Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
where: d, b
f
, t
f
, t
w
, d
w
, depth, width, flange thickness, web thickness, web height of the steel profile, in.;
A
a
area of 1 steel profile, in.;
A
s
total area of steel profiles, in.;
Reinforcement: F
ysr
= 60 ksi; 29000 ksi ;
s
E =
d
b
= 1.41 in.; n=256 rebars; A
sri
= 1.56 in.
2
;
n
2
i 1
399.66 in.
sr sri
A A
=
= =
where d
b
diameter of longitudinal rebar, in.;
n total number of longitudinal rebars;
A
sri
area of one longitudinal reinforcement, in.;
14
A
sr
total area of longitudinal reinforcement, in.;
Concrete : f
c
= 7000psi; 4768962 psi ;
c
E =
2
121 in. 121 in. 14641 in.
g 1 2
A h h = = =
;
2 2 2 2
14641 in. 360.96 in. 1026 in. 13254.04 in.
c g sr s
A A A A = = =
where: A
g
gross cross-sectional area of composite section, in.;
A
c
net concrete area, in.;
Additional geometric properties presented in the Fig. 9 are calculated as follows:
h
1
= 121 in.; h
2
= 121 in.; c
x
= 3.4 in.; c
y
= 3.4 in.;
d
x
= 98.5 in.; d
y
= 98.5 in.; d
sx
= 40 in.; d
sy
= 37.5 in.; d
s1y
= 55.1in;
where: h
1
, h
2
height and width of the concrete section, in..
c
x
, c
y
concrete cover, on x direction and respectively y- direction, in..
d
x
, d
y
distance between two steel profiles W14x873, on y direction and x - direction, in.
d
sx
, d
sy
distance from the centroid of the steel profile W14x873 to the section neutral axis, on x
direction and respectively y - direction, in..
d
s1y
the distance from the centroid of A
s2
plate to the section neutral axis, on y - direction, in.
Steel percentage in the cross section is:
2 2
2
399.36 in. 1026 in.
0.097
14641 in.
sr s
g
A A
A
+ +
= =
Nominal axial strength:
( )
( )
2 2 2 2
0.85
1026 in. 65 ksi 93.6 in. 60 ksi 106.08 in. 60 ksi 13215.64 in. 0.85 7 ksi 169284 kip
n s ys s1 ysr s2 ysr c c
P A F A F A F A f'
= =
= + + +
+ + +
Steel contribution ratio:
2
ys
1026 in. 65 ksi
0.394
169284 kip
s
n
A F
= = =
3.3.2 Definition of equivalent top and bottom plates.
For one top plate, there are n
x
= 60#11 rebars or n = 30#11 rebars in one layer, as shown at Fig. 6.
The geometrical characteristics are determined using the formulas of Table 1. The spacing between two
consecutive longitudinal rebars is s = 3.9 in.
2 2
1
60 1.56 in. 93.6 in.
s x sri
A n A = = =
1
30 3.9 in.=117 in.
s
h n s = =
2
1
1
1
93.6 in.
0.8 in.
117 in.
s
s
s
A
b
h
= = =
57.1 in. 53.2 in.
55.15 in.
2 2
1 2
s1y
d d
d
+ +
= = =
2 3
2 2 93.6 in. 55.15 in. 10324.08 in.
sr1x s1 s1y
Z A d = = =
( )
2
2 2 3
4 4 30 1.56 in. 55.15 in. 569373.01 in.
sr1x sri s1y
I n A d = = =
3.3.3 Definition of equivalent side plates.
For one vertical plate, there are #11 n
y
= 68 rebars and 2n+1 =26 rebars in one layer, as shown at Fig. 6. There
are in total 16 rebars placed inside the cross section and included. Formulae in Table 1 give the geometrical
characteristics.
15
2 2
2
68 1.56 in. 106.08 in.
s y sri
A n A = = =
( ) ( )
2 2
2 2 1.56 in. 399.36 in.
sr x y sri x y
A n n A n n = + = + =
2
(2 1) 26 3.9 in.=101.4 in.
s
h n s = + =
2
2
2
2
106.08 in.
1.046 in.
101.4 in.
s
s
s
A
b
h
= = =
( )
2
3
1.046 in. 101.4 in.
5378 in.
2 2
2
s2 s2
r2x
b h
Z = =
=
( )
3
3
3
1.046 in. 101.4 in.
181785 in.
6 2
s2 s2
sr2x
b h
I = =
=
3.3.4 Definition of plates equivalent to steel profiles.
The geometrical characteristics of the plates equivalent steel profiles are given in Table 2:
*
23.62 in. d d = =
2
*
*
256.5 in.
10.859 in.
23.62 in.
a
A
b
d
= = =
4
2 2
i 1
4 256.5 in. 1026 in.
s a
A A =
=
= =
2 3
4 4 256.5 in. 37.5 in. 38475 in.
sx a sy
Z A d = = =
( )
3
3
* 4
10.859 in. 23.62 in.
11925 in.
12 12
* *
b d
I
= = =
( )
3
* 2 * 2 4 4
a
4 4 4 256.5 in. 37.5 in. 4 11925.21 in. 1490513in.
sx sy
I A d I = = = + +
3.3.5 Additional information for the concrete part.
( )
2
3 3 3 3
121 in. 121 in.
10324.08 in. 5378.26 in. 38475 in. 388712 in.
4 4
2
1 2
cx sr1x sr2x sx
h h
Z Z Z Z = =
=
( )
3
4
121 in. 121 in.
17863240 in.
12 4
3
1 2
g
h h
I = =
=
I*
sx
= 4A
s
d
sy
+4 I*= 1490513 in.
4
* 4
sx
17863240 569373 181785 1490513 15621568 in.
cx g sr1x sr2x
I I I I I = = =
where: Z
cx
full x-axis plastic modulus of concrete shape, in.
3
;
I
g
moment of inertia of the gross cross-section, in.
4
;
I
cx
moment of inertia of concrete, in.
4
.
3.3.6 Points of the M-P Interaction curve.
Point A
( )
( )
0.85
1026 65 93.6 60 106.08 60 13215 0.85 7 169285 kip
A s ys s1 ysr s2 ysr c c
P A F A F A F A f'
= =
= + + +
+ + +
0 kip ft
A
M =
16
Point D
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1
0.85
2
1
38475 65 10324 5378 60 388712 0.85 7 383286 kip ft
2
'
D sx ys sr1x sr2x ysr cx c
M Z F Z Z F Z f
= =
= + + +
+ + +
( ) ( )
2
0.85 0.85 7 ksi 13215.64 in.
39317 kip
2 2
c c
D
f' A
P = =
=
Point C
( ) ( )
2
0.85 0.85 7 ksi 13215.64 in. 78633 kip
C c c
P f' A = = =
M
C
= M
pl.RD
Point B
0 kip
B
P =
M
B
= M
pl.RD
3.3.7 Evaluation of M
pl.Rd
.
In order to compare the value of the plastic bending moment for a cross section with steel shapes and the same
with the proposed simplification of steel shapes into equivalent rectangle, the position of the P.N.A. is
determined taking two hypotheses into account. The value of the plastic bending moment obtained with
equivalent rectangular plates is
*
pl.Rd
M . The value of the plastic bending moment obtained with the exact cross-
section of the steel shapes is
pl.Rd
M .
As shown in Fig. 11, the distance
*
nx
h can correspond to two different hypotheses:
assumption a:
*
nx
h between the rectangular plates:
2
*
nx sy
d
h d :
Subtracting the stress distribution of B from that of C, the value of
*
nx
h can be obtained using the distribution
from the Fig. 12.a).
( ) ( )
1
0.85 78633 kip 2 0.85 2 2 0.85
* *
C B C c c nx c nx s2 ysr c
P P P A f' = h h f' h b F f' = = = +
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1
78633
46.85 in.
121 0.85 7 2 1.046 2 60 0.85 7 0.85 2 2 0.85
* C
nx
c s2 yrs c
P
h =
2 2 h f' b F f'
= =
+ +
The assumption is correct if the following condition is fulfilled:
23.62 in.
46.85 in. 37.5 in. 25.69 in.
2 2
*
nx sy
d
h d = = =
If the assumption is not correct, then it should be assumed that the P.N.A. is in the rectangular plates.
Assumption b: neutral axis within the rectangular plates:
2 2
*
sy nx sy
d d
d <h d + :
( ) ( ) ( )
1
0.85 78633 kip
0.85 2 2 0.85 2 2 0.85
2
C B C c c
* * *
C B nx c nx sy ys c nx s2 ysr c
P P P A f'
d
As : P P = 2 h h f' h d b* F f' h b F f'
= = =
| | | |
+ +
| |
\ \
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1 s2
2 0.85
2
0.85 2 0.85 2 0.85
C sy ys c
*
nx
c ys c ysr c
d
P d b* 2 F f'
h
2 h f' b* 2 F f' b 2 F f'
| |
+
|
\
=
+ +
17
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
23.62
78633 2 37.5 10.859 2 65 0.85 7
2
33.81 in.
121 0.85 7 2 10.859 2 65 0.85 7 2 1.046 2 60 0.85 7
*
nx
h =
2
| |
+
|
\
=
+ +
The assumption is verified, as the following condition is fulfilled:
23.62 in. 23.62 in.
37.5 in. 25.69 in. 33.81 in. 37.5 in. 49.31 in.
2 2 2 2
*
sy nx sy
d d
d <h d = = = + = + =
a)
b)
Fig. 12. Subtracting the components of the stress distribution combination at point B and C
considering normal force only equivalent rectangular plates case:
a) if P.N.A. is between the rectangular plates; b) if P.N.A. is within the rectangular plates;
Then the plastic bending moment is equal to:
( )
*
1
0.85
2
pl.Rd Dx sr2xn ysr sxn ys cxn c
M M Z F Z F Z f' =
Where:
cxn
Z - x-axis plastic modulus of concrete section within the zone 2h
n
, in.
3
sxn
Z - x-axis plastic modulus of equivalent rectangle bar within the zone 2h
n
, in.
3
s r2xn
Z - x-axis plastic modulus of A
s2
plates within the zone 2h
n
, in.
3
These plastic modulus are calculated as follows:
( ) ( )
2
2
3
2 2 1.046 in. 33.81in. 2391.91 in.
*
sr2xn s2 nx
Z b h = = =
( )
( )
( )
( )
2
2
2
2
3
2
10.859 2 37.5 23.62
2 2 10.859 33.81 10494 in
2 4
sy
* *
sxn nx
b* d d
Z b h =
= =
( ) ( )
2
2
3
121 33.81 2391.91 10494.91 125439 in.
*
cxn 1 nx sr2xn sxn
Z h h Z Z = = =
18
( )
( )
*
* 3 3 3
1
0.85
2
1
383286 kip ft 2391.91 in 60 kip 10494.91 in. 65 kip 125439.42 in. 0.85 7 kip 283381 kip ft
2
pl.Rd Dx sr2xn ysr sxn ys cxn c
pl.Rd
M M Z F Z F Z f'
M = =
=
To determine the exact value of the plastic bending moment M
pl.Rd
, the steel profile is considered divided in
three rectangles (2 flanges and one web). Then, there are three possible P.N.A positions: in the bottom flange, in
the web or in the top flange, as shown in Fig. 13 a), b) and c). The position of
nx
h is chosen by default and then
verified if the assumption is correct.
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 13. Subtracting the components of the stress distribution combination at point B and C
considering normal force only steel profile case:
a) P.N.A. in bottom flange; b) P.N.A. in the web; c) P.N.A. in top flange;
assumption 2a: neutral axis in the bottom flange of the steel profile
2 2
w
sy nx sy
d d
d <h d :
19
( ) ( ) ( )
1 nx
0.85 78633 kip
0.85 2 2 0.85 2 2 0.85
2
C B C c c
nx c f nx sy ys c s2 ysr c
P P P A f'
d
= 2 h h f' b h d F f' h b F f'
= = =
| | | | | |
+ +
| | |
\ \ \
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
1 s2
2 0.85
2
0.85 2 0.85 2 0.85
23.62
78633 2 18.755 37.5 2 65 0.85 7
2
121 0.85 7 2 18.755 2 65 0.85 7 2 1.046 2 60 0.8
C f sy ys c
nx
c f ys c ysr c
d
P b d 2 F f'
h
2 h f' b 2 F f' b 2 F f'
=
2
| |
+
|
\
=
+ +
| |
+
|
\
+ + ( )
31.299 in.
5 7
=
The assumption is verified if:
23.62 in. 12.6 in.
37.5 in. 25.69 in. 31.299 in. 37.5 in. 31.2 in.
2 2 2 2
w
sy nx sy
d d
d <h d = = = = =
The assumption is not correct, it shall be verified if the web the steel shape.
assumption 2b: neutral axis in the web of the steel profile
2 2
w w
sy nx sy
d d
d <h d + :
( ) ( ) ( )
1 nx
0.85 78633 kip
0.85 2 2 2 0.85 2 2 0.85
2
C B C c c
nx c f f w nx sy ys c s2 ysr c
P P P A f'
d
= 2 h h f' b t t h d F f' h b F f'
= = =
| | | | | |
+ + +
| | |
\ \ \
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
1 s2
2 2 0.85
2
0.85 2 0.85 2 0.85
23.62
78633 kip 2 18.755 37.5 2 65 0.85 7
2
121 0.85 7 2 18.755 2 65 0.85
C f f w sy ys c
nx
c f ys c ysr c
d
P b t t d 2 F f'
h
2 h f' b 2 F f' b 2 F f'
=
2
( | |
+ +
| (
\
=
+ +
| |
+
|
\
+ ( ) ( )
31.435 in.
7 2 1.046 2 60 0.85 7
=
+
The assumption is verified if:
12.6 in. 12.6 in.
37.5 in. 31.2 in. 31.435 in. 37.5 in. 43.8 in.
2 2 2 2
w w
sy nx sy
d d
d <h d = = = + = + =
Remark: the difference between the values of P.N.A. obtained with the steel shapes or their simplification into
rectangles is less than 10%:
93%
nx
*
nx
h
h
=
The exact plastic value of the bending moment is equal to:
( )
1
0.85
2
pl.Rd Dx sr2xn ysr sxn ys cxn c
M M Z F Z F Z f' =
Where
cxn
Z - x-axis plastic modulus of concrete section within the zone 2h
n
, in.
3
sxn
Z - x-axis plastic modulus of equivalent rectangle bar within the zone 2h
n
, in.
3
sr2xn
Z - x-axis plastic modulus of A
s2
plates within the zone 2h
n
, in.
3
20
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
2
2 2 2
3
2 2
2
2 2 2
18.755 3.935 2 37.5 12.6 18.755 2 37.5 23.62 3.935 2 31.435
11873.96 in.
2 2 2
f w sy w f sy
w nx
sxn
b t d d b d d
t h
Z
=
= +
= +
( )
2
3 3 3
121 in. 31.435 in. 2067.56 in. 11873.96 in. 105627.04 in.
2
cxn 1 nx sr2xn sxn
Z h h Z Z = = =
( )
2
3
2 2 1.046 in. 31.435 in. 2067.56 in.
2
sr2xn s2 nx
Z b h = = =
( )
( )
1
0.85
2
1
383286 2067.56 60 11873.96 65 105627 0.85 7 282445 kip ft
2
pl.Rd Dx sr2xn ysr sxn ys cxn c
M M Z F Z F Z f'
= =
=
The ratio between the values of plastic moment obtained with the simplification of shapes into rectangles or
with the steel shapes is:
*
99.7%
pl.Rd
pl.Rd
M
M
= .
The difference is less than 1%. It can be concluded that equivalent rectangular plates can be used instead of steel
profiles in order to make the calculation of the section strength easier.
4. Numerical modeling of the composite steel concrete section.
4.1 General presentation.
The chosen finite element is a 2D Bernoulli fiber element with 3 nodes and 7 degrees of freedom (DOF). The
total number of DOF corresponds to one rotational and two translational DOF for the nodes located at beam
element ends (nodes 1 and 3 in Fig. 14) and one relative longitudinal translational DOF for the node situated at
mid-length of the beam element (node 2 in Fig. 14.). The relative translational DOF of the node at beam mid-
length has been proven necessary to take into account the strong variation of the centroid position along the
beam when the behavior of the section is not symmetrical. Such a situation happens for instance in concrete
sections as soon as cracking occurs. The beam elements are able to simulate structures undergoing large
displacements but small deformations. They are developed following a co-rotational total description.
Fig. 14. Strain Plane beam finite element with three nodes.
The model is built using an assembly of concrete (with appropriate reservations at the location of the steel
profiles) and steel fibre elements (see Fig. 15). In such fibre elements, only longitudinal strain and stresses are
21
explicitly modeled. The shear behavior is supposed to remain elastic. Compatibility of longitudinal strains is
assumed at the interface between concrete and steel elements. This translates mathematically a perfectly rigid
longitudinal connection.
For both concrete and steel elements, internal forces in the elements are computed using a longitudinal and
transverse integration scheme. The integration along the beam length is performed using a classical Gauss
scheme with 4 integration points (see Fig. 16). Nodal values are then extrapolated from this 4-point scheme. At
each longitudinal integration point (LIP
i
), a transverse integration is performed using a multilayer scheme. The
section is divided into a number of layers, in which the actual stress state is derived from the strain state and
assuming a uniaxial stress-strain relationship. In this case the cross-section is divided into 29 layers.
Fig. 15. Integration scheme: a) longitudinal integration with 4-point Gauss scheme; b) transversal
integration with multilayer scheme.
A parabola-rectangle constitutive law with tension stiffening is assumed for the concrete, as shown in Fig. 16 a),
and is analytically defined as follows:
2
3
cc ct cc
2
2 0.3
'
ccu ccu c
c c
c c
f
f f f
E
| |
= = =
|
\
where: f
cc
= 7 ksi compressive strength of unconfined concrete (AISC I1.2b)
f
ct
axial tensile strength of concrete;
ccu
= 0.003 ultimate compressive strain of unconfined concrete (AISC I1.2b);
c
strain at reaching maximum strength;
E = 4768 ksi;
Fig. 16. Material laws: a) Parabola-rectangle diagram for concrete in compression.
b) Bi-linear for steel in tension or compression.
An elastic perfectly plastic law is used to model the steel material, as shown in Fig. 16 b), where:
22
f
y
= 60 ksi- for reinforcement and f
y
= 65 ksi- for the steel profile
E = 29000 ksi;
(AISC I1.3);
For both steel and concrete materials, the mechanical properties considered in the numerical simulations are the
nominal values. They should thus compare to the simplified approach defined in 2. and 3.approach, considering
nominal values of the material properties. This comparison is done in Fig 19.
The numerical M-P interaction curve is derived from the behavior of a cantilever column with arbitrary length l,
as shown in Fig. 17. The column is chosen long enough to ensure that shear effects can be neglected but not too
long to avoid stability problems and second-order (i.e. buckling) effects.
Fig. 17. FinelG - numerical model.
Accounting for the symmetry of the cross-section, only half of the section is represented, as shown in Fig. 17.
Results of the FEM analysis are then simply doubled for final post-processing and comparison. The total height
of the composite column is equal to l = 1800 in. The zone close to the support is the main zone of interest and
needs an accurate meshing. In total there are 17 nodes, 8 elements over a 225 in. length.
The column is initially loaded by a compressive axial force P. The compression force is kept constant while a
horizontal load is then increasingly applied until the bending resistance of the column is overcome. The
corresponding resisting moment in the plastic hinge is calculated by
max
H l = . The full curve is then built by
considering different values of the compression force P and by calculating the maximum bending resistance M
corresponding to each value of P.
4.2 Comparison of experimental and numerical results.
The results of a similar numerical model have been compared to experimental results [Dan D., (2011)]. The
experimental model is shown in Fig. 18. Concrete walls reinforced by several steel profiles were experimentally
studied at Politechnica University of Timioara. The structural steel profiles were connected to the concrete
23
web by headed studs. The reinforcement consisted in of #3 vertical bars with spacing 3.9 in.. The height of the
wall was 118 in. and the testing procedure consists in one constant vertical load, N = 22.5 kip, and a cyclically
increasing horizontal lateral load. In this case, due to the presence of boundary horizontal hoops, the value of
ultimate confined strain was taken into account. The measured material properties are listed in Table 3.
Fig. 18. Experimentally tested ductile walls cross-section definition.
Concrete properties f
cm
[ksi] E
cm
[ksi] Steel properties f
y
[ksi] f
u
[ksi] E
s
[ksi]
Specimen CSRCW 3 9.44 5649
Steel rebar #3 79.48 90.21 30600
Specimen CSRCW 4 8.99 5516 I-shaped steel 47.57 74.84 29440
Steel tube 49.60 77.16 30020
Table 3. Material properties in the CRSCW Specimens [Dan D.,(2011)]
A comparison of the force (P) - displacement () curves from the experimental tests and the numerical model is
presented in Fig. 19. The small diference between the experimental and the numerical results is due to the slip
between the concrete and steel, which exists in reality but not taken into account in the numerical model.
Fig. 19.Comparison of numerical and experimental load-displacement curves..
The bending moment axial force interaction curve presented in Fig. 20 shows that the difference between the
experimental and numerical results is less than 10%.
24
Fig. 20. Ductile walls M-N interaction curve.
4.3 Comparison of strength calculated by the Plastic Distribution Method and the Finite Element Method.
The Plastic distribution Method (P.D.M.) has been used for composite concrete section with several encased
steel profiles in order to calculate the points A, B, C, and D of the M-P interaction curve. Table 4 summarizes
the results obtained.
CSRCW 3 P P.D.M. [kip]M
Rd
P.D.M. [ kip ft]M
Rd
FEM [kip ft] M
Rd
- Ratio
Point B 0 283381 310000 91%
Point D 39317 383286 375228 98%
Point C 78633 283381 290612 97%
Point A 169285 0 0 ------
Table 4. Comparison of strength at points A, B, C and D by 2 calculation methods.
Fig. 21. Comparison between the Plastic Distribution Method and the FEM method.
5. Conclusions.
Concrete sections reinforced by multiple encased rolled sections can be an advantageous solution to realize
mega columns of tall buildings, but they are not yet covered by standard design methods.
Design values of bending moment M-axial force P interaction diagram have been obtained on the basis of the
plastic stress distribution method, a simple method presented in the AISC Specification. Explicit expressions
25
have been developed; simplifications of the calculation by replacing reinforcement bars by equivalent plates
have been proposed.
As there is until now no experimental work on mega columns, a direct validation of the proposed method and
simplifications was not possible.
An alternative two steps method was used:
- check of the ability of a finite element method to reproduce correctly the experimental behavior of
walls with several encased steel profiles;
- comparison of the results obtained by the stress distribution method with those obtained by the finite
element method in the case of mega columns with several encased steel shapes.
That procedure concludes to the validity of the stress distribution method and of the simplifications proposed
for their application in the case of mega columns with several encased steel shapes.
A future development should consist in defining the limits of applicability of the plastic stress distribution
method. Indeed, the latter is valid as long as strains implicit to a plastic model do not overcome the deformation
capacity of the materials involved. A work similar to the one presented here made considering a set of different
steel and concrete material properties would clarify this issue.
References
AISC 2011, Design Examples V14 with particular reference to Chapter I: Design of Composite Members,
AISC Chicago, Illinois.
AISC (2010), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, Illinois.
ACI (2008), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary , ACI 318-08.
Roik K. and Bergman R., (1992), Chapter 4.2.: Composite columns, Constructional Steel Design: An
International Guide, Elsevier Applied Science.
Nethercot D.A. (2004), Composite Construction, Spon Press, ISBN 0-203-45733-1, London.
FinelG Users Manual , V 9.2., (2011) Non linear finite element analysis software,Greisch Info Departement
ArGEnCo Ulg.
BoeraeveP. (1991), ), Contribution lanalyse statique non linaire des structures mixtes planes formes de
pouters, avec prise en compte des effets diffrs et des phases de construction, Doctoral thesis , University of
Lige.
Dan, D., Fabian, A. and Stoian, v. (2011). Nonlinear behaviour of composite shear walls with vertical steel
encased profiles. Engineering Structures 33, 2794-2804.
26
Biography
Andr Plumier is a Professor at the University of Liege (Belgium), with specialties in steel and composite
steel-concrete structures and seismic design. He led many research projects in these fields. Mr. Plumier is the
inventor of the reduced beam sections concept. He is a consultant in projects in seismic areas and has been full
member of the ECCS TC13 seismic design of steel structures committee since its creation in 1984.
Teodora Bogdan is a research engineer at the University of Liege (Belgium). She obtained a PhD degree in
2011with a thesis in the field of composite steel-concrete structures at Technical University of Cluj-Napoca
(Romania). She is now working at University of Liege (Belgium).
Herv Dege is research associate at the Belgian Foundation for Research and invited Professor at the
Universities of Liege and Ghent (Belgium). His main research field is structural mechanics and its application in
earthquake engineering for steel, composite steel-concrete and masonry structures. He is active in various
research programs and standardization committees at European level and acts regularly as consultant for
building companies and design offices for stability and seismic questions.