STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODES: THE BRIDGE BETWEEN

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Theodore V. GALAMBOS Ted Galambos, born 1929,

Emeritus professor of received his Ph. D. in Civil
Structural Engineering Engineering from Lehigh
University of Minnesota University in Bethlehem, PA
Minneapolis, MN, USA
galam001@[Link]

Summary
Research on the behavior of structural components and systems has always played an
important role on the development of the design standards that regulate and unify the
work of structural engineers. After a review of the history of design code experience in
North America, this paper discusses the tasks ahead for promulgating future standards for
looming future design tasks. It is concluded that a new paradigm for these regulations
must replace the current system with its many prescriptive rules. A case is made for
Performance-Based Design as the future format to be implemented.
Key Words: Design standards; performance-based design; building codes;
1. Introduction
Structural design is a major activity of the profession of structural engineering. Structural
design is an art wherein the design engineer participates in the creation of a structure,
such as a building, a bridge, a tunnel, an antenna, etc. The contribution of the structural
engineer is recognized and appreciated by the general public to various degrees,
depending on the visibility of the skeleton or the shell of the edifice.
The structural design engineers/artists have many paints and brushes in their palettes:
mathematics, solid and fluid mechanics, physics, chemistry etc., i. e. the hard sciences
taught in their engineering education; experience; judgment; concern for the common
good of society; consideration for the environment; and many more attributes acquired in
professional practice. The artist-designers can call on their creative spirit to design an
infinite kaleidoscope of outcomes. But wait, there is really no such utopia! There are
some severe restrictions on this freedom, namely, economics, the needs of all the other
members of the design team, and, last but not least, the demands posed by the
requirements of the structural design standards, sometimes also called codes or design
specifications. The subject of this presentation is the past, present and future role of these
standards, and the relationship between the structural design engineers, the codes, and
structural engineering research.
2. Structural Design Codes
Structural design codes in the United States have their origins in the early decades of the
20th Century, when structures were designed by individual organizations according to
proprietary criteria, and it became evident that building authorities had no consistent
methods for comparing designs [1], [2]. Such governmental agencies had to evolve new
methods to ensure safe designs. It thus became necessary to promulgate rules that were
uniform for all providers of structural design in their jurisdiction. These rules, or codes,
were developed to define minimum criteria of safe design. The experience of this author
is principally with developments in the design of metal structures in North America, and
so the following observations are drawn from that background. With minor variations the
situation is likely to be the same in other parts of the world and for other materials. As an
example of illustrating the relationship between structural engineering research and an
official design standard, the evolution of the Standard Specification of the American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of
Structural Steel for Buildings will be used [3 through 6]. The author has also been
member of code-committees of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) [7], the Steel
Joist Institute (SJI) [8], the Aluminum Association (AA) [9], the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) [10], and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) [11]. The
abbreviated history of the AISC Specification, as shown in Table 1, illustrates the
increasing role of scientific structural engineering research in the evolution of this design
standard. First, however, one must define research as it is understood here. It means
experimental, theoretical, analytical, and/or numerical study performed for the purpose of
providing input to the specification, frequently, but not exclusively, by members of the
code committee, doing research often sponsored by the authority originating the standard.
Table 1 History of AISC Specification
Year of Design Code Commentary Committee Researcher
adoption Criteria pages pages Members Members
1923 ASD 11 0 5 0
1936 “ 19 0 * *
1949 “ 30 0 * *
1963 LSD-ASD 44 46 26 5
1969 “ 103 44 36 6
1978 “ 93 68 43 9
1989 “ 83 68 43 14
1986 LSD 91 66 42 14
1993 “ 110 92 46 13
1999 “ 124 113 46 14
2005 “ 196 231 40 12
ASD: Allowable Stress Design.
LSD: Limit States Design (in the USA, LRFD, Load and Resistance Factor Design).
LSD-ASD: LSD in pseudo ASD format.
* No external committee is recognized in the documents.
Table 1 lists the dates on the adopted editions of the AISC code, the number of pages of
mandatory rules, the number of pages of the commentary explaining the rules, the
number of code committee members, and the number of research professors.
The first edition of the AISC Specification was adopted by the American Institute of
Steel Construction in 1923. It had, as such, no legal standing of its own until it was
officially adopted by governmental authorities such as city, municipal, state, national and
other building departments. As time progressed, another layer was added to the process,
namely, the incorporation of the industry design code, either by direct inclusion or by
reference, into a model building code that was, in turn, approved as a legal document
controlling structural design by a government agency. Figure 1 depicts a very simplistic
schematic pyramid of the code hierarchy as it exists today in the US. At the bottom of the
pyramid are standards that control the material (American Society for Testing Materials,
ASTM), the assembly of the structure, and the loads on the structure (for example, the
load code of the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE7 [10]). The next layer
consists of the design codes developed by industrial professional or trade associations
such as AISC, American Concrete Institute, ACI, Aluminum Association, AA, American
Iron and Steel Institute, AISI, and many others). These industry codes the become parts
of the next layer of model building codes, such as for example the International Building
Code, IBC [12]. These model building codes are essentially an assembly of everything
that is below in the pyramid, and they are in a format that can be adopted totally or in part
by legal building authorities. The structural design engineer then sits atop and must
justify his or her work to the legal guardians of public good.

THE ENGINEER

LEGAL BUILDING CODES

MODEL BUILDING CODES

(IBC)

INDUSTRY DESIGN STANDARDS APPROVED BY ANSI

(AISC, ACI, AA, AISI etc.)

MANUFACTURING
MATERIAL CODES LOAD STANDARDS
STANDARDS
(ASTM) (ASCE 7)
(BOLTS, WELDING)

Fig. 1 Schematic of the code hierarchy

An important development occurred gradually over the last two decades of the 20th
Century: The standards were developed and maintained by advisory committees that
acted as advisors to a particular industry’s professional or trade association, say, AISC of
the steel fabrication industry. The official representatives of this association then
approved the standard that was recommended to them by the advisory committee. Many
of these advisors were members of companies associated with the industry, and some of
the academic contributors performed research sponsored by the industry. Even though, in
the experience of the author, the process of producing a code has been of the highest
professional level, increasingly the outside users of the code, and society in general, has
viewed it as a rather cozy arrangement for the benefit of the particular industry. Laws and
regulations have intervened, so that by the year 2000 all the industry codes in the US
have to go through another rigorous review cycle by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). For the industries involved this was a painful pill to swallow, but by
now there is agreement that this additional requirement is a good and useful step.
It is within the context of the scheme presented in Fig. 1 that the AISC Specification’s
history is viewed in this presentation. The first edition was a scant 11 pocketbook pages
long. After the first edition in 1923, there were three major changes in the standard: in
1963, 1986 and 2005. For the first 40 years the method of design was according to the
classical precepts of allowable stress design. The determination of forces was based on
linear elastic theory, and the strength of members was determined to be about 2/3 of an
elastic limiting stress. After the first edition, the changes and expansions were handled
essentially internally by the AISC, as the need arose for adding new types of
construction. The framers of the first edition were constituted as follows: two consulting
engineers working for architecture firms, one engineer with a fabricator company, and
two structural engineering professors. The code was essentially a set of rules based on
prevailing good practice, ensuring that designers would use the same allowable stresses
everywhere in the US for the proportioning of fabricated steel structures.
In the 1950s it became evident that developments in industrial practice, such as welding,
high-strength bolts, composite beams, and thin-web plate girders, needed to be
incorporated into a modern design code in order to again avoid the chaos of every
company using their own in-house rules. There were also numerous ideas that emerged
from military research during the Second World War, especially from the aircraft
industry. Among these were, for example, the resolution of the column paradox by F. R.
Shanley [13], and the utilization of post-buckling strength in stiffened thin-walled panels.
Ideas of inelastic reserve capacity and energy absorption were utilized by Baker in the
design of bomb-shelters, and methods of plastic design were being developed by his team
at Cambridge University in England. The concept of an arbitrary Factor of Safety was
challenged by Pugsley [14] and Freudenthal [15], and the possibility of rational
probability-based design began slowly to emerge. The theories of elastic stability and
elasticity became widely known from publications in Europe and by the English language
books of Timoshenko [16] in the United States. The Theory Plasticity, developed by
William Prager and his colleagues at Brown University [17], provided the theoretical
basis for the development of Plastic Design. At the same time the development of
efficient methods of linear structural analysis, coupled with the availability of computers
to solve the equations, promised a new dawn of structural engineering. It was, indeed, a
very exciting time to be a graduate student in the 1950s, when the author commenced his
studies at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. His first assignment was to
assist Jonathan Jones of the Bethlehem Steel Company in the translation of the German
stability design standard, DIN 4114.
From the late 1940s to the 1970s AISC, AISI, The Welding Research Council, the
Federal Highway Administration and others sponsored research at Lehigh University’s
Fritz Engineering Laboratory under the leadership of Lynn Beedle to develop the
research background for rules to be incorporated into design criteria for steel building and
bridge structures. The results of this research were incorporated into the 1963 edition of
the AISC Specification. As can be seen in Table 1, the size of the document increased, a
commentary was added, and the number of committee members increased. Among these
committee members there were also academic researchers who were actively involved in
the research that was the basis of the design rules. The new code was a Limit States
Design code (LSD), rather than a traditional Allowable Stress Design code (ASD),
although a part of the specification was dressed up in the disguise of ASD to preserve
accustomed tradition. The 1963 edition introduced extensive new criteria for frame
stability, local buckling, lateral-torsional buckling; it permitted the utilization of post-
buckling strength for plate girder webs, and it had extensive provisions for plastic design.
Subsequent editions expanded the coverage as industry demand and research response
generated new material that was judged to be necessary for incorporation. The size of the
code and its commentary increased greatly from 1963 to 2005 (from 44 to 196 pages for
the code, and from 46 to 231 for the commentary, respectively). The number of
committee members has been kept to about 40 members roughly distributed into one-
thirds steel industry engineers, design engineers, and academic engineers. Most of the
latter are, or have been, active research contributors to the AISC code.
The point of the discussion above is to summarize the history of one representative
structural design standard up to the present time (2006). Similar histories could be told
from all countries and organizations represented in IABSE. The conclusions reached by
the author of this paper about the current status of structural design standards are the
following:
1. The present code documents are many times the size of the first codes from which
they evolved. There are many reasons for this, and following is a list of some of
them:
a. There are many more types of structures, connections, materials and
industrial applications today than 80 to 100 years ago.
b. Industry and government have made money available for research that
benefited the sponsors, and all of society, by promulgating codes for
designing safer and more economical structures.
c. The demands of the culture of litigation have resulted in very precise
language requirements and detailed elaborations of design criteria, thus
requiring many more sentences and paragraphs than would otherwise be
necessary.
2. Developments in the technology of testing materials, structural components,
members and whole structures have resulted in the evolution of many structural
research laboratories in Universities. New products from industry and novel types
of structures can be tested, and the results made promptly available to the
standards developers. The seamless integration of theoretical study, physical
testing and numerical experimentation has resulted in a mature understanding of
the behavior of structures. Structural engineering has been in the first wave of
 many developments that are now finding use in many other areas of technology
and science.
3. In the USA the predominant driver for advancement in structural engineering in
recent years has been the research on the behavior and design of structures to
resist earthquakes. The primary sponsor for this development has been the US
National Science Foundation (NSF). Several generations of structural research
engineers and scientists, and many excellent research facilities, have resulted from
this sponsorship. Enormous amounts of basic and applied research have produced
data and design methods that have been adopted into design codes.
4. The role of structural engineering academics has had an enormous influence on all
modern structural design codes. To this author it sometimes seems that this is
overwhelming and maybe intimidating for the practitioner members of the code
committees. Sometimes deference is made by the generalist to the specialist. Thus
some of the design criteria become overly complicated, and the designer may
have trouble seeing the forest from the trees.
5. All current design codes in the US have a basis in more-or-less sophisticated
applications of reliability analysis. The underlying aim is to produce structures
that have approximately uniform reliability against exceeding a limit state. This
purpose has been largely achieved between designs within any given code, say
fabricated steel structures, but it is not uniform across codes, say between steel
bridges and steel buildings that are designed by different codes.
To sum up the present status of structural design specifications in the USA: They are
principally based on scientific academic research, they are large and complicated, they
are prescriptive, they are formulated in awkward language in order to be legalistically
unambiguous, and new revisions are issued too frequently. To this perhaps too critical an
assessment it must be added that the current US structural design codes are finely crafted
documents that produce safe and economical structures. In the opinion of this author,
they are at the pinnacle of their evolutionary development. Further changes in format and
content are likely to be incremental refinements. New developments in the future will
necessarily have to be along a new path. The theme of this IABSE Symposium is to
define the future of structural engineering. In this future there must be also a new view of
the role of design codes.
3. The Future of Structural design Codes
Structural design codes exist to insure uniformity of design criteria across structure types
and across a region, and to permit control of structural designs by authorities whose duty
it is to ensure public safety. In contemporary standards this means the achievement of
uniform reliability. In the previous parts of this paper it was shown that the current codes
in the USA, and probably also in the world at large, are approaching the dinosaur stage,
and it is time to think about what can be done for the future. One thing is clear: there will
be a continued need for standards for the sake of public safety. In the case of large
projects, such as major bridges and large special structures, it is permissible to override
the standards by promulgating project specific criteria that are developed by the most
knowledgeable and experienced professionals and where all phases of the project are
subject to peer review [18]. Such an approach is hardly justifiable economically for the
majority of structural designs [19].
So if the present documents are becoming too cumbersome, then what shall be done?
The answer that is often proposed in discussions and read in the structural engineering
literature: Performance-Based Design (PBD). The word is not new, nor is the concept
untried. In the USA there was a large effort in the National Bureau of Standards (NBS,
now the National Institute of Standards in Technology, NIST) during the early 1970s to
develop PBD standards for prefabricated innovative housing systems [19]. Industrial
specifications, such as for example, the Standard Specifications, Load Tables and
Weight Tables for Steel Joists and Joist Girders of the Steel Joist Institute [8], are actually
primitive forms PBD standards, if not explicitly named so, but certainly so in intent.
Modern efforts of PBD have been championed by many engineers and a large literature
exists on the subject. One representative paper by Ellingwood [19] proves a snapshot of
the history and future prospect of PBD. In the USA the principal impetus for PBD has
come from the fire engineering and the earthquake engineering community. A result of
the extensive research sponsored by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) [20] in the aftermath of the Northridge Earthquake is a document that gives
recommendations for the PBD of new steel moment-frame buildings. Performance
objectives are stated in terms of performance levels for immediate occupancy for frequent
earthquakes (50% chance of being exceeded in 50 years), and for collapse prevention for
a maximum considered earthquake (2% in 50 years). Performance goals are stated in the
form of recommended minimum confidence levels, such as, for example, 90% confidence
level for collapse prevention for inter-story drift. Tools of various degrees of complexity
are provided or recommended in the document for performing the PBD operation. The
FEMA report, of course, is not a design standard, and it is not it has not been
implemented in a building code.
In spite of the great deal of discussion and research, the introduction of PBD into national
structural design codes in the USA has been slow. However, a big step has been taken by
the new 2005 AISC Specification [6]. This latest edition has included for the first time in
its history a chapter on “Structural Design For Fire Conditions”, and this chapter is
explicitly in the format of PBD. The text defines PBD as:
“An engineering approach to structural design that is based upon agreed-upon
performance goals and objectives, engineering analysis and quantitative
assessment of alternatives against those design goals and objectives using
accepted engineering tools, methodologies and performance criteria.”
The performance objectives are given in three short paragraphs, the first of which will be
quoted here to emphasize the spirit of the method:
“Structural Components, members and building frame systems shall be designed
so as to maintain their load-bearing function during the design-basis fire and to
satisfy other performance requirements specified for the building occupancy.”
The significance of the inclusion of this PBD-based portion of a document that has been
approved by ANSI and adopted by the national model building codes is that engineers
will need to pay attention and begin to modify their way of performing their daily job. It
remains to be seen how the design professionals will react to this new approach in the
AISC Specification. However, a first step has been taken, and this will lead to further
enhancements of PBD as further experience is accumulated by the structural design
community.
It is evident to this author that the future of structural design codes lies in the
implementation of Performance-Based Design methodologies. For this to happen there
will have to be a much broader discussion and participation than has thus far taken place.
So far the driving forces have originated mainly from intellectual and research sources.
Far more participation must now come from the structural designers, building code
officials, lawyers, contractors, the building trades and owners. So far this is not evident in
the USA, and it is difficult to foresee the events that will initiate a broader effort toward
making PBD universally accepted and codified. However, it is sure that the structural
engineering research community will have to play a significant role in making PBD
practically possible.
4. Research Tasks
While the discussion continues about the best way to make new structural design codes in
the mold of Performance-Based Design, there is immediate work to be done by the
research and the code-writing community to make structures safer. The theme of this
IABSE Symposium, “Responding to Tomorrow’s Challenges in Structural Engineering”,
provides a guide to some future needs for research. Following are some of these
challenges:
1. Structural design codes are mainly directed toward the design of safe new
structures in their final occupied state. There is still a lack of comprehensive
design standards for a number of other design assignments that structural
engineers face with in increasing frequency. Such challenges as are posed by the
following activities have requirements that are different from those that govern
the new structures. Conventional practice is to apply the standards for new
structures for these altered design conditions. The statistics and the reliability
requirements for these situations are different when much is known about the past
history of the site, the load history, the structure, etc. Such challenges requiring
codification based on available experience and research are, for example,
a. Refurbishment of structures for new uses or occupancies.
b. Repair and strengthening of structures after damage due to catastrophic
events.
c. Redesign or re-evaluation due to changed circumstances in occupancy, use
or loading. This could be, for example, increases of demand from higher
traffic loads, new insights gained about the nature of a type of demand, or
different wind loading on a structure after newer adjacent buildings
change the wind climate, etc.
d. Use of recycled structural elements in new constructions. Examples are
the re-use of mass-fabricated steel trusses (steel joists), or the utilization of
prefabricated prestressed concrete girders from bridges that were
dismantled in bridges that are to be replaced because of functional
obsolescence, etc.
 e. Preservation of heritage buildings [21].
2. Very much is known from research and experience about the effects of
earthquakes and wind storms on structures, and this knowledge has found its way
into design codes, often dominating the volume of requirements. There are other
natural and man-made catastrophes that are considered in codes, but the basis for
the required actions on the structure have not the same quality of the statistical
data and the reliability assessment as the wind and earthquake designs. Such other
events are flood loads, earth pressures, ponding from fluids, ice loads, scour,
impact from vehicles, blast, fire, etc. Much research work to develop reliable data
on these events will need to be performed over the future so that eventually there
will be a uniformity of reliability across all load types and structures.
3. New construction practices will require more research to define loads and
resistances. One such practice is the “rapid construction” of bridges so that traffic
will not be disrupted for long on a busy highway. The effect of moving whole
bridges, or large subassemblies, will necessitate the development of new design
standards. Structures that are built with monitoring devices, or with motion
damping systems (smart structures), are not the same as those without such
furniture. Designers should have standards available at their disposal that would
take advantage of the increased reliability these devices provide.
4. Many new materials have become available to the structural designers. Some
examples are: high-performance steel, high-performance concrete, fiber-
reinforced composites, glass etc. There are a variety of ways these new materials
are combined with traditional materials so that many possible combinations for
composite action are possible. The quality of the data on the basic material
properties of some of the new materials is sometimes not very good, and
designers have to rely on proprietary data from manufacturers for information.
This makes it difficult to arrive at material statistics to develop the probabilistic
factors in the design codes. Standardization of materials testing and data
evaluation is needed for progress in using some of the new materials.
5. In the opinion of this author the most promising avenue to achieve uniform
reliability of structural behavior under serviceability conditions is to produce
reliable data on serviceability limit states. Strength limit states are based on a
century of solid research, but serviceability limit states in structural design codes,
if they are included at all, are based on past practice that has been hallowed by
long tradition but little science. Considering that many structural designs are
governed by serviceability criteria, it surely should be a big priority to determine
the statistics for the loads and structural systems so as to be able to have a rational
way of making designs with consistent reliability across all structures.
6. In order to eventually implement PBD into design standards, it is necessary to
provide the tools that can be used by the engineers in their work. Such tools have
been discussed above for the seismic design. Programs for direct analysis of steel
and composite frames have been developed [22]. So far, however, these are
research tools, and there are far too few of them. Standards should be
promulgated so the software developers can generate robust computational tools.
This list could surely go on for many more pages. One thing is for sure, there is much
research yet to be done in order to keep the world’s design standards abreast with new
ideas and new design challenges.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Structural engineers at the beginning of the 21st Century stand on a very tall mountain
that is covered with many trees. The accumulated knowledge about structural behavior,
analysis, loads and methods of design is immense. A lot of this knowledge is hidden
inside the mountain in the form of previous insight and former experience. One question
that has always occurred to this author is whether it is cost-effective to “mine” this “ore”,
or whether is less expensive to perform new research on the new problems, even though
earlier work could be helpful. The analogy of the many trees on this mountain refers to
the diversity of contemporary information and the multitude of codes and regulations that
a structural engineer must consider.
The discussion above focused on the contribution of research on the content of design
codes, and what future research can contribute to current and future standards for
traditional design of new structures as well as for unconventional and novel design tasks
that the new Century poses to the structural engineer. There is, indeed much that needs to
be done, and there are workers and laboratories capable of performing whatever work is
needed. In the opinion of this author, the most important job, however, is to find ways by
which the engineer in the office and out on the construction site can have the wisdom, the
time and the ability to absorb and efficiently use what research has introduced into the
laws and standards.
The major challenges facing the structural engineering research community is not the
means for solving the problems posed by the demands of the building industry. The
scientific tools and the experience to use them are highly developed, and there are many
experts available. The big challenges are to select the proper problems to be considered,
and to transmit the resulting body of knowledge to the code-writing bodies, and finally to
the practicing engineers. The implementation of Performance-Based Design methodology
into every-day application in the design office will need the involvement and cooperation
of not only the research - code committee - design engineer community, but also the
owners, fabricators, contractors and the skilled labor trades. For this all to happen we
need to define clear goals and to make plans so that these goals can be achieved. What
better platform for this work than the International Association of Bridge and Structural
Engineers?
6 References
[1] CARNEGIE STEEL COMPANY, Pocket Companion for Engineers, Architects and
Builders, 23rd ed. Pittsburgh, PA, 1923
[2] KETCHUM, M. S., Structural Engineering Handbook, McGraw Hill Book Co. New
York, NY, 1914
[3] AISC, Standard Specification, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York,
NY, 1923
[4] AISC, Specification for the Design, Fabrication & Erection of Structural Steel for
Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York, NY, 1963
[5] AISC, Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago IL, 1986
[6] AISC, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago IL, 2005
[7] AISI, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC 2001
[8] SJI, Standard Specifications, Load Tables and Weight Tables for Steel Joists and
Joist Girders, Steel Joist Institute, Myrtle Beach, SC, 2005
[9] AA, Specification for Aluminum Structures, Aluminum Association, Washington,
DC, 2000
[10] ASCE/SEI, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, DC, 2005
[11] CSA, Limit States Design of Steel Structures, Canadian Standards Association,
Toronto, ON, 2004
[12] ICBO, International Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials,
Whittier, CA 2000
[13] SHANLEY, F. R., “Inelastic Column Theory”, Journal of Aeronautical Science,
Vol. 14, No. 5, May, 1947
[14] PUGSLEY, A., The Safety of Structures, Edward Arnold Publisher, London, 1966
[15] FREUDENTHAL, A. M., GARRELTS, J. M. AND SHINOZUKA, M. “The
Analysis of Structural Safety”, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. ST 1,
Vol. 92, February 1966, pp. 207-325
[16] TIMOSHENKO, S., Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York,
NY, 1936
[17] PRAGER, W., Introduction to Plasticity, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading,
MA 1959
[18] ELLINGWOOD, B. R. “Safety Assessment of Structures In Nuclear Facilities:
Application of Probabilistic Methods”, Progress in Structural Engineering and
Materials, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1998, pp 207-213.
[19] ELLINGWOOD, B. R. “Acceptable Risk Bases for Design of Structures”, Progress
in Structural Engineering and Materials, Vol. 3, No. 2, April-June 2001, pp 171-
179.
[20] FEMA, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria For New Steel Moment-Frame
Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 350, July 2000
[21] AUGUSTI, G., AND CIAMPOLI, M., “Heritage Buildings and Seismic
Reliability”, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, Vol. 2, No. 2, April-
June 2000, pp 225-237.
[22] LIEW, J. Y. R. AND CHEN, H., “Direct Analysis For Performance-based Design of
Steel and Composite Structures”, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials,
Vol. 6, No. 4, October-December, 2004, pp 213-228.