See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273697392

LIMIT STATES OF EXISTING BRIDGES

Conference Paper · May 2010

CITATIONS READS

11 1,435

3 authors:

Ana Mandić Ivanković Jure Radić

University of Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Zagreb
119 PUBLICATIONS 428 CITATIONS 194 PUBLICATIONS 371 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zlatko Savor
University of Zagreb
69 PUBLICATIONS 184 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

M.A.Sc. Thesis at University of British Columbia, Canada View project

SEI Special Issue August 2018 on The Value of Health Monitoring in Structural Performance Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ana Mandić Ivanković on 11 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Codes in Structural Engineering
Developments and Needs for International Practice
Joint IABSE – fib Conference Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 3-5, 2010

Topic 5.2: Existing Structures: Updating Informations & Adapted Load Models

LIMIT STATES OF EXISTING BRIDGES

Ana Mandić* Jure Radić* & Zlatko Šavor*
*Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Zagreb
Kačićeva 26, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Key words: limit states, reliability, road bridges, traffic load, wind load, seismic load

Abstract: A great number of existing Croatian bridges have been designed according to
old codes, so changes in requirements of new standards and time-variability of loading
result with the fact that bridges have different reliability levels. In this paper research,
performed in order to develop limit states evaluation procedures of existing bridges, will be
presented.
Procedures are developed trough their application on major Adriatic arch bridges with
spans ranging from 200 m to almost 400 m. These bridges are exposed to the significant
traffic load during summer, they are located in regions of high seismicity, and they are
exposed to the effects of sea salt and bora wind. Limit states of the superstructure of arch
bridges under traffic load and limit states of arches exposed to wind load and arches in
seismic design situation are considered.
The limit states evaluation procedure presented in this paper, through steps that become
more complex and therefore more accurate, is suitable for existing bridge assessment in
general. Namely, if limit states of the bridge are satisfied in the first step the following more
complex steps are not necessary. If this is not the case the next step of the evaluation -
which will produce more accurate results is to be performed.
With this research probabilistic model of traffic load effect and of wind load are developed
while the probabilistic model of seismic action is proposed as the consecutive step of the
procedure development.
As a part of bridge management system, it is possible to establish the target reliability of all
existing bridges on a certain traffic route in order to realize the same reliability level. Thus
the reliability evaluation procedure may be used for priority determination – the bridge
with the least reliability level is the first one on the maintenance program.

- 1169 -
 Mandic, Radic, Savor: Limit States of Existing Bridges

1. INTRODUCTION
A great number of existing Croatian bridges have been designed according to old codes, so
changes in requirements of new standards and time-variability of loading result with the
fact that bridges have different reliability levels. In this paper research, performed in order
to develop limit states evaluation procedures of existing bridges, is shortly presented.
Procedures are developed trough their application on major Adriatic arch bridges.
There are six major reinforced concrete arch bridges in Croatia located on Adriatic
coastline, with spans ranging from 200 m to almost 400 m. Four arch bridges, the Šibenik
Bridge, the Pag Bridge and the Krk Bridges (two arches) were built during the sixties and
the seventies of the 20th century. They are usually referred to as the first generation of
Croatian Adriatic arches. Two major bridge structures Maslenica and Skradin were
constructed on Croatian motorways more recently, Maslenica Bridge in 1997, and Skradin
Bridge in 2005. Adriatic arch bridges are exposed to the significant traffic during summer,
they are located in regions of high seismicity, and they are exposed to the effects of sea salt
and bora - wind which, in some specific locations of the coast, exceeds the maximum
reference wind velocity of 35-40 m/s. Over the years many deficiencies and rapid
degradation were identified on older Adriatic bridges. The combination of aggressive
exposure conditions, poor detailing, neglecting of durability problems and construction
errors resulted in serious deterioration of structural members, with reinforcement corrosion
being a major issue. In addition to these, the importance of adequate and regular
maintenance activities was completely underestimated. As a result, huge, complex and
expensive repair works were needed.
To eliminate the errors of the past and ensure smooth service and efficient management of
large Adriatic Bridges in the future, an extensive project to develop an appropriate
maintenance strategy was started recently. The analyses of these large arch bridges
designed according to different design codes, thus with different reliability levels, in order
to establish their limit states, is a relevant issue of their maintenance strategy.
The limit states evaluation procedures presented in this paper are suitable for existing
bridge assessment in general. Namely, if limit states of the bridge are satisfied in the first
step the following more complex steps are not necessary. If this is not the case the next step
of the evaluation - which will produce more accurate results is to be performed.

20 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 69.9 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 20 1060
135
30,8

290

370

246,4
ŠIBENIK 750
26 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 24 1020 1020
250 175 25
65

400

MASLENICA
200 900

Figure 1: Longitudinal layouts and cross sections

- 1170 -
 Mandic, Radic, Savor: Limit States of Existing Bridges

Limit states of the superstructure of arch bridges under traffic load and limit states of arches
exposed to wind load and arches in seismic design situation are considered. The results of
the application of limit state procedures are presented for the Šibenik Bridge – old national
road bridge built in 1966, located in the zone of reference wind velocity of 35 m/s and the
Maslenica Bridge – new highway bridge located in the zone of reference wind velocity of
50 m/s. Both bridges are in the zone with design seismic soil acceleration ag=0.2g.

2. LIMIT STATES OF SUPERSTRUCTURE UNDER TRAFFIC LOAD

Three steps of the limit state evaluation of the superstructures under traffic load are
presented at the figure 2. In the first step effects of reduced European traffic load Model 1
are to be compared with effective resistance and serviceability. To reduce Model 1
adjustment factors based on realistic traffic analysis are calculated. For the realistic traffic
simulation of the heaviest Croatian traffic, data of the year average daily traffic at the
location with the largest number of heavy vehicles are used. The traffic comprises cars and
seven observed heavy vehicles types set in four categories with corresponding frequencies
in traffic. Due to negligible influence of cars they are excluded from the load modelling.
First category – buses and trucks < 7.0 t are represented with the model 1, trucks ≥ 7.0 t are
presented with two models – model 2 with the overall weight of 150 kN and model 3 with
the overall weight of 250 kN. Tug trucks are presented with two vehicle models – 4 and 5,
and trucks with trailers with model 6. Random arrangement of vehicles in long motorcade
is used. Vehicles are modelled with axle load as concentrated forces at known axle spacing
(figure 3). Overall weight of each vehicle is random variable modelled with appropriate
beta distribution. The traffic density is assumed with the variable vehicle distance d –

1 MRd,eff. (VRd,eff.)
BRIDGE INSPECTION AND
PROJECT OVERSIGHT; cross
section integrity, concrete and
reinforcement quality and
quantity
EFFECTIVE SERVICEABILITY
AND RESISTANCE; REDUCED
MODEL 1 EFFECTS
MRd,eff. / MEd,α,EC ≥1.0
VRd,eff. / VEd,α,EC ≥1.0
Meff. / Mα,EC ≥1.0
effective design bending (shear) resistance
MEd,α,EC (VEd,α,EC)
bending moment (shear force) due to reduced Eurocode Model 1
Meff. serviceability expressed with bending moment
Mα,EC serviceability bending moment due to reduced Model 1
γQ,M,ULS (γQ,V,ULS)
partial factor for traffic load for the ultimate limit state of bending (shear)
γQ,EC partial factor for traffic load according Eurocode
2 γQ,M,SLS partial factor for the serviceability limit state
β (γQ,ULS) reliability index for the ultimate limit state
REALISTIC TRAFFIC β (γQ,SLS) reliability index for the serviceability limit state
SIMULATION AT THE β target target value of reliability index
BRIDGE LOCATION
3
NO ANALYSIS OF REALISTIC RELIABILITY OF EXISTING
TRAFFIC LOAD EFFECTS STRUCTURE

γQ,M,ULS ≥ γQ,EC =1.5 ESTIMATION OF RELIABILITY

NO INDEX FOR ULS AND SLS;
γQ,V,ULS ≥ γQ,EC =1.5 probabilistic model of
γQ,M,SLS ≥ 1.0 traffic load effect
YES

YES β (γQ,ULS) ≥ β target,ULS NO

β (γQ,SLS) ≥ β target,SLS
YES
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE (ULS) AND SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE (SLS) ADEQUATE COUNTER-
ARE ACCEPTABLE MEASURES NECESSARY

Figure 2: Flowchart of the limit state evaluation of superstructures under traffic load

- 1171 -
 Mandic, Radic, Savor: Limit States of Existing Bridges

0.65P2 0.38P3 0.38P3 0.25P5 0.25P6

0.36P4
0.2P5 0.2P6 0.2P6 0.2P6
0.65P1 0.24P3 0.2P5 0.2P5 0.15P6
0.35P2 0.23P4 0.23P4 0.15P5
0.35P1 0.18P4
4.5 m 4.5 3.3 1.35 3.4 6.0 1.8 3.3 7.5 1.35 1.35 4.2 5.45 4.0 1.35

d d d d d
1 2 3 4 5 6

(a)
70 0.10 300 0.15
NUMBER OF WEIGHT NUMBER OF DISTANCE
VEHICLES OF DISTRIBUTION DISTANCES DISTRIBUTION
56 0.08 240 0.12
CORRESPONDING
42 WEIGHT 0.06 180 0.09

28 0.04 120 0.06

14 0.02 60 0.03

0 0.00 0 0.00
27
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
125
135
145
155

0.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
VEHICLE WEIGHT (kN) VEHICLE DISTANCE (m)
(b) (c)
Figure 3: (a) Representative vehicle models; (b) Beta distribution of the overall weight of
vehicle model; (c) Beta distribution of the traffic density

random variable with the beta distribution for traffic at rest. For the highway bridge three
lanes, and for national roads two lanes are assumed. In the first lane dynamic factor kd is
used. A uniformly distributed pedestrian load, dependent on the bridge span, outside the
carriage lanes is also considered. Thirty different motorcades with random selection of
vehicle arrangement, and random selection of each vehicle weight are used.
Effects (bending moments and shear forces) of realistic traffic simulation are analyzed for
simply supported beams and continuous beams with the spans varying from 10 to 50 m and
corresponding adjustment factors to European Model 1 for the first step of the evaluation of
existing bridges are proposed (Table 1).

National road bridge

Span (m) L≤10 10<L≤20 20<L≤30 30<L≤40 40<L≤50
Simply supported beam αQ1 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
αq2 = 1.0; αqr = 1.0 αQ2, αq1 0.30 0.38 0.51 0.58 0.62
Continuous beam αQ1 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
αq2 = 1.0; αqr = 1.0 αQ2, αq1 0.48 0.72 0.78 0.81 0.82
Highway bridge
Span (m) L≤10 10<L≤20 20<L≤30 30<L≤40 40<L≤50
Simply supported beam αQ1 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
αq2 = 1.0; αq3 = 1.0; αqr = 1.0 αQ2, αQ3, αq1 0.38 0.53 0.65 0.72 0.77
Continuous beam αQ1 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
αq2 = 1.0; αq3 = 1.0; αqr = 1.0 αQ2, αQ3, αq1 0.51 0.72 0.77 0.81 0.84

Table 1: Adjustment factors to European traffic load Model 1 for realistic Croatian traffic
for limit state estimation of existing bridges

- 1172 -
 Mandic, Radic, Savor: Limit States of Existing Bridges

Description of the load effect Symbol Distribution CoV

Midspan bending moment MQ Gumbel 0.06 – 0.09
Bending moment at the support MQ Gumbel 0.05 – 0.10
Shear force near the support of the simple supported beam VQ Gumbel 0.06 – 0.09
Shear force near the support of continuous beam VQ Gumbel 0.07 – 0.13
Dynamic coefficient kd Normal 0.06 – 0.13
Table 2: Probabilistic characteristics of the traffic load effects
In the second step of existing bridge evaluation the same procedure is to be used for the
traffic analysis at the location of the bridge under consideration. The limit state equations
are formed for midspan and support cross sections in bending, and also for maximum shear
next to the support. Both ultimate and serviceability limit states are to be checked resulting
in partial factors for traffic load.
For the third evaluation step it was necessary to create a probabilistic model of traffic load.
For superstructures of arch bridges with spans from 20 to 50 m it is possible to use Gumbel
distribution for traffic load effects. Appropriate coefficients of variation are adopted (table
2) on the basis of previous analysis for different spans and different effects. It is proposed
to use inversed first-order reliability method (FORM) with standardized sensitivity factors
to estimate reliability index for the appropriate probability distribution on the basis of
calculated partial factors in the previous step.

Superstructure evaluation steps Šibenik bridge Maslenica bridge

1. Evaluation step
ULS bending MRd,eff./MEd,αEC ≥ 1.0 0.89 < 1.0 not satisfied 1.40 > 1.0 satisfied
ULS shear VRd,eff./VEd,αEC ≥ 1.0 0.56 < 1.0 not satisfied 1.47 > 1.0 satisfied
SLS Meff./MαEC ≥ 1.0 0.99 < 1.0 not satisfied 1.06 > 1.0 satisfied
Overall evaluation Not satisfied Satisfied
2. Evaluation step Necessary Unnecessary
ULS bending γQ,M,ULS ≥ γQ,EC = 1.5 1.40 < 1.5 not satisfied 3.16 > 1.5 satisfied
ULS shear γQ,V,ULS ≥ γQ,EC = 1.5 0.56 < 1.5 not satisfied 3.36 > 1.5 satisfied
SLS γQ,M,SLS ≥ 1.0 1.16 < 1.0 satisfied 1.18 > 1.0 satisfied
Overall evaluation Not satisfied Satisfied
3. Evaluation step Necessary Unnecessary
ULS bending β(γQ,M,ULS) ≥ βtarget,ULS 3.44 > 2.6 satisfied 9.45 > 2.6 satisfied
ULS shear β(γQ,V,ULS) ≥ βtarget,ULS < 2.6 not satisfied 9.76 > 2.6 satisfied
SLS β(γQ,M,SLS) ≥ βtarget,SLS 1.80 > 1.5 satisfied 2.10 > 1.5 satisfied
Overall evaluation Not satisfied Satisfied
Table 3: Results of the superstructure evaluation procedure applied on two existing bridges

3. LIMIT STATES OF ARCHES EXPOSED TO WIND LOAD

Three steps of the limit state evaluation of the arches exposed to wind load are presented at
the figure 4. In the first step linear analysis, using geometrical non-linearity (for elements
under compression) is to be performed. In the second step non-linear analysis is to be
performed. Using material and geometrical non-linearity, wind load is increased in steps
until reaching the limit state. The ultimate limit state is defined as a prescribed ratio of
lateral displacement of the arch crown d to the arch span L, and the serviceability limit state

- 1173 -
 Mandic, Radic, Savor: Limit States of Existing Bridges

1 As,eff. (As,nec.)
effective embedded reinforcement (necessary reinforcement)
BRIDGE INSPECTION AND σc,limit limit compressive stress in concrete = 60% of characteristic compressive
PROJECT OVERSIGHT; arch strength of concrete; 0,6fck
axis, cross section integrity, σc compressive stress in concrete
concrete and reinforcement γW,ULS partial factor for wind load for the ultimate limit state
quality and quantity γW,EC partial factor for wind load according Eurocode
2 γW,SLS partial factor for the serviceability limit state
β (γW,ULS) reliability index for the ultimate limit state
LINEAR ANALYSIS model β (γW,SLS) reliability index for the serviceability limit state
POSSIBLE STRESSES
based on inspection results, β target target value of reliability index
REDISTRIBUTION
embedded reinforcement
3
NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
NO
As,eff. / As,nec. = 1.0 Limitation of embedded reinf., RELIABILITY OF EXISTING
σc,limit / σc ≥ 1.0 incremental increasing of load STRUCTURE
until reaching of limit state

ESTIMATION OF RELIABILITY
γW, ULS ≥ γW,EC = 1.5 NO INDEX FOR ULS AND SLS;
γW,SLS (σc=σc,limit) ≥ 1.0 probabilistic model of
YES wind load effect

β (γW,ULS) ≥ β target,ULS NO
YES
β (γW,SLS) ≥ β target,SLS
YES
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE (ULS) AND SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE (SLS) ADEQUATE COUNTER-
ARE ACCEPTABLE MEASURES NECESSARY

Figure 4: Flowchart of the limit state evaluation of arches exposed to wind load

as a limited value of concrete compressive stress σc,limit. The results of the analyses are
partial factors for wind load, both for ultimate γw,ULS and serviceability limit state γw,SLS.
Wind direction (cDIR) in relation with bridge longitudinal axis is of great significance as
shown in figure 5. For the third evaluation step it is proposed to use probabilistic model of
wind load according to Probabilistic Model Code [6], utilizing the Gumbel distribution. The
reference year wind velocity has a Gumbel distribution with the coefficient of variation 0,1.
This coefficient of variation is transformed for the 50 year reference period and enlarged
due to influence of wind shape factor (ca –normal distribution, CoV 0.12), roughness factor
3.5
3.35
N
3.0 NNW NNE
NW 1.0
γW

0.60vref vre NE
f
2.5 N
partial coefficient

NNW NNE WNW ENE

53

1.0
vre
°

f 0
2.0
NW 8v re .92vref f NE AL AXIS
0.2 W ŠIBENIK LONGITUDIN E
40 ef
1.

1.6
0v

WNW ENE
°
r

XIS
1.5 D. A WSW ESE
GITU
1.4 W L ON E
ICA
LEN 0.55vref
1.0 MA S SW SE
WSW ESE SSW SSE
S
MASLENICA vrefxcdir f
0.5 4v re
ŠIBENIK vrefxcdir
SW 0.1 SE
ŠIBENIK vref
MASLENICA vref SSW SSE
0.0 S
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
d/L (cm/m)

Figure 5: Influence of wind direction on the results of the second evaluation step of arches

- 1174 -
 Mandic, Radic, Savor: Limit States of Existing Bridges

Arch evaluation steps Šibenik bridge Maslenica bridge

1. Evaluation step
ULS As,eff./As,nec. ≥ 1.0 not satisfied satisfied
SLS σc,limit/σc ≥ 1.0 not satisfied satisfied
Overall evaluation Not satisfied Satisfied
2. Evaluation step Necessary Unnecessary
ULS γW,ULS ≥ γQ,EC = 1.5 2.50 > 1.5 satisfied 3.35 > 1.5 satisfied
SLS γW,SLS ≥ 1.0 1.22 > 1.0 satisfied 2.05 > 1.0 satisfied
Overall evaluation Satisfied Satisfied
3. Evaluation step Unnecessary Unnecessary
ULS β(γW,ULS) ≥ βtarget,ULS 4.70 > 2.6 satisfied 6.12 > 2.6 satisfied
SLS β(γW,SLS) ≥ βtarget,SLS 1.28 > 0 satisfied 3.78 > 0 satisfied
Overall evaluation Satisfied Satisfied
Table 4: Results of the arch evaluation procedure applied on two existing bridges
(cr – normal distribution, CoV 0.15) and gust factor (cg – normal distribution, Cov 0.12).
It is proposed to use inversed first-order reliability method (FORM) with standardized
sensitivity factors to estimate reliability index for the appropriate probability distribution on
the basis of calculated partial factors in previous step.

4. LIMIT STATES OF ARCHES IN SEISMIC DESIGN SITUATION

Two steps of the limit state evaluation of the arches due to seismic design situation are
proposed so far. Third step of seismic reliability is not considered in the research presented
in this paper, but it is proposed as the consecutive step of this procedure development. Flow
chart is similar to the one given for the wind effect evaluation (figure 4). In the first step
linear multimodal spectral analysis is to be performed. Bridge model based on inspection
results with embedded reinforcement is used. Ultimate limit state is acceptable if no
additional reinforcement is necessary based on this type of calculation ( As,eff./As,nec. = 1,0).
If this is not the case the next step of the evaluation based on non-linear static (pushover)
analysis with limitation of embedded reinforcement is necessary. It refers to an analysis
procedure whereby an incremental-iterative solution of the static equilibrium equations is
carried out to obtain the response of a structure subjected to monotonically increasing
lateral load pattern. The structural resistance is evaluated and the stiffness matrix is updated
at each increment of the forcing function, up to convergence. The non-linear static analysis
is carried out in two horizontal directions: in the longitudinal direction x until a target
displacement dTx = dEx is reached at the reference point (arch crown) and in the transverse
direction y until a target displacement dTy = dEy is reached at the reference point (alongside
¼ of the bridge span). Displacements in x and y directions dEx and dEy are results of
equivalent linear multi-mode spectrum analysis with the behaviour factor q=1.0 due to
Ex+0,3Ey and Ey+0,3Ex respectively, using effective stiffness of ductile members.
The results of the analysis are partial factors for seismic load γEx and γEy indicating the level
of seismic arch reliability. If partial factors are at least equal to 1.0 ultimate limit states in
seismic situation are satisfied, if not the third step of the evaluation is necessary. This step
requires development of the probabilistic model of seismic load effect.
Šibenik bridge arch does not satisfy ultimate limit state in the first step of linear evaluation
but second step of non-linear evaluation results with sufficient partial factor 1.0. Maslenica

- 1175 -
 Mandic, Radic, Savor: Limit States of Existing Bridges

bridge arch satisfy ultimate limit state in the first step, and second step results with partial
factor for seismic action 1.25. For comparison partial factor for Skradin bridge constructed
in 2005 is 1.55. Namely, arch of Skradin bridge has wider cross-section, less rise and
favourable lighter composite superstructure.

5. CONCLUSION
The limit states evaluation procedure presented in this paper, through steps that become
more complex and therefore more accurate, is suitable for existing bridge assessment in
general. Namely, if limit states of the bridge are satisfied in the first step the following
more complex steps are not necessary. If this is not the case the next step of the evaluation,
which will produce more accurate results, is to be performed. With this research
probabilistic model of traffic load effect and of wind load are developed while the
probabilistic model of seismic action is proposed as the consecutive step of the procedure
development. It is important to emphasize that as a part of bridge management system, it is
possible to establish the target reliability of all existing bridges on a certain traffic route in
order to realize the same reliability level. Thus, this reliability evaluation procedure may be
used for priority determination – the bridge with the least reliability level is the first one on
the maintenance program. Evaluation procedures developed in research and shortly
presented in this paper present a contribution to development of future codes for assessment
of existing bridges.

REFERENCES
[1] Bailey, S.F.1996. Basic Principles and Load Models for the Structural Safety Evaluation of
Existing Road Bridges, Thèse No 1467, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
[2] Bailey, S.F., Bruehwiler, E., Hirt, M.A. 1996. Bridge reliability experience in Switzerland
Proceeding of a Workshop Structural Reliability in Bridge Engineering, New York, October.
[3] Bajić, A., Vučetić, V. 2004. Study: Reference wind velocity map for Croatia, Croatian
Meteorological and Hydrological Service, Zagreb, (in Croatian).
[4] Croatian Roads (2007). Counting of Traffic on Croatian Roads for years 1999-2007, Zagreb. (in
Croatian).
[5] Evans, M., Hastings, N. and Peacock, B. 2000. Statistical Distributions, 3rd ed. J. Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York.
[6] Joint Committee of Structural Safety. Probabilistic Model Code, 2001., http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/
[7] Mandić, A. 2008. Limit States of Existing Bridges. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
University of Zagreb (in Croatian).
[8] Markulak, D. 2001. Probabilistic Evaluation of Safety Level of Composite Road Bridges.
Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb (in Croatian).
[9] O'Connor, A., Eichinger, E. M. 2007. Site-specific Traffic Load Modelling for Bridge
Assessment, Bridge Engineering 160 Issue BE4, 185 – 194
[10] O'Connor, A., O'Brien, E.J. 2005. Traffic Load Modelling and Factors Influencing the Accuracy
of Predicted Extremes, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineers, (32), 270-278
[11] Pecker, A. (editor) 2007. Advanced earthquake engineering analysis, International Centre for
Mechanical Sciences, CISM Courses and Lectures No. 494.
[12] Pinto, P.E., Giannini, R., Franchin, P. 2004. Seismic Reliability Analysis of Structures, IUSS
Press, Pavia – Italy.
[13] Vrouwenvelder, T. 2002. Reliability Based Code Calibration – The use of the JCSS Probabilistic
Model Code, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Workshop on Code Calibration

- 1176 -

View publication stats