Fdration Internationale du Bton

Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy
ID 8-2

Session 8 Seismic design of new concrete structures

A Performance-Based Design Approach for Viaduct Seismic

Design
Chiodi, L.
Scott Wilson, Scott House, Basing View, Basingstoke, RG21 4JG, United Kingdom

Stroscio, R.
Tony Gee and Partners, TGP House, 45-47 High Street, Cobham, KT11 3DP, United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION
Most of the world population resides in regions characterised by high earthquake activity, hence world
economy requires the development of major infrastructure projects in areas with high seismicity.
The high seismic demand imposes significant design challenges to bridge designers where the primary
purpose of earthquake design is to safeguard against major failures and loss of life. Therefore the seismic
loading represents generally the governing load combination for the design of viaducts.
To achieve economical designs and enhance structural efficiency, a new concept has been introduced, the
performance-based design. According to this concept, design codes tend to specify multi-level design
earthquakes with corresponding performance requirements, to obtain performance-based objectives that
correspond to desired levels of service. The structure has to meet different post event conditions where
accurate evaluation of the earthquake forces and careful application of the design principles are required for
safe and economic design.
The paper presents a performance-based design methodology founded on the force-strength base approach
from a designers perspective and in relation with the current standards. Detailed examples from recent
seismic design experience of high-speed rail viaducts in Far-East Asia and to AASHTO standards are
included.
Keywords: viaduct design, seismic design, capacity design, overstrength, performance-based

THE CONCEPT OF PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN

Seismic design has been concerned until recently with the structural damage an earthquake can cause in
order to provide for life safety. The structural design has been therefore driven by the necessity to limit the
damage without paying attention to the actual response of the structure, in particular with respect to its
capability to remain serviceable after a seismic event.
The need to reduce the high costs associated with loss of use and repair of heavily damaged structures has
led to the introduction of a new design paradigm in which the focus is on the performance response of the
structure rather than just safeguard against collapse. Performance-based seismic design can be defined as
design to reliably achieve targeted performance objectives. In performance-based seismic design, the
structure functionality is as important as the structural damage.
Performance objectives are levels of acceptable damage of the structure for an earthquake of given severity.
The performance target can represent specified limits on any response parameter such as stress, strains,
displacements and so on. Performance-based design allows a structure to perform in a manner that meets
the owners economic and safety goals. A single performance objective that requires a structure to remain
operational even in the most severe event will result in extraordinarily high costs. Conversely, a design
where life safety is the only requirement may not adequately meet the economic interest of the structure
owners. Due to many sources of uncertainties, the performance levels can be assessed only in probabilistic
terms.
Obviously, the idea to design the structure based on performance objective is not entirely new. A limit state
represents a form of performance objective. However, performance-based earthquake engineering is a more

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

encompassing concept that tries to adapt design and construction to the required performance levels of the
structure.
The general methodology for performance-based design may have different approaches and much research
is needed, and is indeed under way, to obtain a general design process for multiple performance and hazard
levels.
In the following, a performance-based methodology for viaduct seismic design is described where
displacement limits and damage levels are imposed. The structures are analysed with the traditional forcebased approach to verify the corresponding performance objectives. The procedure can be presented with
four main design steps (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Viaduct performance-based seismic design methodology

DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Seismic design is an iterative process where engineers need to understand dynamic behaviour and predict
the effects from various parameters in order to make the appropriate design decisions to build safe and
economic structures. Furthermore, the recent performance-based objectives have introduced multi-level
design earthquake where the structure has to meet different post-earthquake conditions in line with a desired
level of service. An appropriate methodology is therefore important to prevent excessive design and analysis
iterations.

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

Project Specific Information and Requirements

Besides the information usually needed in bridge engineering - constraints definitions, ground conditions and
topographical survey - the design of seismic resistant viaducts requires the knowledge of concepts such as
design earthquake and specific performance criteria.
The design seismic events are defined with earthquake parameters that are specified by the codes of
practice in the form of ground motion coefficients. Usually, these parameters consist of a peak ground
acceleration related to a specific return period and a series of normalised response spectra that are function
of the structure location (soil type) and of the substructure type (damping ratio). The response spectra
represent the peak response of a linear elastic single degree of freedom system with viscous damping when
subjected to a specific ground motion record. Conventionally, the response spectra curves are specified in
function of the structures natural period and are usually defined for both horizontal and vertical ground
motions.
The seismic performance criteria are the post-earthquake conditions that have to be met and are directly
related to the design seismic events definition. For economical and serviceability reasons, clients usually
specify multi-level design earthquakes with corresponding requirements.
For example, a two-level earthquake event can be specified with the corresponding performance criteria as
described in the following:
A major earthquake event with a high peak ground acceleration equivalent to a very rare seismic event,
return period in the order of 1000 years, where the performance requirements are such that structures are
allowed to respond inelastically within specified ductility ratios and with reparable damages in post
earthquake condition. The structures are hence detailed to provide the required ductility allowing sufficient
reduction of the linear elastic seismic effects to permit economic design and providing adequate safety. The
capacity design principles [1] are used to ensure a hierarchy of strengths in the structure and to avoid brittle
failure modes.
An operational earthquake event with lower peak ground acceleration, generally a fraction of the major
earthquake acceleration, corresponding to a frequent or occasional seismic event where the performance
criteria are such that structures must remain elastic (no yielding of the reinforcement and limited concrete
strain) and with limited displacements during the event.

Conceptual Design
The conceptual design of the structural scheme represents one of the most creative and complex stages of the
design process for any engineering structure. At this stage, a range of different constraints must be considered
with the aim to find an optimal span arrangement for the most cost-effective seismic resistant structure.
These constraints include non-seismic criteria such as the vertical and horizontal alignments, the soil
conditions, the obstacles to cross (rivers, roads, railway lines, etc) and the suitable methods of construction,
taking into account safety, construction programme, access, availability and economy, as well as the seismic
requirements where mass and stiffness distribution play fundamental roles.
At the same time the superstructure material is selected in relation to the structural arrangement adopted
and the chosen construction method with consideration to economical and durability aspects. In some
instance, where long-term durability and whole life cost are predominant criteria, concrete superstructures
can be preferred. On the other hand, steel superstructures present a weight advantage that can translate
into a reduction of the seismic effects and may give significant benefits in the design of the substructure.
The next critical step for the designer is the choice of the articulation arrangement and the degree of
connection between piers and deck. In fact, for a given bridge site, the pier heights, the span lengths and the
foundation type are generally defined by the actual boundary conditions. The main design decision is
therefore the definition of the deck degree of continuity and the support conditions at the piers and
abutments.
For long viaducts, where construction repetition plays a major role in the selection of the solution
(construction cost and construction programme), the choice of the articulation arrangement may be
governed by the preferred method of construction, particularly in a design and build contract. For example, a
series of repetitive simply supported spans can be build either with cast in-situ techniques using hydraulic
movable staging systems or made of precast concrete decks. The choice between these construction
3

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

techniques could be governed by the bridge location, where the cast in-situ solution would be preferred for
sites with difficult access.
Arrangements with simply supported spans present several advantages in design simplification and speed of
construction but could lead to long term durability issues as the expansion joints represent the preferred
route for water infiltration causing rebar corrosion, concrete spalling and subsequent high maintenance
costs. Furthermore, the control of the relative movements between adjacent decks during an operational
earthquake could represent a critical performance design objective and may lead to the use of expensive
shock transmission units to limit relative movements.
Adopting a continuous deck eliminates the expansion joints above the piers but requires more involved
construction techniques. This configuration would still require bearing assembly at deck-pier interface to
resist large horizontal seismic effects and will need periodic inspection and maintenance.
The next natural step in the articulation arrangement evolution is an integral connection between pier and
deck that eliminates bearings and expansions joints at the pier locations. Besides the whole life cost
advantage, this option requires a review of the construction method and induces a fundamental difference in
the design concept. In fact, due to the portal-frame behaviour, longitudinal seismic effects introduce bending
moments at the top of the piers and consequently in the deck. In terms of capacity design concepts, the full
structural continuity requires the introduction of additional plastic hinges to generate the plastic mechanism
necessary to dissipate the seismic energy and to provide the required global ductility.
The general rule of the capacity design concept [1,2] is that, under very rare seismic event, structures are
generally allowed to respond inelastically, with the inelastic effects confined to predetermined regions of the
structure (plastic hinges), provided that ductility requirements are satisfied. The viaduct is then designed so
that a stable plastic mechanism can form in the structure. Plastic hinges are introduced in the structural
system to provide a hierarchy of strengths in the various structural components for the intended plastic
mechanism and to avoid brittle failure modes. In bridge engineering context, the strong beam-weak column
approach is usually adopted, where the bridge deck is designed to remain within the elastic range and the
locations of the plastic hinges are in the accessible parts of the piers for ease of inspection, maintenance
and repair.
For non-integral piers, the plastic hinges are designed at the base (Fig. 3). For integral connection between
pier and deck, two plastic hinges are required, at either ends of the pier (Fig. 4). The internal force
distribution is obviously influenced by the choice of the articulation and dictates the location of the plastic
hinges.
The different viaduct articulation arrangements are shown in Fig. 2, with the corresponding advantages and
disadvantages as described in Tab. 1.

Fig. 2. Longitudinal articulation: F=fixed, M=free

4

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Option
A - Simply Supported

B - Continuous

C - Integral

Seismic design of new concrete structures

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Bearings and expansion - Construction and Design repetition - Whole life cost
- Displacement control at
joints at every support
- Longitudinal Earthquake resisted
every support
at each support
- Non optimal deck design
- Expansion joints at abutment only - Displacement control at
Bearings at every
abutments
- Longitudinal restraint at most
support - expansion
- Whole life cost
joints at abutments only slender pier
- Optimal deck design
- Complex construction
Bearings and expansion - Whole life cost
method
joints at abutments only - Number of plastic hinges/degree
- Thermal effects
of redundancy
- Optimal deck design

Note: the optimal span arrangement varies for each option.

Tab. 1. Comparison of articulation arrangements (Fig. 2)

Analysis
An initial analysis with the equivalent static method can be undertaken to assess the conceptual design - pier
dimensions, pier reinforcement, and foundation stiffness - before a complete dynamic analysis. For each
pier, the first mode can be calculated assuming a single degree of freedom system where the deck mass
distribution is simply based on the arrangement of spans and articulation. The effects at the base of the piers
are then calculated for the desired level of earthquake in correlation with the response spectra, the soil type,
the design ground acceleration and the seismic force reduction factors [2]. The validity of this preliminary
analysis is generally dependent on the viaduct regularity [3] but provides a suitable initial design.
Response spectra are defined in the form of normalised acceleration response spectra for member forces
and for displacements. Each response spectrum is tabulated for different soil profiles and are used to
quantify the horizontal and vertical components for very rare seismic event and for operational earthquake.
Since the bridge deck is generally designed to remain within the elastic range, the deck outline design
should be confirmed before starting any substructure detailed design, as any subsequent deck mass change
would result in a re-design of the bridge substructure.
The full structural analysis can be carried out using three dimensional, linear elastic, distributed mass or
lumped mass space frame models. Spring supports are generally modelled at the base of the foundations to
simulate the soil-structure interaction effects. The mass of the structure is generally distributed with
superimposed loadings and live loadings represented by lumped masses at node points applied along the
spans. Element section properties are assumed on the basis of gross concrete sections, with the exception
for the very rare seismic analysis where cracked section properties are used over the plastic hinge regions,
the equivalent flexural stiffness corresponding to a fraction of the gross concrete section properties.
Current available design standards allow the viaduct structural models to be analyzed using the multi-mode
response spectrum method. Sufficient vibration modes are required such that the sum of the effective model
masses for each analysis performed is greater than ninety percent of the total mass modelled.
In applying the capacity design rules, elastic forces from the multi-mode response spectrum analysis are
modified using seismic force reduction factors, which make allowance for increased ductility arising from the
formation of plastic hinges under very rare earthquake event. These reduction factors are dependent on the
allowable ductility capacity, the soil type, the viaduct substructure arrangement and the fundamental natural
period of the structure in the direction under consideration. The seismic reduction factors are only applied to
the bending moments extracted from the elastic analysis in the plastic hinge regions under very rare
earthquake events, for member forces resulting from horizontal loadings.
Since the multi-mode response spectrum analysis is an elastic method, the principle of superposition can be
applied where the three components of the seismic action (longitudinal, transverse and vertical) are
extracted separately and combined using the 1.0/0.3/0.3 combination rule.
Each structural member is designed for the most adverse co-existent actions resulting from one of the three
above combinations.
The soil structure interaction and the pile group stiffness are generally computed using specific software,
which usually assume the pile caps to be rigid, and piles within founding soils to be linear elastic. The soil
5

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

stiffness is defined in terms of shear modulus and Poissons ratio with a linear increase in depth. The pile
group arrangement with the soil properties is modelled and the stiffness is extracted (stiffness matrix) for the
structural analysis. In the global model, the supports are represented with equivalent elastic springs
stiffness.

Performance Design and Verifications

The design process is iterative in the sense that the initial assumptions made for the stiffness of the
substructure, foundations and piers, have significant impact on the distribution of the structure internal
forces. The analysis and design are only complete after the compatibility between the model assumptions
and the design requirements have been satisfied.
It is advisable to complete the superstructure outline design prior, or in parallel to, the design of the
substructure. This would avoid a change of the deck mass during the superstructure detailed design, which
would result in a subsequent design-analysis iteration of the substructure.
A non-exhaustive list of performance design checks is shown in Tab. 2. The criteria to be met under
operational earthquake can be specified by the client, while those under very rare seismic event are
generally based on the design standards.
Design Element

VERY RARE EARTHQUAKE

OPERATIONAL EARTHQUAKE

Plastic
Hinges
sections
(generally pier bases unless
integral structures where pier
top would also apply)

ULS check of shear under

effects arising from capacity
design
ULS check of the reduced
moments with coexistent axial force
Check for any loss of support
Check for minimum dimension
required
to
accommodate
movements
ULS check of shear under
effects arising from capacity
design

Stress Strain limitation check for

the biaxial bending moments and
coexistent axial force

Maximum allowable movement

(displacement and rotation) check

Displacement check (geotechnical)

N/A (generally not critical other than at

ULS)

Expansion joints

Foundations (structural design)

Pier stem and pier top

ULS check of shear under

effects arising from capacity
design

Bearing Assembly

ULS check of shear under

effects arising from capacity
design

Deck

ULS check of diaphragm under

effects arising from capacity
design (Transverse design)
ULS check of Longitudinal Design

Notes:
1)
2)

3)

Elongations/displacements checks

SLS check for Longitudinal and

Transverse design (stress strain
limitation check)
Deflection control check

ULS denotes Ultimate Limit State design

SLS denotes Serviceability Limit State design
Shaded text denotes most critical checks
Tab. 2. Critical seismic performance design checks

For reinforced concrete sections, the overstrength plastic moment (Mos) is defined as the ultimate moment of
resistance of a section under the action of the applied axial load, when the actual material strengths (steel
yield strength and concrete compressive strength) are greater than the specified design strengths.
The overstrength plastic moment Mos is calculated using a factor , which is applied to the plastic moment
Mp.
Mos = Mp

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

With: Mp = ultimate moment of resistance of the section based on the specified design strength of
materials and under the action of applied axial load.
= overstrength factor (e.g. equal to 1.3 according to AASHTO [3])
All elements required to remain elastic are designed for capacity design effects resulting from equilibrium
conditions in the intended plastic mechanism.
The first elements to be designed are the reinforced concrete sections where plastic hinges occur. The
operational earthquake could govern the reinforcing bars in these sections where the strains are limited to
remain within the elastic range to avoid any damages under frequent earthquake conditions. Additionally, the
sections must be checked at ultimate limit state under very rare seismic event using the reduction factors
that make allowance for the ductility of the plastic hinge formation.
The pier sections must also be checked, at ULS, to resist the significant shear forces arising from very rare
earthquake. In the case of ductile columns, the shear forces (Vos) are calculated based on the overstrength
moments, on the pier geometry and on the articulation arrangement as shown in Fig. 3, which includes the
pier stem reinforcement curtailment and lapping details following the rules of capacity design.
For integral piers (Fig. 4), the derivation of the overstrength shear in the plane of the frame requires an
iterative procedure. The overstrength shear is a function of the overstrength moment, which is related to a
coexisting axial load in the column that varies from column to column under an applied horizontal load. The
calculation is done incrementally starting with a first estimate of overstrength shear per column (Vos,I) based
on axial loads from structural self weight only. The sum of all columns overstrength shear (Vos,I ) is then
applied to the structural frame and the overstrength effects re-calculated based on the new derived axial
loads. The procedure is repeated until a reasonable convergence is achieved in the calculation of the sum of
(Vos,I).
To ensure sufficient ductility is provided in the plastic hinge regions to achieve reliable plastic deformations,
confinement reinforcement must be provided in the form of closely spaced horizontal bars and cross ties
which link the vertical bars on opposite faces of the pier.

Fig. 3. Derivation of overstrength shear (Vos) for cantilever pier

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

The capacity design effects are calculated for different configurations depending on the earthquake direction.
For instance, in order to cover all possible conditions, the overstrength effects for a pier section are analysed
for 3 possible directions in relation to the viaduct centre line (longitudinal, transverse and diagonal) as shown
in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Overstrength for integral pier

Another criteria to be verified are the relative displacements at the expansion joints and at the support
locations. To comply with the performance design requirements, the movements are to remain within the
allowable specified values under operational earthquakes and any loss of support during very rare
earthquake must be avoided. Sufficient room is to be provided between two adjacent structures to prevent
any impact during very rare seismic event. The displacement criteria should be verified at the initial design
stage, as it is directly dependent on the substructure stiffness. Any stiffness change would result in a
structural response modification, requiring new design-analysis iteration.
Subsequently the foundations are to be detailed, piles and pile caps, the critical governing structural design
effects usually provided by the very rare earthquake loading. The seismic effects at the base of the pile caps
are a combination of overstrength effects from the plastic hinge and of elastic unreduced effects from the
mass of the pile cap, including overburden soil.
For non-integral piers, piercaps are required to resist large concentrated loads and cannot respond in a
ductile manner. The significant horizontal loads arising from seismic effects can well be beyond the capacity
of conventional bridge bearing systems. The common alternative to mechanical bearings is the provision of
concrete shear keys to resist horizontal loads and standard pot bearings to transfer vertical loads from the
superstructure to the substructure.
For simply supported articulation arrangement, the shear key can only restrain the deck when it is moving
towards the fixed pier. When the deck movement is in the opposite direction, tie bars can be used to provide
the required restrain. To comply with the seismic performance criteria relative to the movements between
adjacent decks, these tie bars are generally pre-tensioned to prevent any elongation under operational
earthquake.

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

To prevent damage to the deck and/or to the concrete shear key during the deck rotations, replaceable
elastomeric bearings are introduced at the deck-shear key interface. The mechanical pot bearings are
designed to resist uplift and a typical plan view of bearing assembly is shown in Fig. 5.
The piercap detailing takes into account the bearing compression and uplift forces as well as horizontal
loads applied to the shear keys, designed for allowable concrete pressure and idealized as corbels.

Fig. 5. Plan view of bearing assembly

For the deck, the longitudinal design is done conventionally except for integral structures where the
overstrength moments have to be taken into account. In the transverse direction the deck diaphragms must
be designed to transfer the load from the system centre of mass to the level of support. The combination of
high horizontal loads and significant eccentricities result in the diaphragm section to be heavily reinforced,
particularly for prestressed concrete decks where room for the tendon anchorages has also to be provided.
A particular aspect of viaduct deck seismic design is related to the consideration of the torsional effects from
imposed earthquake loads. The torsion can arise from two sources: equilibrium torsion due to externally
applied loading and necessary for the stability of the structure; compatibility torsion due to the differential
lateral displacement at the top of adjacent piers. To satisfy the seismic performance criteria, the compatibility
torsion is considered under operational earthquake, while equilibrium torsion is taken into account under
very rare seismic event.

APPLICATIONS AND DETAILS

The following examples and details are based on seismic design and construction of high-speed rail viaducts
in Far East Asia where the specified design ground acceleration was 0.34g with a two level design
earthquake. Under major earthquake, with a return period of 950 years, the design was based on reparable
damage criterion and structures were allowed to respond in the inelastic range in accordance with the
capacity design rules. During an earthquake with horizontal ground acceleration equal to one-third of the
major earthquake acceleration, the structures were designed for safe operation where yielding of
reinforcement was not permitted and where relative displacement between decks had to remain within 25
millimetres allowing the trains to brake safely from the full design speed of 350 km/h.
These performance criteria presented challenging and conflicting requirements between the high-speed rail
demand and the seismic effects. On one hand, the high-speed rail required stiffness to control displacement
and ensure safe operation; on the other hand earthquake design needed adequate flexibility to reduce
seismic structural response. A complex compromise between stiffness and flexibility was therefore required
to meet all structural performance requirements.
9

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

Most of the articulation arrangement is made of simply supported spans, preferred to increase construction
repetion and meet the design and build contracts deadlines. Typically, the prestressed concrete box girder
span between 30m and 45m and are designed to satisfy the high-speed rail deflection requirements.
Construction repetition was achieved by standardisation of geometry for decks, piers and foundations as well
as reinforcement arrangement.
Typical pier base reinforcement arrangement is included in Fig. 6 showing the pier cross section at the
plastic hinge region where confinement reinforcement is indicated. The curtailment and lapping of pier starter
bars is shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 gives an indication of the pier starter bars extent, a particularity of seismic
design.

Fig. 6. Pier cross-section at plastic hinge: confinement reinforcement F1/G1/H1

Fig. 7. Pilecap reinforcement and pier starter Bars

Fig. 8. View of Fig. 7

10

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

The connection detail between piles and pilecap requires also particular attention. Generally, top of piles are
designed to resist high axial loads either in tension or compression as well as significant shear force
resulting from the capacity design and local bending moments. Fig. 9 shows the typical extent of pile
reinforcement into the pilecap.

Fig. 9. Pile/pilecap connection details

The general view of the bearing assembly is shown in Fig. 10 and 11, while detailing of the shear key is
included in Fig. 12.

Fig. 10. Longitudinal section of deck supports

Fig. 11. Transverse section of deck supports

Plan View

Section
Fig. 12. Shear key reinforcement
11

Proceedings of the 2nd

Congress

Session 8

June 5-8, 2006 Naples, Italy

Seismic design of new concrete structures

The typical deck diaphragm reinforced concrete details are shown in Fig. 13, showing the particular
reinforcement required for load transfer between shear key and deck.

Fig. 13. Diaphragm reinforcement

CONCLUSIONS
Bridge response during earthquake is a complex phenomenon and methods for improving the structures
performance are constantly developed. The iterative aspect of viaduct seismic design has been presented
highlighting the interdependence between strength, stiffness and mass. The correlation among performance
objectives, analysis, design, verifications and detailing has also been underlined. Specific bridge seismic
details have also been included.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The examples presented result from the authors experience with Hyder Consulting Ltd, UK on the viaducts
design for the Taiwan High Speed Rail Project. Opinions and views expressed are those of the writers.

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.

Park R., Paulay T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
Priestley M.J.N., Seible F, Calvi G.M.. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th Edition, 1996.
Floren A., Mohammadi J., Performance-Based Design Approach in Seismic Analysis of Bridges, Journal
of Bridge Engineering, January-February 2001.
5. Krawinkler H., Challenges and Progress in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, International
Seminar on Seismic Engineering for Tomorrow, Tokio, Japan, November 26, 1999.
6. Priestely M.J.N., Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering Revisited, The Mallet Milne Lecture,
IUSS Press, 2003.

12