders. If the
concrete abutment were able to be used by artisanal fishers, or an enlargement of the jetty would
be considered, an integration between UdeC and inhabitants of Dichato could stimulate government
and university interest.

12.2.1 JETTY
 In order to develop the final design of the jetty, the current preliminary design should be
investigated in more detail. Considered loads can be calculated more precisely and more load
configurations can be researched. For example, the influence of impact loads on other elements
of the structure can be analysed.
 All structural joints have to be analysed and calculated more thoroughly. Detailed drawings
have to be created which will explain the type, principle and dimensions of the connections.
The connection between the concrete abutment and the jetty needs special attention, as up to
this point only the basic principle has been explained.
 For the current preliminary design, the frame of the staircase and the defence beams including
its rubber defenders are assumed to be similar to the ones from the Bachelor Thesis (Sandoval
Munoz, 2010). In the final design, these frames and the defenders need to be studied more
extensively.
 For the extreme impact evaluation the influence of the Maule earthquake needs to be analysed.
This will require in a dynamic analysis including the whole spectrum of the earthquake,
resulting in certain displacements and damaging of the structure.
 The impact of the subsequent tsunami of 2010 could be researched in more detail by using the
output from the aforementioned dynamic earthquake analysis as input before adding the
tsunami loads.
 The current solution to prevent uplift of the piles subject to tension (inclined) is to anchor them
into the rock using a micropile. However, this may not be the optimal solution. It must be
investigated whether it is more economical to simply take pile with a larger diameter and embed
it deeper into the sedimentary rock without anchorage. This will depend on the required
diameter needed to obtain sufficient weight and skin friction to resist pull-out, and associated
steel cost.
 The assumption was made that the existing concrete abutment is undamaged and has a high
structural resistance. However, this needs to be researched in more detail through several
analysis methods: non-destructive methods (e.g. visual assessment, Impact-Echo (IE), Surface
Penetrating Radar (SPR)) and/or destructive methods (e.g. coring, cutting, drilling) (Grill, 2011).

62 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

12.2.2 BREAKWATER
 For a final design of the breakwater a more in detail design needs to be elaborated. The focus of
this project was rather on defining the wave climate in the bay of Coliumo than on the design
of the breakwater. Investigation into the optimization of the slope, crest width and damage level
can be done. Moreover, a consideration can be made to make use of a berm, core and toe
structure.
 The construction process of the breakwater is not elaborated in this report. Associated with the
optimization of the breakwater for a final design, also a construction plan can be determined.
Both a detailed design and an execution plan of the construction needs to be included in the
construction plan.
 In the final design, also a more in depth investigation into the effect of the tsunami waves is of
importance. In the current damage evaluation use is made of more general formulas to estimate
the damage to the breakwater caused by the tsunami. To really quantify the movement of the
stones, a detailed study into the flow velocities around the stones is required. With this
information also a better founded determination of distance between the breakwater and jetty
can be made.
 Improvements of the study into the wave climate in the bay of Coliumo are possible. The
Delft3D-WAVE model can be improved by accounting for the 30 cm water level increase by
low air pressure during a North Western storm (Winkler et al. 2016) and some model related
improvements can be made.
 A study can be made to the sediment transport around the breakwater and jetty. The soil will
be excavated here and hence, the sediment balance is disturbed. This might result in problems
regarding maintenance dredging and additional scouring/ accumulation.

12.2.3 FOUNDATIONS AND GEOHAZARDS

 In general, site investigation, in the form of SPTs and boreholes must be carried at a more
relevant location. In this design, use was made of six SPTs conducted in 2010, four of which
were performed further offshore than relevant for the location of the jetty and breakwater and
hence may not accurately reflect the current subsurface conditions at the location of choice.
 It has been assumed in the design of the jetty and breakwater that both rest on sedimentary
bedrock, since the 1-2m of overlying sands are dredged away prior to construction. However,
in the long run, sediments may accumulate once again and present various hazards to foundation
stability. Sediment transport, especially behind the breakwater, warrants more investigation.
 To investigate scour at both the jetty piles and at the breakwater more accurately, the
weatherability or susceptibility to scour erosion of the sedimentary bedrock must be analysed.
In the preceding analysis it has been assumed that the bedrock is not susceptible to erosion at
all, but since it concerns soft rock, this may not reflect the true conditions.
 Only a single slope analysis was conducted near the EBMD, even though the area had many
unstable slopes. A more complete survey of slopes ought to be made, and a coherent slope
stabilization scheme for the hills behind the coastline may be established.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 63

12.2.4 EBMD BUILDING
 The EBMD building selected for redevelopment must be analysed structurally in a next design
phase, as up until here only a conceptual design has been made. Dimensioning the structural
elements will also give a better idea of costs and the corresponding feasibility of the construction
of this tsunami-resilient building. Perhaps it is more profitable to design the building as the
other buildings on site have been redeveloped since 2010 (two floors with no separate
structures).

12.2.5 PAVEMENT
 It is likely not feasible to use recycled concrete as sub-base material for the pavement. Although
often applied in The Netherlands, the in Chile rarely carried out process of concrete cleaning
and preparation would render this solution more expensive than obtaining crushed rock from
nearby quarries.
 In the case of future expansion of the EBMD facilities, or merging with other functionalities
such as artisanal fishing, the capacity of the on-site infrastructure must be re-evaluated. It may
be of use to compare (in a MCA) various pavement options which may be suitable for more
intense use, such as asphaltic solutions or thin concrete slabs.

64 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

REFERENCES
AASHTO, L. (1998). Bridge design specifications.

ACI Committee 318. (2008, January). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-08) and Commentary. American Concrete Institute.

ANSI. (2005). AISC 360-05-Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Chicago: AISC.

Awad, A., & Ayoub, A. (1976). Ultimate uplift capacity of vertical and inclined piles in cohesionless
soil. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering, Budapest.

Baeriswyl, S. (2015). Nuevos desafíos urbanos y nuevas herramientas de planificación. Urbano 9.

Breusers, H. N., Nicollet, G., & Shen, H. W. (1977). Local scour around cylindrical piers. Journal of
Hydraulic Research 15.3, 211-252.

Broms, B. (1964). Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, 27-64.

Bustos, A. (2016, December 22). Lecture on Seismically Isolated Structures. UdeC, Concepcion.

Canam Group. (2016). Seismic Isolators: GOODCO Z-TECH. Quebec.

Crane Authority. (2009). Crane Authority. Retrieved 2009, from http://www.craneauthority.com/

Esteban, M., Jayaratne, R., Mikami, T., Morikubo, I., Shibayama, T., Danh Thao, N., . . . Ohtani, A.
(2013). Stability of breakwater armour units against tsunami. J. Waterw. Ports Coast. Ocean
Eng., 188–198.

Esteban, M., Takagi, H., & Shibayama, T. (2015). Handbook of Coastal disaster mitigation for
engineers and planners. Oxford UK: Elsevier.

ETABS. (2016, 12 19). ETABS (2016) [Software]. Retrieved from

https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs#

FEMA. (2008). Guidelines for Design of Structures forVertical Evacuation fromTsunamis . NOAA,
FEMA. California: FEMA.

FEMA. (2011). Coastal Construction Manual P-55; Principles and Practices of Planning, Siting,
Designing, Constructing, and Maintaining Residential Buildings in Coastal Areas (Fourth
Edition). FEMA, Washington.

Grill, J. M. (2011). Assessment of Existing Concrete Structures in the Absence of Drawings.

Whitlock Dalrymple Poston & Associates, PC.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 65

Guzmán A., F. (2010). Norma Chilena Oficial Nch3171.Of2010. Diseño estructural - Disposiciones
generales y combinaciones de cargas. Instituto Nacional de Normalización.

Hack, R. (2003). A new approach to rock slope stability–a probability classification (SSPC). Bulletin
of Engineering Geology and the Environment 62.2, 167-184.

Haigh, S. K. (2000). Lateral spreading during centrifuge model earthquakes. ISRM International
Symposium. International Society for Rock Mechanics.

Hidalgo, O. P. (1986). Norma Chilena Oficial Nch1537.Of86. Diseño estructural de edificios - Cargas
permanentes y sobrecargas de uso. Instituto Nacional de Normalización.

Hidalgo, O. P. (1996). Norma Chilena Oficial NCh433.Of1996. Diseño sísmico de edificios. Instituto
Nacional de Normalización.

Hidalgo, O. P. (2003). Norma Chilena Oficial Nch2369.Of2003. Diseño sísmico de estructuras e

instalaciones industriales. Santiago, Chile: Instituto Nacional de Normalización.

Hidalgo, O. P. (2010). Norma Chilena Oficial NCh3171.Of2010. Diseño estructural - Disposiciones

generales y combinaciones de cargas. Santiago, Chile: Instituto Nacional de Normalización.

Holthuijsen, L. (2007). Waves in oceanic and coastal waters. TU Delft and UNESCO-IHE.
Cambridge: Cambridge.

Ibáñez V., J. (1971). Norma Chilena Oficial Nch432.Of71. Cálculo de la acción del viento sobre las
construcciones. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Tecnológicas y Normalización.

ICA. (2000). Manual de Diseno para Estructuras de Acero. Instituto Chileno del Acero.

IIASA. (2015, December 2). International Centre for Geohazards (ICG). Retrieved from
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis:
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/ResearchPartners/International-Centre-for-
Geohazards.en.html

Instituto Chileno del Acero. (2000). Manual de diseño para estructuras de acero. Metodo de factores
de carga y resistencia. Instituto Chileno del Acero S.A.

Instituto Chileno del Acero. (2000). Manual de diseño para estructuras de acero. Instituto Chileno
del Acero.

Kato, F., Suwa, Y., Watanabe, K., & Hatogai, S. (2012). Mechanismof coastal dike failure induced by
the Great East Japan Earthquake Tsunami. Santander, Spain: In: Proc. of 33rd Int. Conf. on
Coastal Engineering.

Martinez, C., & Aranguiz, R. (2016). Riesgo de tsunami y planificacion resiliente de la costa chilena.
Revista de Geogradia Norte Grane, 33-54.

66 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft

Memos, C., Bouckovalas, G., & Tsiachris, A. (2012, 04 26). Stability of rubble mound breakwaters
under seismic action. Coastal engineering.

Nave, R. (n.d.). Simple harmonic motion. Retrieved 12 26, 2016, from HyperPhysics:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/shm.html

NNI. (2006). NEN 6740:2006 Geotechnics -TGB 1990 - Basic requirements and loads. Delft:
Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut.

OCDI . (2009). Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbour facilities in Japan.
Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan.

PDCA. (2001). Recommended design specifications for driven bearing piles. Pile Driving
Contractors Association.

Poulos, H. (2006). Raked piles - Virtues and drawbacks. Journal of geotechnical and
geoenvironmental engineering 132.6, 795-803.

SAFE. (2016). SAFE (2016) [Software].

Sandoval Munoz, C. A. (2010). Diseno del Atracadero para la Estacion Biologia Marine en Dichato.
Concepcion: Universidad de Concepcion.

Schiereck, G., & Verhagen, H. (2012). Introduction to bed, bank and shore protection. Delft: VSSD.

Srinivasamurthy, B. R., & Pujar, K. L. (2009). Socketing of bored piles in rock. Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical Conference. Guntur.

Steel Flooring Products Co. (n.d.). Straight flight staircases. Retrieved 12 19, 2016, from Steel
Flooring Products: http://www.steelflooring.ie/index.html

Thenoux, G., & al, e. (2002). Guía de diseño estructural de pavimentos para caminos de bajo volumen
de tránsito. Dirección de Vialidad, Ministerio de Obras Públicas de Chile.

Tol, A. (2006). CTB1410(67) Funderingstechnieken. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of

Technology.

Tonkin, A., Yeh, H., & Heller, E. (2004). Mechanisms of scour induced by tsunami runup.
Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on scour and erosion, (p. Vol. 2). Singapore.

Tonkin, S. P., Francis, M., Bricker, & J.D. (2014). Limits on Coastal Scour Depths due to Tsunami.
International Efforts in Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, 671-678.

TU Eindhoven. (n.d.). Vuistregels voor globale dimensionering.

Verhagen, H. J., d'Angremond, K., & van Roode, F. (2009). Breakwaters and closure dams. TU Delft.
Delft: VSSD.

TU Delft | Impact Proof Chile 67

Wang, H., Yang, C. Y., Lamison, C., & Chen, S. S. (1978). Loadings on rubble-mound breakwaters
due to earthquakes. University of Delaware. Delaware: Coastal Engineering.

Wijdeven, B. (2015). Marinas and cruise terminals (Ports and Waterways 2). Presentatie, TU Delft ,
Hydraulic engineering, Delft.

Yang, X., & Jin, X. (2015, 02 11). Dynamic analysis of a rubble-mound breakwater subject to
earthquake including seawater–structure-foundation interaction. Journal of Engineering for
the Maritime Environment(230), 310-326.

Yasuda, S., Verdugo, R., & Konagai, K. (2010). Case History: Geotechnical damage caused by the
2010 Maule, Chile earthquake. ISSMGE Bulletin: Volume 4, Issue 2, 16-27.

Youd, T., Idriss, I., Andrus, R., & Arango, I. (2001). "Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 127.10, 817-
833.

68 Impact Proof Chile | TU Delft