Nauki Techniczne

Archives of Civil Engineering

Zawartość

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2010 | No 1 |

Abstrakt

The ductility of High Performance Concrete (HPC) can develop both in tension and compression.This aspect is evidenced in the present paper by measuring the mechanical response of normalvibrated concrete (NC), self-compacting concrete (SC) and some HPCs cylindrical specimensunder uniaxial and triaxial compression. The post-peak behaviour of these specimens is definedby a non-dimensional function that relates the inelastic displacement and the relative stress duringsoftening. Both for NC and SC, the increase of the fracture toughness with the confinement stressis observed. Conversely, all the tested HPCs, even in absence of confinement, show practically thesame ductility measured in normal and self-compacting concretes with a confining pressure. Thus,the presence of HPC in compressed columns is itself sufficient to create a sort of active distributedconfinement.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

A.P. Fantilli
H. Mihashi
P. Vallini
B. Chiaia

Abstrakt

Beam-to-column end-plate joints can be classified as rigid (fully restrained), semi-rigid (partiallyrestrained) or pinned, depending on their type, configuration and the connector arrangement. Fullyrestrained joints are needed for rigid frames in which there is assumed that the frame joints havesufficient rigidity to maintain – under the service state – the angles between the intersecting mem-bers, ensuring the full moment transfer. In contrast in semi-continuous frames, partially restrainedjoints are characterized by relative rotations occurring between the intersecting members so thatthe bending moment can only be transferred partially. In recent years, the idea of using partiallyrestrained, unstiffened joints in building structures has gained momentum since this idea appearsto be more practical and economical. Semi-continuous frames can resist actions by the bendingmoment transfer in partially restrained joints, allowing in the same time for a certain degree ofrotation that enhances the overall ductile performance of these structures. One of the effective waysthat affects ductility of end-plate beam-to-column joints is to use thinner end-plates than those usednowadays in practical applications. In the current study, a certain class of steel-concrete compositejoints is examined in which the thickness of end-plates is to be equivalent to approximately 40-60% of the bolt diameter used in all the composite joints investigated in the considered joint class. Thispaper is an extension of the authors’ earlier investigation on numerical modelling of the behaviourof steel frame joints. The aim of current investigations is to develop as simple as possible andyet reliable three-dimensional (3D) FE model of the composite joint behaviour that is capable ofcapturing the important factors controlling the performance of steel-concrete end-plate joints inwhich the end-plate thickness is chosen to be lesser than that used nowadays in conventional jointdetailing. A 3D FE model constructed for composite joints of the considered joint class is reportedin this paper and numerical simulations using the ABAQUS computer code are validated againstexperimental investigations conducted at the Warsaw University of Technology. Comparison betwe-en the nonlinear FE analysis and full scale experimental results of the considered class of compositejoints is presented which conclusively allows for the accuracy assessment of the modelling tech-nique developed. Comparison between the FE results and test data shows a reasonable agreementbetween the numerical FE model developed and physical model of experimentally examined jointspecimens. Finally, practical conclusions for engineering applications are drawn.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

M.A. Giżejowski
W. Barcewicz
W. Salah

Abstrakt

This paper presents the results of research on high performance concretes (HPC) modified by theaddition of polypropylene fibres
(PP fibres). The scope of the research was the measurement of theresidual transport properties of heated and recooled concretes: gas permeability and surface waterabsorption. Seven types of concrete modified with fibrillated PP fibres were tested. Three lengths: 6,12 and 19 mm and three amounts of fibres: 0, 0.9 and 1.8 kg/m3 were used. The research programmewas designed to determine which length of fibres, used in which minimum amount, will, after thefibres melt, permit the development of a connected network and pathway for gases and liquids.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

I. Hager
T. Tracz

Abstrakt

The first order variation of critical loads of thin-walled columns with bisymmetric open cross-sectiondue to some variations of the stiffness and location of bracing elements is derived. The con-siderations are based on the classical linear theory of thin-walled beams with non-deformablecross-section introduced by Vlasov [1]. Both lateral braces and braces that restraint warping andtorsion of the cross-section have been taken into account. In the numerical examples dealing withI-column, the functions describing the influence of location of the braces with unit stiffness on thecritical load of torsional and flexural buckling are derived. The linear approximation of the exactrelation of the critical load due to the variation of the stiffness and location of braces is determined.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

P. Iwicki

Abstrakt

The subject of the paper comprises a cohesive soil response to a cyclic loading applied in the rangeof small strains (10⁻⁵ ÷ 10⁻³). To this end tests of undrained cyclic shear in a triaxial compressionapparatus were carried out on homogeneous material – kaoline from Tułowice. The tests werecarried out on a modernised test bed, enabling full saturation of samples using the back pressuremethod, as well as a precise, intra-chamber measurement of small strains. Maintaining a constantdeviatoric stress amplitude for NC and OC soils, the effect of its size (A = 0.75∆q or A = 0.375∆q) as well as the influence of strain rate on material characteristics “deviatoric stress (excess pore waterpressure) – axial strain” and effective stress paths were tested. While analysing the results obtained,a phenomenon of closing and stabilising initially open and moving loops were found, in contrast toproposal by Jardine [8]. The observed increments in the axial strain during cyclic loading operation,at the same levels of lateral effective stress, were greater for normally consolidated than for over-consolidated soils. At the same time, at each next cycle, these increments were smaller and smaller,assuming even the value equal to zero for the tenth cycle. Similar relationships occurred during theincrease in the pore water pressure during the cyclic load action. For the set number of cycles n = 10 they were that small – max. 46% (and decreasing with each consecutive cycle) that they did notresult in weakening of the material. Taking the trend of decreasing ∆u increments into account itwas possible to accept that the conclusion considered was right irrespective of the cycles’ number.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

M. Jastrzębska

Zasady etyki publikacyjnej

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.

Procedura recenzowania

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.

Ta strona wykorzystuje pliki 'cookies'. Więcej informacji