- 1 -

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE

ACROSS KORANA RIVER IN SELITE
Marin Franetovi
+
, Jure Radi
+
, Ana Mandi Ivankovi
+
, Sanja Klarin*
+
Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Zagreb Kaieva 26, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
mfranetovic@grad.hr, jradic@grad.hr, mandicka@grad.hr
* GRAPRO arhitektonski ured, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
sanja.klarin@gmail.com

Keywords: Assessment, masonry arch bridges, conservative methods, concrete deck,
vehicle impact to the guardrail, cantilever replacement.
Abstract: The reinforced concrete arch bridge across Korana River in Selite was built in
1958, based on the design made by the famous Croatian bridge builder prof. Kruno
Tonkovi. Main structural elements of this bridge are twin reinforced concrete arches with
span of 60.1 m and rise of 16.1m. Sickle shaped arches have solid cross sections 0.9m deep
at arch abutments and 1.47m at the arch crown. The bridge was designed and constructed
according to 1950s design codes with no seismic actions taken into the account. According
to the current Croatian seismological chart, peak ground acceleration at the location of the
bridge is 0.12g. For this reason the bridge was assessed for seismic actions using both the
linear response spectrum analysis and the nonlinear static pushover method and results
were evaluated within demands defined by current European seismic design codes.

Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 2 -
1 INTRODUCTION
Numerous existing Croatian bridges that have been designed according to former design
codes with no seismic actions taken into the account are in daily use. Change in
requirements of new standards and deficiencies and degradation during years of service
result in different reliability levels for these bridges. The purpose of carrying out a seismic
assessment analysis of an existing bridge is to determine the level of risk associated with
loss of serviceability, severe damage, or collapse. With this risk quantified, rational
decisions can be made as to whether the bridge should be retrofitted or replaced, or to
accept the risk and leave the bridge in the existing state. In this paper the seismic
assessment of an arch bridge more than 50 years old using both the linear response
spectrum analysis and the nonlinear static pushover method is presented. Steps of the
assessments methods are described and final results are discussed.


Figure 1: Arch bridge across Korana river in Selite and its cross section
2 BRIDGE ESSENTIALS
Reinforced concrete arch bridge across Korana River in Selite was built in 1962 according
to design made by the famous Croatian bridge builder prof. Kruno Tonkovi [1]. The arch,
with span of 60 m and rise of 16.1 m, consists of two solid vaults (arches) with a gradual
increase of a depth form 0.90 m at the crown to 1.47 m at the abutments.

Figure 2: Longitudinal section of the Korana arch bridge
Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 3 -
Arch is joined at the crown with reinforced solid concrete slab superstructure. All columns
have circular cross section and are rigidly connected to the deck, arches or their
foundations. The bridge is founded on sound rock ground. As bridge was designed and
constructed according to 1950s design codes with no seismic actions taken into the account
and according to the current Croatian seismological chart [2] peak ground acceleration at
the location of the bridge is established with the value 0,12 g, the bridge needs to be
assessed to decide if any counter measures are necessary to reach contemporary seismic
reliability demands.
3 SEISMIC ASSESSMENT METHOD
3.1 Linear response spectrum analysis
The first level of assessment is based on linear multimodal spectral analysis performed on
elastic model of the bridge formed based on bridge inspection and project oversight results.
In works [3, 4] is shown that linear multimodal spectral analysis, covers the assessment of
arches quite good enough because their response under seismic event should generally be
linear as a consequence of their robustness.
1) Linear multimodal spectral analysis is performed under elastic response spectrum.
Comparison of longitudinal and transversal displacements of bridge deck at abutments
under seismic loading (d
E
) with displacements which are actually allowable at these
locations (d
allow
) is to be performed. Displacement check is fulfilled if Eq. (1) is valid:
E allow
d d > (1)
This check is done because displacements under seismic loads can be too big and can result
in pounding of the deck into the abutment back wall. Based on displacement checks,
assessor can bring decisions for limitation of bridge deck displacements with installation of
seismic restraining or isolating devices at abutments. If retrofit measures will be taken, it is
important to apply this same procedure again on the model of retrofitted bridge and
evaluate the results in the same way.
2) Design resistances R
d
(N
Rd
- M
Rd
, V
Bd,1
) based on design strengths of constitutive
materials in accidental situations (for concrete f
cd
=f
ck
/
c,acc
;
c,acc
=1,2 and for
reinforcement f
yd
=f
yk
/
y,acc
;
y,acc
=1,0) and actual as-built reinforcement are compared with
seismic demands E
d
(N
Ed
- M
Ed
, V
Ed
). Internal force checks are fulfilled if following
expressions are valid:
Ed Ed Rd Rd
M N M N > (2)
Ed Bd,1 Rd Bd,1
V V V > = (3)
where N
Rd
M
Rd
represents interaction resistance to bending moment and axial force and
V
Bd,1
represents shear force resistance additionally divided by safety factor
Bd1
=1,25
against brittle failure.Shear resistance V
Rd
of element is given by Eq.(4) and it is consisted
of V
Rd,c
(Eq.(5)) contribution of, roughly saying, concrete and longitudinal reinforcement to
the shear resistance and of V
Rd,s
(Eq.(6)) contribution of actual as built shear reinforcement.
For detailed explanation of following equations refer to EN 1992-1-1 [5].
s Rd, c Rd, Rd
V V V + = (4)
Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 4 -
| | d b k f k C V + =
w cp 1
3 / 1
ck 1 c Rd, c Rd,
) 100 ( o (5)
u cot
ywd
sw
s Rd,
= f z
s
A
V (6)
The internal force checks are generally fulfilled for arch and bridge deck and for these
elements acceptable performance under seismic design situation will be proved already at
this level. For the spandrel columns this was not the case and for them, in general, it will be
necessary to go through the second level of assessment.
3.2 Nonlinear static pushover analysis
Second level of assessment is consisted of non-linear static pushover analysis defined in
European code for seismic design of bridges EN 1998-2 [6]. Although some authors [7,8,9]
question the applicability of pushover analysis on arch bridges with reasonable contra
arguments that this kind of analysis does not take into the account the very important
vertical response of the arch, it should not be rejected so easily because it is quite applicable
on complete arch bridge structure, especially when we want to evaluate the spandrel
columns response and the bridge deck displacements which respond generally in horizontal
directions.
In the pushover analysis an incremental-iterative solution of the static equilibrium equations
is carried out to obtain the response of a structure subjected to monotonically increased
horizontal loads, representing the effect of a horizontal seismic component. Second order
effects are accounted for. The structural resistance is evaluated and the stiffness matrix
updated at each increment of the forcing function, until convergence is reached. The non-
linear static analysis was carried out in two horizontal directions: in the longitudinal
direction x and in the transverse direction y until a target displacements d
Tx
= d
Ex
and d
Ty
=
d
Ey
were reached at the reference points, respectively. Reference points are to be chosen as
nodes where the maximum structural response is observed. Target displacements in x and y
directions d
Ex
and d
Ey
are obtained from an equivalent linear multi-mode spectrum analysis
with the behaviour factor q=1,0 due to E
x
+0,3E
y
and E
y
+0,3E
x
seismic loadings,
respectively, applying the effective stiffness of ductile members.


Figure 3: Evaluation of F-d curve
After running of a non-linear static pushover analysis the first check to be performed is an
evaluation of F-d curves (or P- curves). These curves retrieved from the analysis represent
Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 5 -
correlation between intensity of horizontal seismic load F and displacement d at reference
point. If the target displacement d
T
is reached under horizontal load F whose intensity is
equal or higher than the design seismic load F
Sd
= f (S
d
(T
dom
)) defined with period T
dom
,
which corresponds to the dominant mode shape with the largest participation factor in the
considered direction of bridge, corresponding deformed state of structure is classified as
satisfactory (Fig. 3) and assessor can carry on with additional checks of 2
nd
level of
assessment. If the target displacement d
T
is reached under horizontal load F whose intensity
is smaller than the design seismic load F
Sd
= f (S
d
(T
dom
)) corresponding deformed state of
structure is considered as unsatisfactory and additional checks are done on bridge structure
under horizontal load whose intensity is equal to the design seismic load F
Sd
= f (S
d
(T
dom
)).
Additional analysis of deformed structure under horizontal seismic load is done through
following checks:
1) Stresses of constitutive materials, Eq. (7) and (8) for concrete and reinforcement
respectively, in the part of structure that should remain elastic under seismic design
combination (arch, bridge deck, columns outside plastic hinge regions) should be lower
than characteristic material strength values:
Ed c, ck
f > (7)
Ed y, yk
f > (8)
In the regions of plastic hinges, the stress-strain diagrams for both concrete and
reinforcement should reflect the probable post-yield behaviour, taking into account
confinement of concrete, when relevant, and strain hardening. Stresses of constitutive
materials, for reinforcement, unconfined and confined concrete respectively, in plastic
hinge regions should be lower than mean material strength values:

pl.hinge
Ed y, yk ym
15 , 1 f f > =
(9)

pl.hinge
Ed c, ck cm
) MPa ( 8 f f > + =
(10)

pl.hinge
Ed c, cm c cm,
f f
c
> =
(11)
where coefficient
c
is given with [6]:
254 , 1 2 94 , 7 1 254 , 2
cm e cm e c
+ = f f (12)
and
e
is the effective confining stress acting in both transverse directions which may be
estimated on the basis of the ratio of confining reinforcement
w
and its probable yield
stress f
ym
for circular hoops or spirals and for rectangular hoops or ties, respectively:
( )
ym w e
2 f = o o (13)
ym w e
f = o o (14)
where is the confinement effectiveness factor. When stresses are checked in this way
member strength verification against bending with axial force is not needed.
2) Verification of members against non-ductile failure modes is done through the shear
force check Eq.(3) in all elements and joints adjacent to plastic hinges taking into the
Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 6 -
account additional safety factor against brittle failure (
Bd,1
= 1,25), where the shear
resistance V
Rd
of element is given by Eq.(4).
3) The rotations at locations of potential plastic hinges are evaluated. The verification is
performed in a way that the plastic hinge rotation demands
p,E
are safely lower than the
relevant design rotation capacities
p,d
.
E p, d p,
u u > (15)
The design values of the plastic rotation capacities,
p,d
, should be derived from relevant
test results or calculated from ultimate curvatures, by dividing the probable value
p,u
by a
factor,
R,p
=1,4, that reflects local defects of the structure, uncertainties of the model and/or
the dispersion of relevant test results [6].
p R, u p, d p,
u u = (16)
In the absence of appropriate laboratory test results the plastic rotation capacity
p,u
, and the
total chord rotation
u
of plastic hinges may be estimated [6] on the basis of the ultimate
curvature
u
and the plastic hinge length L
p
as follows:
u p, y u
u u u + = (17)
) 2 1 ( ) (
p p y u u p,
L L L u u = u (18)
Ultimate curvature at the plastic hinge of the member should be taken as:
( ) d
c s u
c c = u (19)
where d is the effective section depth,
s
=
su
is the reinforcement ultimate strain,
c
=
cu,1

is unconfined concrete ultimate compression strain and
c
=
cu,c
is confined concrete
ultimate compression strain given in Eq. (20) [6].
( )
c cm, su ym s c cu,
4 , 1 004 , 0 f f c c + = (20)
where
s
=
w
for circular spirals or hoops and
s
= 2
w
for orthogonal hoops. The
assumption of the value for the yield curvature for circular sections is given in [10] Eq. (21)
and for rectangular sections in Eq. (22) with the yield strain of the reinforcement
sy
.
( ) d
sy y
4 , 2 c = u (21)
( ) d
sy y
1 , 2 c = u (22)

s yk sy
E f = c (23)
For linear variation of the bending moment, the yield rotation
y
may be assumed with Eq
(24) where L is the distance from the end section of the plastic hinge to the point of zero
moment in the pier.
( ) 3
y y
L u = u (24)
For a plastic hinge occurring at the top or the bottom junction of a pier with the deck or the
supporting body, with longitudinal reinforcement of characteristic yield stress f
yk
(in MPa)
and bar diameter d
bL
, the plastic hinge length L
p
may be assumed as follows [11]:
Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 7 -

bL yk p
015 , 0 10 , 0 d f L L + = (25)
4) Along potential hinge area the possibility of outward buckling of the longitudinal
compression reinforcement A
s
between transverse ties A
t
at spacing s
T
is evaluated by
satisfying the requirement:

yt
ys
s
T
t
built T,
built t,
6 , 1
min
f
f
A
s
A
s
A
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
>

(26)
where f
yt
is the yield strength of the tie and f
ys
is the yield strength of the longitudinal
reinforcement.
If all checks from 1) to 4) are fulfilled acceptable bridge performance under seismic design
situation is proved. If this is not a case assessor may bring decisions for strengthening of
bridge unsatisfactory elements in agreement with the owner of the bridge. If retrofit
measures will be taken, it is important to apply this same procedure again on the model of
retrofitted bridge and evaluate the results in the same way.
3.3 Numerical modeling and load distribution
In general arch bridges (as the assessed Korana bridge) are founded on sound rock ground
so support points of numerical models may be defined as fixed. Cross sections of bridges
are to be defined with their actual as built reinforcement. Cracked condition of concrete
cross sections at locations of potentially plastic hinges in nonlinear static pushover analysis
is to be taken into the account by reduction of the concrete stiffness [11]. The effective
stiffness may be estimated with Eq.(27) from the design ultimate moment M
Rd
and the yield
curvature
y
of the plastic hinge section [6]. Correction coefficient reflecting the stiffening
effect of the un-cracked part of the pier is =1,20.

y Rd eff c
/ u = M I E v (27)


Figure 4: Discretization of an arch bridge numerical model (left); constant horizontal load
distribution along the deck (right top) and horizontal load proportional to the dominant
mode shape in transverse direction (right bottom)
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
1
4
8
.9
8
6
.0
8
1
.6
7
9
.8
7
9
.5
6
6
.5
6
4
.3
6
0
.9
4
1
.7
4
1
.1
4
1
.1
3
9
.9
3
9
.9
3
9
.9
3
3
.5
2
3
.2 2
3
.2 2
3
.2 2
3
.2 2
3
.2
2
2
.6
1
1
.7
1
0
.3
1
0
.0
9
.8
0
9
.7
2
8
.9
8
8
.7
8
8
.6
8
8
.5
4 7
.8
4
6
.0
4
4
.5
3
3
.5
9
1
4
8
.3
1
4
7
.5 1
4
6
.0
1
4
2
.6
1
3
8
.2
1
3
1
.0
1
2
7
.6
1
1
3
.1
1
0
3
.3
9
2
.6
8
0
.5
8
0
.5
7
7
.1
7
0
.7
6
8
.5
6
7
.0
6
6
.4
6
3
.9
5
6
.2
5
1
.5
4
6
.2
4
2
.2
3
3
.1
2
3
.3
2
3
.1
2
3
.0
2
1
.9
2
1
.4
1
9
.8
1
5
.5
8
.0
8
7
.5
6
6
.7
7
6
.6
1
6
.2
1
4
.6
7
4
.5
6
4
.0
7
3
.1
7
3
.0
5
2
.1
9
1
.9
8
1
.5
9
1
.4
9
1
.4
7
1
.1
3
0
.4
6
0
0
.1
3
0
-0.0020
Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 8 -
The extremities of the column constitute the locations for potential plastic hinges, which
may be assumed to extend for one twentieth to one tenth of the member length, depending
on the boundary conditions [11]. For this reason each pier has been subdivided into six
elements, of length equal to 5%, 10%, 30%, 40%, 10% and 5% of its length (Figure 4 left)
[12]. Each span of the deck has been discretized into four elements, of length equal to 10%,
40%, 40% and 10% of the span. The linear elastic behaviour of the element does not strictly
call for this fine subdivision, but it has been nonetheless preferred, for sake of accuracy, to
refine the mesh near the connections to columns, where the change of stiffness and
properties of the mesh are important [12]. Also arch segments between spandrel columns
have been subdivided into four elements of length equal to 10%, 40%, 40% and 10% of the
arch segment length.
For the seismic assessment of these bridges two types of horizontal load distributions were
investigated for each direction (figure 4 right) [13,14]. First one, constant horizontal load
along the deck (
i
=1 for the deck) and the second one, horizontal load proportional to the
dominant mode shape with the largest participation factor in the considered direction. The
bridges are subjected to constant vertical gravity loads composed of self-weight and
additional dead loads from bridge equipment.
4 RESULTS OVERVIEW
This section deals with the results of two levels of assessment with focus on deficient (the
most critical) elements in seismic response of assessed Korana bridge. Left side of Figure 5
shows evaluation of F-d curves for transverse seismic loading and right side of the same
figure shows fulfilment of assessment checks with notification (in italic) of bridge elements
which do not fulfil the considered check.
In the first step of the assessment, applying linear response spectrum analysis, displacement
checks considering movements of the deck at abutments are fulfilled. Internal force vs.
resistance checks are fulfilled for the arches and decks but are not fulfilled for all piers.
Deficient elements are piers P2, P7 and P8 considering bending resistances, in both
longitudinal and transversal direction, and same piers do not have sufficient shear
resistances in longitudinal direction of the bridge. At this level it is advisable to go to the
second level of assessment due to possible favourable force redistributions resulting from
nonlinear pushover analysis instead of making the decisions for strengthening of deficient
elements.
In the second assessment step, using pushover analysis, the constant horizontal load
distribution along the deck is more conservative than the horizontal load proportional to the
dominant mode shape because larger displacements are achieved for the equal value of the
applied seismic force. Target displacements d
Ty
are not satisfactory and assessment checks
are done on bridge structure under the design seismic loading S
d
(T
dom
).
At the second level of assessment rotation seismic demands at locations of potential plastic
hinges (end parts of columns) are safely lower than the rotation capacities. Instead of
checking bending moment and axial force resistances, as it is done at first level what
resulted with deficient resistances, at second level of assessment stresses of concrete and
reinforcement are checked, and for all elements these checks are fulfilled. Resistances to
longitudinal shear force are not sufficient again at the same critical piers as in the first level
of assessment, but it can be seen from Fig. 6 that seismic demands received from second
level are lower than those from the first level.
Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 9 -
Linear response spectrum analysis
d
allow
d
t
YES
N
Rd
-M
Rd
N
Ed
-M
Ed

NO
Piers P2, P7, P8
V
Bd,1
V
Ed

NO
Piers P2, P7, P8
Nonlinear static pushover analysis

p,d

p,E
YES
f
c,i

c,i
YES
f
y,i

y,i
YES
V
Bd,1
V
Ed

NO
Piers P2, P7, P8
A
t,built
/s
T,built
min (A
t
/s
T
) YES
Figure 5: Evaluation of F-d curves for transverse seismic loading (left) and assessment
checks fulfilment (right)
That difference between shear resistance and demand V can be compensated with
appropriate element strengthening (retrofit) measure. It is obvious that the second level of
assessment, which requires a little bit more computational effort, results with more
economical retrofit measures than those that would have been undertaken based on results
of the first level. Piers P2, P7 and P8 of bridge across Korana River can be strengthen with
steel or FRP jacketing of critical regions, as it is presented in work [14,15]. Checks
considering possibility of buckling of the longitudinal compression reinforcement between
transverse ties along potential plastic hinge areas are fulfilled.

Figure 6: Comparison of longitudinal shear force seismic demands on the most critical pier
retrieved from 1st and 2nd level of assessment (left), pier cross sections (right)
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper authors propose seismic assessment of arch bridges through the linear
response spectrum analysis and the nonlinear static pushover method. Each evaluation
check at considered assessment level gives an answer if appointed demand is fulfilled or
not. With these answers we can bring quite precise decisions for seismic retrofit of assessed
Franetovi et al.: SEISIMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ARCH BRIDGE ACROSS KORANA RIVER

- 10 -
bridge, which than can be presented to owner of the bridge who will bring the final decision
to retrofit the bridge or not. First assessment level, which applies the linear response
spectrum analysis, results with more conservative estimate of bridge than the second level,
which is based on pushover analysis. Therefore for bridges that do not fulfil all checks of
the first level it is proposed to go through the second level of assessment. As reinforced
concrete arch bridges are particular structures owing to their robustness, it is found out that
performance of arches under seismic design situation may be proved already at the first
level using linear multimodal analysis. Second level requires more numerical and
computational effort but it results with less conservative estimate of bridge state than the
first one and thus with economically favourable retrofitting measures. If retrofitting
measures will be taken, it is important to apply this same procedure again on the model of
retrofitted bridge and evaluate the results following the same steps.
As authors expected, some of the contemporary seismic design demands are not fulfilled on
Korana bridge. Assessment method presented in this paper, results with the proposal of
retrofit measures for upgrading the seismic performance of the bridge.
REFERENCES
[1] Most Korana design: 1958. Inenjerski projektni zavod , Zagreb (in Croatian)
[2] nHRN EN 1998-1. 2011/NA. Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings National Annex. Zagreb: HZN. (in Croatian)
[3] Mandi, A. 2008. Limit States of Existing Bridges. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, University of Zagreb (in Croatian).
[4] Franetovi, M., Mandi-Ivankovi, A., Radi, J. 2013. Seismic Assessment of Existing Bridges
in Croatia. Proc. of the International IABSE Conference: Assessment, Upgrading and
Refurbishment of Infrastructures. Rotterdam: pp. 330-331+ CD
[5] EN 1992-1-1: 2004. Design of concrete structures: General rules and rules for buildings.
Bruxelles: CEN.
[6] EN 1998-2: 2005. Design of structures for earthquake resistance: Bridges. Bruxelles: CEN.
[7] Lu, Z., Ge, H., Usami, T. 2004. Applicability of pushover analysis-based seismic performance
evaluation procedure for steel arch bridges. Engineering Structures 26, pp. 1957-1977.
[8] Nakamura, S., Cetinkaya, O.T., Takahashi, K. 2010. A Static Analysis-Based Method for
Estimating the Maximum Inelastic Seismic Response of Upper-Deck Steel Arch Bridges. Proc.
of Sixth International Conference on Arch Bridges. Fuzhou: SECON - CSSE, pp. 927-934.
[9] Liang, C., Chen, A. 2010. Effect of Site Condition on the Seismic Response of a Fixed-end Deck
Steel Arch Bridge and the Feasibility of the Pushover Method. Proceeding of Sixth
International Conference on Arch Bridges. Fuzhou: SECON - CSSE, pp. 641-650.
[10] Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J.2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures. Pavia: IUSS Press.
[11] Priestly, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M. 1996. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[12] Pinho, R. 2007. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Structures Subjected to Seismic Action. In
Pecker, A. (ed.) Advanced Earthquake Engineering Analysis. Udine: Springer.
[13] Isakovi, T., Fishinger, M. 2011. Recent Advances in the Seismic Analysis and Design of RC
Bridges in Slovenia. In Dolek, M. (ed.) Protection of Built Environment against Earthquakes.
Heidelberg: Springer.
[14] Klarin S. 2013. Analiza izvanrednog potresnog djelovanja na most, Diplomski rad. (in
Croatian)
[15] Balaguru, P., Nanni, A. I., Giancaspro J. 2009. FRP Composites for Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Structures. New York: Taylor & Francis.