Applied sciences

Archives of Civil Engineering

Content

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2014 | No 4 |

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper presents a numerical investigation of the effects of lamination orientation on the fracture behaviour of rectangular steel wires for civil engineering applications using finite element (FE) analysis. The presence of mid-thickness across-the-width lamination changes the cup and cone fracture shape exhibited by the lamination-free wire to a V-shaped fracture with an opening at the bottom/pointed end of the V-shape at the mid-thickness across-the-width lamination location. The presence of mid-width across-the-thickness lamination changes the cup and cone fracture shape of the lamination-free wire without an opening to a cup and cone fracture shape with an opening at the lamination location. The FE fracture behaviour prediction approach adopted in this work provides an understanding of the effects of lamination orientation on the fracture behaviour of wires for civil engineering applications which cannot be understood through experimental investigations because it is impossible to machine laminations in different orientations into wire specimens.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

K.K. Adewole
S.J. Bull
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Influence of geometric imperfections of mast shaft in form of initial mast span curvatures both on internal forces status in the structure elements as well as on those elements effort, which is particularly important at the design stage, was analysed based on an example of certain specific mast. The calculations were performed taking into account L/1000 imperfections equal to the permissible assembly deviations as per [1], and L/500 equal to initial imperfections as for uniform built-up columns according to [2]. Remarks and final conclusions have practical meaning and can be useful in design practice.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Matuszkiewicz
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The vibration and stability analysis of uniform beams supported on two-parameter elastic foundation are performed. The second foundation parameter is a function of the total rotation of the beam. The effects of axial force, foundation stiffness parameters, transverse shear deformation and rotatory inertia are incorporated into the accurate vibration analysis. The work shows very important question of relationships between the parameters describing the beam vibration, the compressive force and the foundation parameters. For the free supported beam, the exact formulas for the natural vibration frequencies, the critical forces and the formula defining the relationship between the vibration frequency and the compressive forces are derived. For other conditions of the beam support conditional equations were received. These equations determine the dependence of the frequency of vibration of the compressive force for the assumed parameters of elastic foundation and the slenderness of the beam.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

P. Obara
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR) is one of the major causes of damage in concrete. Potential susceptibility of aggregates to this reaction can be determined using several methods. This study compares gravel alkali reactivity results obtained from different tests conducted on coarse aggregates with complex petrography. The potential for the reactivity in the aggregates was revealed in the chemical test using treatment with sodium hydroxide. Optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction were used to identify the reactive constituents. The expansion measured in the mortar bars test confirmed that the aggregate was potentially capable of alkali silica reactivity with consequent deleterious effect on concrete.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Z. Owsiak
P. Czapik
J. Zapała-Sławeta
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In the paper methods for conducting Road Safety Inspections (SIs) in Italy and Poland are described and compared. The goal of the study is to improve the quality and efficiency of the safety inspections of road network by using low cost equipment (GPS, Tablet, Camera) and specific software. Particular attention was paid to the need for proper calibration of factors, causing traffic safety hazard associated with road infrastructure. The model developed according to the Italian procedures was adapted to comply with the checklists and evaluation criteria of the Polish guidelines. Overall, a good agreement between the two approaches was identified, however some modification was required to include new safety issues, characteristic for the Polish network for safety inspection of two lane rural roads. To test the applicability about 100 km of regional two lane roads in Poland were inspected with Polish and Italian procedures.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

S. Cafiso
M. Kieć
M. Milazzo
G. Pappalardo
F. Trovato
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper is devoted to the application of ultrasonic wave propagation phenomena for the diagnostics of prestressed, concrete, bridge T-beams. A multi-point damage detection system is studied with use of numerically obtained data. The system is designed to detect the presence of the material discontinuities as well as their location.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

A. Mariak
K. Wilde
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Early detection of potential defects and identification of their location are necessary to ensure safe, reliable and long-term use of engineering structures. Non-destructive diagnostic tests based on guided wave propagation are becoming more popular because of the possibility to inspect large areas during a single measurement with a small number of sensors. The aim of this study is the application of guided wave propagation in non-destructive diagnostics of steel bridges. The paper contains results of numerical analyses for a typical railway bridge. The ability of damage detection using guided Lamb waves was demonstrated on the example of a part of a plate girder as well as a bolted connection. In addition, laboratory tests were performed to investigate the practical application of wave propagation for a steel plate and a prestressed bolted joint.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Rucka
B. Zima
R. Kędra
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The topic of smart structures, their active control and implementation, is relatively new. Therefore, different approaches to the problem can be met. The present paper discusses variable aspects of the active control of structures. It explains the idea of smart systems, introduces different terms used in smart technique and defines the structural smartness. The author indicates differences between actively controlled structures and structural health monitoring systems and shows an example of an actively controlled smart footbridge. The analyses presented in the study concern tensegrity structures, which are prone to the structural control through self-stress state adjustment. The paper introduces examples of structural control performed on tensegrity modules and plates. An influence of several self-stress states on displacements is analyzed and a study concerning damage due to member loss is presented.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

A. Al Sabouni-Zawadzka

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