SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS

- THE CANADIAN HIGHWAY BRIDGE DESIGN CODE

Denis MITCHELL
McGill University
817 Sherbrooke St. W.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2K6

Michel BRUNEAU
University of Ottawa
161 Louis Pasteur
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5

Ian BUCKLE
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand

Dino BAGNARIOL
Ministry of Transportation
301 St. Paul St.
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2R 7R4

Steve ZHU
Buckland and Taylor Ltd.
1591 Bowser Ave.
North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7P 2Y4

Norman McCAMMON
Golder Associates
500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5C 6C6

Summary

This paper describes the new seismic design provisions of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, due for
publication by 1999. In particular the provisions which differ from those in the 1994 American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Code are highlighted.
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 2

INTRODUCTION

This paper describes the new seismic design provisions given in Section 4 of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code (CHBDC) [1], due for publication by 1999. In particular the provisions which differ from those in the 1994
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Code (AASHTO
LRFD) [2] are discussed.

The seismic zoning maps for the 1994 AASHTO LRFD Code were developed based on "firm-ground" horizontal
accelerations having a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years. This is the same basis for the seismic zoning
maps that appear in the 1995 National Building Code of Canada [3]. However the NBCC uses two parameters for each
location, that is the acceleration and the velocity, each having a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years. While
the Seismic Subcommittee of the CHBDC preferred the two-parameter approach, using both acceleration and velocity,
it was felt that there were new design approaches on the horizon for North American codes. In particular the Uniform
Hazard Spectrum (UHS) approach was being considered by the Canadian National Committee on Earthquake
Engineering for possible inclusion in the next edition of the NBCC. The UHS approach offers the advantage of
providing spectral values corresponding to two distinct periods for each location in the country. Because of the
uncertainty of the format for the future NBCC it was decided to keep the basic AASHTO LRFD approach as an interim
measure until the next code cycle rather than adopt the two parameter approach, which may change significantly in the
future.

While the basic format of the AASHTO LRFD design code has been retained some significant changes were made in
the development of the Seismic Design section, as described below.

IMPORTANCE CATEGORIES

New importance categories were chosen which differed from those used in the AASHTO LRFD code [2]. The new
categories of "Lifeline bridges" and "Emergency-route bridges" replace the AASHTO designation of "Critical bridges"
and "Essential Bridges". The definitions of the Importance Categories in the code are:

Lifeline Bridges - those that carry or cross over routes that must remain open to all traffic after the design earthquake
(i.e., an event having a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years or a return period of 475 years). Lifeline bridges
must also be useable by emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes immediately after a large earthquake
(e.g., a 1000-year return period event).

Emergency-route Bridges - those that carry or cross over routes that should, as a minimum, be open to emergency
vehicles and for security/defense purposes immediately after the design earthquake.

Additional guidance on the interpretation of these performance requirements for the Importance Categories is given in
the Commentary to the code (see Table 1).

Table 1. Performance requirements

Lifeline Emergency-route Other

Small to moderate All traffic Immediate use All traffic Immediate use All traffic Immediate use
earthquake
Design earthquake (475 All traffic Immediate use Emergency vehicles Repairable damage
year return period) Immediate use
Large earthquake (e.g., Emergency vehicles Repairable damage No collapse
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 3

1000 year return period) Immediate Use

ELASTIC SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT

The same basic formulation for the elastic seismic response coefficient, Csm, that is used in the AASHTO LRFD code
[2] was used in the CHBDC [1], except an explicit Importance Factor was added to the formulation. The elastic
seismic response coefficient, Csm, for the mth mode of vibration is:

where
Tm = period of vibration of the mth mode
A = zonal acceleration ratio
S = site coefficient depending on the soil profile type, varying from 1.0 for Soil Profile Type I to 2.0 for
Soil Profile Type IV.
I = Importance factor depending on the importance category, taken as:
I= 3.0 for Lifeline bridges, but need not be taken greater than the value of R for the ductile
substructure elements given in Table 2.
I= 1.5 for Emergency-route bridges.
I= 1.0 for other bridges.

For Soil Profile Type III or IV soils in areas where the Zonal Acceleration Ratio, A
0.3, then Csm need not exceed 2.0
AI.

For Soil Profile Type III or IV soils, Csm for modes other than the fundamental mode which have periods less than 0.3
sec shall be taken as:

For structures in which the period of vibration of any mode exceeds 4.0 seconds, the value of Csm for that mode shall be
taken as:

The variation of Csm is shown in Fig. 1 for the case where the Importance Factor, I, is 1.0.
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 4

IMPORTANCE FACTORS AND FORCE MODIFICATION FACTORS

The AASHTO LRFD code [2] uses a Response Modification Factor for design which combines the so-called "structural
ductility factor" with the Importance Factor. The AASHTO Response Modification Factor, which will be referred to as
"R'" is used to divide the elastic design forces, but since it also includes an importance factor it can be thought of as
R/I, where R is the Response Modification Factor to account for structural ductility and energy absorption and I is the
Importance Factor. The AASHTO LRFD values of R' for different substructures are given in Table 2.

Figure 1. Normalized seismic response coefficients, Csm/A, for various soil profiles.

Table 2. Values of R' in the 1994 AASHTO LRFD Code

Substructure Importance Category

Critical Essential Other
Wall-type piers - larger dimension 1.5 1.5 2.0

Reinforced concrete pile bents

- vertical piles only 1.5 2.0 3.0

- with batter piles 1.5 1.5 2.0

Single columns 1.5 2.0 3.0
Steel or composite steel and
concrete pile bents

- vertical piles only 1.5 3.5 5.0

- with batter piles 1.5 2.0 3.0

Multiple column bents 1.5 3.5 5.0
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 5

In the development of the seismic design provisions of the CHBDC [1] it was decided to clearly distinguish between
the Importance Factor and the Response Modification Factor. This approach then parallels the approach taken in the
National Building Code of Canada [3] where R reflects the capability of a structure to dissipate energy through
inelastic behaviour. The categories of ductile substructure elements used in the CHBDC are identical to those cases
specified in the AASHTO LRFD code except that a number of additional cases were added for ductile substructure steel
elements. The values of R chosen for the different structural systems in the CHBDC correspond to the values of R'
used in the AASHTO code for the case of "Other bridges", for which it was assumed that I equals 1.0 (see Table 3).

Table 3. Response modification factors, R, in the CHBDC

Ductile Substructure Element Clause for Design and Detailing R

Requirements
Wall-type piers - larger dimension 4.7 2.0
Reinforced concrete pile bents

- vertical piles only 4.7 3.0

- with batter piles 4.7 2.0

Single Columns

- ductile reinforced concrete 4.7 3.0

-ductile steel 4.8 3.0

Steel or composite steel and
concrete pile bents
- vertical piles only 4.7 or 4.8 5.0

- with batter piles 3.0

Multiple column bents
-ductile reinforced concrete 4.7 5.0

-ductile steel columns or frames 4.8 5.0

Braced frames
-ductile steel braces 4.8 4.0

-nominally ductile steel braces 4.8 2.5

Note: The lateral load resisting substructure elements must be designed and detailed to be ductile, that is, having a
minimum Response Modification Factor, R, of 2.0.

DESIGN AND DETAILING REQUIREMENTS

The design and detailing requirements in the CHBDC [1] are consistent with the general philosophy of capacity
design, providing the ability for the ductile substructure elements to absorb significant amounts of energy, while
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 6

designing other elements to be capacity-protected elements. The CHBDC clearly references the applicable clauses for
the design and detailing requirements that must be satisfied if the R values in Table 3 are to be used. The values of R
are also consistent with the general philosophy of capacity design and the R values used in the National Building Code
of Canada [3].

Concrete Ductile Substructure Elements

The design and detailing requirements for concrete structures are based on the provisions in the 1994 AASHTO LRFD
code, which are similar to the requirements for ductile elements in the 1994 CSA A23.3 Standard, "Design of Concrete
Structures" [4].

Steel Ductile Substructure Elements

The CHBDC provides specific ductile detailing requirements for substructure elements consisting of ductile braced
frames or ductile moment frames. These requirements are comparable to those currently enforced for ductile steel
buildings in the National Building Code of Canada [3], with some minor modifications.

The objective is to ensure that steel substructure elements are detailed to be capable of exhibiting ductility consistent
with the R-values assumed in their analysis and design. Experience in past earthquakes [7, 8, 9, 10] emphasizes the
importance of ductile detailing in the critical elements of steel bridges. Research on the seismic behaviour of steel
bridges [11, 12, 13, 14] and findings from recent seismic evaluation and rehabilitation projects [15, 16] further confirm
that seismically induced damage is likely in steel bridges subjected to large earthquakes and that appropriate measures
must be taken to ensure satisfactory seismic performance.

The same capacity design principles presented earlier also apply here. Explicit detailing requirements are presented in
the CHBDC for ductile moment frames/bents and ductile concentrically braced frames used as substructure elements.
The specifications refer to the Canadian Standard CAN/CSA S16.1 - 94, "Limit States Design of Steel Structures" [5]
for information on ductile eccentrically braced frames if necessary, and recommends using an R factor of 5 in that case.
Special bracing, energy-absorbing devices, or special ductile superstructure elements may also be used, but only if
published research results, observed performance in past earthquakes, or special investigation can demonstrate their
adequate performance, and if permitted by the Regulatory Authority.

A complete review of the fundamentals of ductile steel detailing is beyond the scope of this paper, and available
elsewhere [e.g., 17, 18, 19]. However, a few noteworthy differences exist between the steel ductile detailing
requirements featured in the CHBDC specifications and those commonly found in building design standards, and some
of the most important nuances are summarized below.

Materials

The specifications require that ductile substructure elements be constructed of steels capable of developing a
satisfactory hysteretic energy during earthquakes, even at low temperatures if such service conditions are expected.
Typically, such steels having yield stresses, Fy  0.8Fu , can develop a longitudinal elongation of 0.2 mm/mm in a 50
mm gauge length prior to failure, and have probable-to-nominal strength ratios consistent with those implied in these
specifications.

Ductile moment frames and bents

The prevailing philosophy in the seismic resistant design of ductile frames in buildings is to force plastic hinging to
occur in the beams rather than in columns, to better distribute hysteretic energy throughout all storeys and avoid soft-
storey type failure mechanisms. However, for steel bridges such a constraint is not realistic, nor is it generally
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 7

desirable. Steel bridges frequently have deep beams which are not typically Class 1 sections (i.e. compact sections as
per U.S. designation), and which have larger flexural stiffness than their supporting steel columns. Moreover, bridge
structures in Canada are generally "single-storey" structures, and all the hysteretic energy dissipated is concentrated in
this "single storey". The CHBDC provisions are therefore written assuming that steel columns will be the ductile
substructure elements in moment frames and bents. It is understood that extra care would be needed to ensure the
satisfactory ductile response of multi-level steel frame bents since these are implicitly not addressed by these
specifications.

For that reason, ductile detailing requirements are only specified for columns in ductile moment frames and bents.
Hence, columns must be Class 1 sections (i.e. U.S. compact sections), must have lateral supports at the potential plastic
hinge locations (near their top and base) and other lateral supports as necessary to limit the unsupported length to
980ry / Fy. and cannot be subjected to factored axial compression in excess of 0.30AgFy due to the combined effect of
seismic load and permanent loads if in seismic zones 3 and 4 (twice that value if in seismic zone 2). Other usual
detailing requirements for ductile columns also apply [5].

Beams, panel zones, column bases, and moment resisting connections are designed as capacity protected elements,
following the principles presented earlier, to remain elastic. To ensure the strong beam-weak column behaviour
implied by the CHBDC, the sum of the factored resistance of the beams at any beam-to-column joint cannot be less
than the sum of the probable resistance of the column(s) framing into the joint. The Probable Resistance of columns
shall be taken as 1.25 times their nominal flexural capacity given by:

It is noteworthy that, during the Kobe earthquake, a number of steel box-columns supporting portions of elevated
highways buckled, some rather severely, and at least two collapses occurred as a result of steel column failures.
However, the large tubular steel piers used in Japan are uncommon in Canada, and the new CHBDC does not include
any provisions for their design at this time.

Ductile concentrically braced frames

The same capacity design principles also apply to ductile braced frames. As normally done for ductile braced frames in
building designs [5, 20]:
 Braces are the energy dissipating elements
 The load redistribution following the yielding or buckling of braces must be taken into account, and capacity-
protected elements (e.g., columns, beams, beam-to-column connections and column splices) must be designed
to resist the most detrimental condition that could result from this redistribution.
 Diagonal braces shall be oriented such that, in any planar frame, at least 30% of the horizontal shear carried
by the bracing system shall be carried by tension braces and at least 30% shall be carried by compression
braces.
 Chevron bracing, V-bracing, K-bracing and knee bracing are not considered as ductile concentrically braced
frames.
 Braces must have a slenderness ratio, L/r, less than 1900/ Fy.
 Symmetrical open sections shall be Class 1 (i.e. compact sections). For other sections, the width-thickness
ratios is limited to 145/ Fy. for angles, tees, and flanges of channels, 330/ Fy for rectangular and square
HSS, and 13 000/ Fy for circular HSS.
 The factored compressive resistance of a brace must be reduced to account for the loss of compressive
resistance under cyclic loading. This reduction is a function of the brace’s slenderness ratio.
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 8

The CHBDC specifications also provide detailing requirements for concentrically braced frames with nominal ductility.
Their energy dissipation capabilities are somewhat less than ductile braced frames, and this is reflected by a lower R-
factor. However, Chevron-type braced frames are included in this designation.

IMPORTANCE FACTORS AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

In selecting the Importance Factors, I, for the CHBDC, values were chosen which are similar to the importance factors
implied in the R' factor given by AASHTO. The values of I were chosen to be 1.5 for Emergency-route bridges and 1.0
for Other bridges. For Lifeline bridges an importance factor of 3.0 was chosen, except that I need not exceed the value
of R given in Table 3. It must be noted that substructure elements must be designed and detailed to have a minimum R
value of 2.0. Figure 2 shows the variation of I with the different Importance Categories used in Section 4 of the
CHBDC.

Figure 2 Variation of I with importance categpry and ductility of structural system

Figure 3 compares the value of R/I used in the CHBDC with the value of R' used in the AASHTO code. It is apparent
from this figure that the CHBDC is slightly more conservative for the less ductile systems. This more conservative
approach for cases with lower R values was adopted in order to provide further encouragement for designers to choose
more ductile systems.

Values of I less than 3.0 for Lifeline bridges having R of 2.5 and R of 2.0 are justified if the performance criteria are
examined. Figure 4 compares the expected ductility demand, demand, for the cases of Lifeline bridges designed with R
of 5.0, 4.0, 2.5 and 2.0. These ductility demands were determined at lateral force levels corresponding to an equivalent
lateral design force, Edesign (i.e., the design level earthquake). The structures designed with R of 5.0 and 4.0 would
experience some inelasticity, while the structures designed with R of 2.5 and 2.0 would remain elastic. All of these
cases are considered to meet the performance criteria for Lifeline bridges, that is that they must be capable of
remaining open after experiencing the design level earthquake. The choice of an Importance Factor of 3.0 for the more
ductile cases (i.e., where R is greater than 3.0) is necessary in order to limit the damage under the design earthquake.
A constant Importance Factor of 3.0 for cases with R values below 3.0 would give rise to overly conservative designs
which would exceed the performance requirements. For example, for the case of R of 2.0, if the value of I were 3.0,
then the bridge would be designed to have a "yield strength" of 1.5 times the design level earthquake and the expected
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 9

deformations under the design level earthquake would be well below the "yield strength". On the other hand, for the
case of R of 2.0, limiting the Importance factor to R would mean that the structure would have a "yield strength" equal
to the design earthquake level and hence would be on the verge of "yielding" under the design earthquake level (see
Fig. 4(d)).

Figure 3– Comparison of R/I from CHBDC with corresponding parameter from AASHTO for different structural
systems

SEISMIC BASE ISOLATION

The provisions for seismic base isolation are new requirements based on the 1997 AASHTO guidelines for base
isolation [6] and include the design approach for isolation bearings together with performance specifications and
testing procedures for isolation bearings.

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES

The CHBDC provides provisions for the evaluation of existing structures for Emergency-route bridges and Other
Bridges, with Lifeline bridges requiring special studies. The minimum analysis requirements for seismic evaluation
are summarized in Table 4. The Seismic Performance Zone is determined from the peak ground acceleration for 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years and from the Importance Category. The designation "LE" refers to limited
evaluation and involves providing minimum seat widths or longitudinal restrainers and a minimum capacity for
bearings. In addition, the potential for soil liquefaction, slope instability, approach fill settlements and increases in
lateral earth pressures must be considered. The designation "SM" refers to single-mode elastic analysis and "MM"
refers to the multi-mode spectral method. Push-over analysis and the time-history analysis methods are also permitted.
Regular bridges are defined as having less than seven spans, no abrupt or unusual changes in weight, stiffness or
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 10

geometry and no large changes in these parameters from span-to-span or support-to-support (excluding abutments).
Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 11
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 12

Table 4. Minimum analysis requirements for evaluation

Seismic Single-span Multi-span

Performance
Zone
Emergency-route Other
Emergency- Other Regular Irregular Regular Irregular
route
1 None None None None None None
2 None None LE LE None None

3 LE None SM MM LE LE
4 LE LE MM MM SM MM

The CHBDC recognizes the important role that the regulatory authority plays in setting appropriate analysis and
design requirements for evaluating existing bridges. Therefore, adjustments to the evaluation procedure are permitted
if approved by the regulatory authority, such as the required analysis method, accounting for the remaining service life
of the bridge and load cases to be considered. The load factors and load combinations are given as:

This represents a reduction from that required for new bridges where the earthquake effects are combined with
minimum (0.8D) and maximum (1.25D) gravity loads. Combinations of orthogonal loading cases must be combined
in the same manner as new bridges.

The evaluation procedure involves the calculation of the required response modification factor, Rreq, from the
following:

where
Se = seismic force effect assuming all members remain elastic, except as limited by capacities of other
members
C = member reserve capacity after the effects of dead load have been considered.

Member capacities are calculated from the unfactored nominal resistances of the members. In the determination of the
nominal resistances of members the code emphasizes the need to take account of the effects of all differences from the
design and detailing requirements for new bridges including:
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 13

(a) influence of b/t ratios on local buckling in steel members,

(b) influence of slenderness ratios for steel members,
(c) influence of premature bond failures due to inadequate anchorage or splice length,
(d) influence of reduced concrete contribution to the shear resistance as the ductility demand increases in
reinforced concrete members,
(e) influence of inadequately detailed beam-column and column-footing joints, and
(f) influence of defects or deterioration on member performance.

After determining Se, C and Rreq, the engineer must determine the appropriate response factor of the existing
substructure, Rprov. The code requires that the determination of the overall performance and the Rprov must account for
the following:
(a) the consequences of the specific detailing,
(b) consideration of all possible failure modes, and
(c) the expected length of inelastic deformations.
Results from reversed cyclic loading tests of structural components which are constructed to simulate the as-built
details provide a means for determining a suitable Rprov.

Elements which have Rprov
Rreq are deemed acceptable, while those not meeting this requirement must undergo
rehabilitation unless it can be demonstrated by non-linear analysis that the consequences would not be detrimental to
the performance of the bridge.

SEISMIC REHABILITATION

The CHBDC provides guidance on the seismic rehabilitation of bridges indicating the following techniques:
(a) base isolation,
(b) increasing ductility without strengthening,
(c) addition of energy-dissipating devices,
(d) installation of restrainers,
(e) alteration of load paths,
(f) increasing support lengths,
(g) making provisions for inelastic hinging to occur,
(h) strengthening,
(i) improvement of liquefaction-prone soils, and
(j) stabilization of approach fills and adjacent slopes.

The CHBDC requires that the following design aspects be investigated when assessing seismic rehabilitation measures:
(a) increased stiffness due to strengthening must be accounted for,
(b) influence of rehabilitation on fatigue life must be assessed,
(c) influence of rehabilitation on alteration of load paths must be considered,
(d) influence of member strengthening on force demands on other members and joints must be assessed,
(e) rehabilitation measures should avoid damage to inaccessible foundations,
(f) if uplift occurs then guiding of the associated movement and prevention of support loss must be considered,
(g) if base isolation is used then consideration must be given to other loading cases (e.g., wind),
(h) the durability of the rehabilitation measures must be addressed,
(i) the restraint of thermal movement due to added restrainers must be considered,
(j) soil improvement may induce movements or tilting which must be addressed,
(k) the consequences of stage-wise rehabilitation must be considered,
(l) adequate inspection and maintenance of the rehabilitation must be addressed,
 Developments in Short and Medium
Span Bridge Engineering ’98
Page 14

(m) a complete reanalysis of the rehabilitated structure must be carried out to assess performance,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors, who are members of the Subcommittee on Seismic Design for the CHBDC, are grateful to Brock Radloff
who gave valuable suggestions at the start of the code process. The authors are grateful to Peter Buckland, who was
instrumental in setting the direction of the sub-section on seismic evaluation and to Richard Redwood and Alfred
Wong for co-authoring the sub-section on steel structures.

REFERENCES

[1] CHBDC, "Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code", Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, to be
published.
[2] AASHTO, "AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications", American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, 1994.
[3] NBCC, "National Building Code of Canada", National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1995.
[4] CSA A23.3-94, "Design of Concrete Structures", Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, 1994.
[5] CAN/CSA-S16.1, "Limit States Design of Steel Structures", Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario,
1994.
[6] AASHTO, "Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design", American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, 1997.
[7] EERI, "Loma Prieta Earthquake Reconnaissance Report", Spectra, Supplement to Vol. 6, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, California, 1990.
[8] Roberts, J.E., "Sharing California's seismic lessons", Modern Steel Constructions, 1992, pp.32-37.
[9] Astaneh-Asl, A., Shen, J. H. and Cho, S. W., "Seismic performance and design consideration in steel bridges",
Proc. of the 1st US seminar on seismic evaluation and retrofit of steel bridges, San Francisco, California, 1993.
[10] Bruneau, M., Wilson, J.C., Tremblay, R., "Performance of Steel Bridges during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe,
Japan) Earthquake", Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.23, No.3, 1996, pp. 678-713.
[11] Astaneh-Asl, A., Bolt, B., McMullin, K. M., Donikian, R. R., Modjtahedi, D. and Cho, S. W., "Seismic
performance of steel bridges during the 1994 Northridge earthquake", UCB report CE-STEEL 94/01, Berkeley,
California, 1994.
[12] Dicleli, M., Bruneau, M., "Seismic performance of multispan simply supported slab-on-girder highway bridges",
Engineering Structures, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 4-14, 1995.
[13] Dicleli, M., Bruneau, M., "Seismic performance of Simply Supported and Continuous Slab-on-girder Steel
bridges", Structural Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1995, Vol. 121, No. 10, pp. 1497-1506.
[14] Seim, C., Ingham, T. and Rodriguez, S., "Seismic performance and retrofit of the Golden Gate Bridge", Proc. of
the 1st US Seminar on Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Steel Bridges, San Francisco, CA, 1993.
[15] FHWA/CALTRANS, Proceedings of the First National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways, December,
San-Diego, California, 1995.
[16] Shirolé, A. M., Malik, A. H., "Seismic retrofitting of bridges in New York State", Proc. Symposium on Practical
Solutions for Bridge Strengthening & Rehabilitation, 1993, Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa, pp. 123-131.
[17] Redwood, R. G., Lefki, L. and Amar, G., "Earthquake resistant design of steel moment resisting frames",
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1990, Vol.17, no.4.
[18] Redwood, R. G., and Channagiri, V.S., "Earthquake resistant design of concentricity braced steel frames",
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 1991, Vol.18, No.5.
[19] Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M., Whittaker, A., Ductile Design of Steel Structures, McGraw Hill, 1998.
[20] AISC, Manual of Steel Construction, Load & Resistance Factor Design, Volume I, American Institute of Steel
Construction, 1994, Chicago, Illinois.