Applied sciences

Archives of Civil Engineering

Content

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2016 | No 4 / II |

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In order to achieve extended life of asphalt pavement, one of key points is to achieve a good bonding between it’s components. This research paper presents findings on the topic of influence of polyethylene bitumen modification on the adhesion between bitumen and aggregate. A novel method of quantifying the bitumen coated area, based on computer image analysis, has been developed for this study. Two different methods of adhesion testing were employed, namely boiling water method and the rolling bottle method. Aggregates used in this study were granite and limestone. Based on 108 measurements, it was concluded that polyethylene modification has a negative impact on binder aggregate adhesion.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

D. Brożyna
K. J. Kowalski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Recycling construction and demolition waste not only reduces project costs; and saves natural resources, but also solves the environmental threat caused by construction waste disposal. In this paper, C25 waste road concrete is used as an experimental material, the uniaxial compression strength and tensile splitting strength of C25 RAC whose coarse aggregate replacement rate is 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% are tested under the condition that the water-to-cement ratio is 0.47, 0.55 and 0.61. The results show: (1) the uniaxial compression strength and tensile splitting strength decrease with the increase of RAC; (2) for concrete with the same water-to-cement ratio, when the coarse aggregate replacement rate changes from 0% to 50%, the uniaxial compression strength and tensile splitting strength of RAC changes slightly. When the coarse aggregate replacement rate changes from 50% to 100%, the uniaxial compression strength and tensile splitting strength of RAC decreases rapidly

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

X.H. Deng
Z.L. Lu
P. Li
T. Xu
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Assessment of the flexural buckling resistance of bisymmetrical I-section beam-columns using FEM is widely discussed in the paper with regard to their imperfect model. The concept of equivalent geometric imperfections is applied in compliance with the so-called Eurocode’s general method. Various imperfection profiles are considered. The global effect of imperfections on the real compression members behaviour is illustrated by the comparison of imperfect beam-columns resistance and the resistance of their perfect counterparts. Numerous FEM simulations with regard to the stability behaviour of laterally and torsionally restrained steel structural elements of hot-rolled wide flange HEB section subjected to both compression and bending about the major or minor principal axes were performed. Geometrically and materially nonlinear analyses, GMNA for perfect structural elements and GMNIA for imperfect ones, preceded by LBA for the initial curvature evaluation of imperfect member configuration prior to loading were carried out. Numerical modelling and simulations were conducted with use of ABAQUS/Standard program. FEM results are compared with those obtained using the Eurocode’s interaction criteria of Method 1 and 2. Concluding remarks with regard to a necessity of equivalent imperfection profiles inclusion in modelling of the in-plane resistance of compression members are presented.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M.A. Giżejowski
R.B. Szczerba
M.D. Gajewski
Z. Stachura
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In the recent years a tendency for design of increasingly slender structures with the use of high performance concrete has been observed. Moreover, the use of high performance concrete in tunnel structures, subject to high loads with possibility of extreme loads occurrence such as fire, has an increasing significance. Presented studies aimed at improving high performance concrete properties in high temperature conditions (close to fire conditions) by aeration process, and determining high temperature impact on the concretes features related to their durability. In this paper it has been proven that it is possible to obtain high performance concretes resistant to high temperatures, and additionally that modification of the concrete mix with aerating additive does not result in deterioration of concrete properties when subject to water impact in various form.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

W. Jackiewicz-Rek
T. Drzymała
A. Kuś
M. Tomaszewski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper addresses the tensile and flexural strength of HPC (high performance concrete). The aim of the paper is to analyse the efficiency of models proposed in different codes. In particular, three design procedures from: the ACI 318 [1], Eurocode 2 [2] and the Model Code 2010 [3] are considered. The associations between design tensile strength of concrete obtained from these three codes and compressive strength are compared with experimental results of tensile strength and flexural strength by statistical tools. Experimental results of tensile strength were obtained in the splitting test. Based on this comparison, conclusions are drawn according to the fit between the design methods and the test data. The comparison shows that tensile strength and flexural strength of HPC depend on more influential factors and not only compressive strength.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Kępniak
P. Woyciechowski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The model concept, as presented in this paper, is an original solution created by the author, and can be used as a proposal to build an innovative mechanism to increase the effectiveness of programming and implementation of the development policy, and improve the quality of functioning of a building research institute. The development management system included in this model is a set of actions targeting at the effective use of human and tangible resources, undertaken in a coordinated manner and leading to the achievement of previously established objectives. The market activity of building research institutes is directly or indirectly involved in construction projects, which translates into market mechanisms, such as innovation and competitiveness. In addition, it indicates the participation of a building research institute in the engineering of construction projects as a key to entrepreneurship and implementations.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Marcin M. Kruk
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of this article is to identify opportunities for using synergies obtained by incorporation of the two methods of management: Lean Management and Agile Management on the example of the process of column concreting. Despite the seemingly contradictory assumptions the two concepts complement each other in analysed example. The strategy is based on using the idea of "one piece flow" in accordance with the Lean Management which led to a reduction of costs due to increased turnover of formwork. At the same time the success of the project resulted in a significant dependence on the ability to provide a rapid response to changing conditions during in the maturation of concrete (depending on weather conditions, which can be expected on the basis of projections having different reliability). The simultaneous use of Lean and Agile Management allowed to achieve positive results for different scenarios of environment impact on the analysed process.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

P. Nowotarski
J. Pasławski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The problem of poor quality of traffic accident data assembled in national databases has been addressed in European project InDeV. Vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and moped riders) are especially affected by underreporting of accidents and misreporting of injury severity. Analyses of data from the European CARE database shows differences between countries in accident number trends as well as in fatality and injury rates which are difficult to explain. A survey of InDeV project partners from 7 EU countries helped to identify differences in their countries in accident and injury definitions as well as in reporting and data checking procedures. Measures to improve the quality of accident data are proposed such as including pedestrian falls in accident statistics, precisely defining minimum injury and combining police accident records with hospital data.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

P. Olszewski
B. Osińska
P. Szagała
P. Skoczyński
A. Zielińska
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Due to different reasons a significant modal shift from railway to road transport took place over last decades. The basic reasons are pointed in the paper introduction together with contradicting transport policy taking into account environmental and economical challenges. Political vision to stimulate modal shift from road and air to railway cannot become true without achieving railway technical and operational interoperability. Paper describes wide range of technical barriers between individual intraoperable railway systems in civil engineering structures, traction power supply, control command and signalling and the ways, which are being applied to ensure stepwise converging of the technical solutions taking into account safety and technical compatibility, as well as other essential requirements, namely: reliability, accessibility, health and environment.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Pawlik
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the test results for concretes containing various amounts of ggbs as compared to concretes made with Portland cement. The main objective of these tests is to evaluate the influence of varying air content in such mixtures on the structure and frost resistance of concrete. The authors suggest that the approach presented here allows for a safe design of concrete mixtures in terms of their frost resistance.

The results indicate that concrete can be resistant to surface scaling even at the W/C ratio markedly higher than 0.45. Increased addition of ggbs leads to a decrease in concrete resistance to surface scaling. Proper air entrainment is the fundamental factor for frost-resistant concrete, and the air void system has to be assessed (micropore content A₃₀₀, spacing factor L). The addition of ggbs increases pore diameters, thus, to obtain the appropriate air pore spacing factor, micropore quantities introduced have to be increased.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

J. Wawrzeńczyk
A. Molendowska
T. Juszczak
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The possibility of construction disputes can be reduced, but they cannot be avoided due to the uncertain and risky nature of the building industry. Conflicts between construction parties often have very unfavourable effects, such as cost increases, poor construction quality and time extension in the schedule. Lots of studies have been carried out in order to try and avoid these disagreements. However, there are no common resolution tools or techniques due to the improving conditions and scope of contracted works. Advanced methods and dispute reasons should be fully monitored and updated for the applicable solutions. This paper discusses the current major constructional dispute reasons in Turkey. The questionnaire method was applied within the scope of this study. The questionnaire documents were randomly distributed to 80 contractors to analyse major dispute reasons in Turkey. Analysis of the questionnaire results indicates that the major current dispute causes are poor quality of performed works, delays in progress payments, inefficient site management, poorly written contracts and design mistakes.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

S.A. Yildizel
E. Dogan
G. Kaplan
A. Ergut

Publication Ethics Policy

ETHICS POLICY

”Archives of Civil Engineering” respects and promotes the principles of publishing ethics. Being guided by COPE’s Guidelines ( https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines) we ensure that all participants of the publishing process comply with these rules, the journal pays special attention to:

Editor Responsibilities
1. Qualifying individual manuscripts for publication only on the basis of: (a) compliance with the guidelines provided to the authors, (b) substantive value, (c) originality, (d) transparency of presentation
2. Deciding whether the paper fulfills all requirements i.e. formal and scientific and which articles submitted to the journal should be published. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
3. Evaluating manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
4. Ensuring scientific accuracy and complying with the principle of authorship; making sure that individual authors who contribute to the publication accept its form after the scientific editing
5. Providing a fair and appropriate peer review process.
6. Withdrawing manuscripts from publication, if any information about its unreliability appeared, also as a result of unintentional errors, features of plagiarism or violation of the rules of publishing ethics were identified.
7. Requiring all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
8. Maintaining the integrity of the academic record, precludes business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
9. Not disclosing any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

Reviewer Responsibilities
1. Cooperating with the scientific editor and / or editorial office and the authors in the field of improving the reviewed material;
2. Being objective and expressing the views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
3. Assessing of the entrusted works in a careful and objective manner, if possible with an assessment of their scientific reliability and with appropriate justification of the comments submitted;
4. identifying relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors
5. calling to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge
6. Maintaining the principle of fair play, excluding personal criticism of the author (s)
7. Maintaining confidentiality, which is not showing or discussing with others except those authorized by the editor. Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents.
8. Performing a review within the set time limit or accepting another solution jointly with ACE in the event of failure to meet this deadline.
9. Notifying the editor if the invited reviewer feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible.
10. identifying relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors
11. Not considering evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Author Responsibilities
1. Results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
2. The authors should follow the principle of originality, which is submitting only their own original works, and in the case of using the works of other authors, marking them in accordance with the rules of quotation, or obtaining consent for the publication of previously published materials from their owners or administrators;
3. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study and phenomena such as ghostwriting or guest authorship in the event of their detection must be actively counteracted.
5. All authors should report in a Reliable manner the sources they used to create their own study and their inclusion in the attachment bibliography;
6. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
7. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
8. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
9. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Publisher’s Confirmation
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

Peer-review Procedure

Manuscript Peer-Review Procedure

”Archives of Civil Engineering” makes sure to provide transparent policies for peer-review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. There is clear communication between the journal and the reviewers which facilitates consistent, fair, and timely review.

-The model of peer-review is double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript (but if the research is published reviewers can eventually know the names of the authors). A complete list of reviewers is published in a traditional version of the journal: in-print.
-It is the editor who appoints two reviewers; however, if there are discrepancies in the assessment the third reviewer can be appointed.
-After having accepted to review the manuscript (one-week deadline), the reviewers have approximately 6 weeks to finish the process.
-The paper is published in ACE provided that the reviews are positive. All manuscripts receive grades from 1-5, 5 being positive, 1 negative, the authors receive reviews to read and consider the comments.
-Manuscript evaluations are assigned one of five outcomes: accept without changes, accept after changes suggested by the reviewer, rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review, reject, withdraw.
-Manuscripts requiring minor revision (accept after changes suggested by the reviewer) does not require a second review. All manuscripts receiving a "Rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review " evaluation must be subjected to a second review. Rejected manuscripts are given no further consideration. There are cases when the article can be withdrawn, often upon the request of an author, technical reason (e.g. names of authors are placed in the text, lack of references, or inappropriate structure of the text), or plagiarism.
-The revised version of the manuscript should be uploaded to the Editorial System within six weeks. If the author(s) failed to make satisfactory changes, the manuscript is rejected.
-On acceptance, manuscripts are subject to editorial amendment to suit house style.
-Paper publication requires the author's final approval.
- As soon as the publication appears in print and in electronic forms on the Internet there is no possibility to change the content of the article.

Editor’s responsibilities
-The editor decides whether the paper fulfills all requirements i.e. formal and scientific and which articles submitted to the journal should be published.
-In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
-The editor maintains the integrity of the academic record, precludes business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
-The editor evaluates manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
-The editor does not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

Reviewers' responsibilities
Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review is kept confidential and not used for personal advantage Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments. All reviews must be carried out on a special form available in the Editorial System.

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more