Nauki Techniczne

Archives of Civil Engineering

Zawartość

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2011 | No 2 |

Abstrakt

The article describes how to identify the boundary and yield surface for hypoplastic constitutive equations proposed by Wu, Gudehus and Bauer. It is shown how to identify and plot the surfaces for any equation in this class. Calculation errors are analyzed characteristic for applied set of numerical formulas. In the paper there are computer links to the source code prepared in the MATLAB system, based on instructions in the article. A sample consitutive domains are shown, plotted using the attached computer program.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Z. Sikora
P. Cieśla

Abstrakt

Green-geo-engineering with geosynthetic reinforced soil structures is of increasing practice around the world. Poland is among the leading countries with the third biggest geogrid market in Europe. The German EBGEO 2010 Guideline for Soil Reinforcement with Geosynthetics as first European Guideline for Geosynthetics linked to the Eurocode 7, and the new design code for Japanese railway structures under seismic loading are introduced. New research results from the Geotechnical Institute of the RWTH Aachen, Germany, dealing with the soil/reinforcement interaction and new approaches for design codes for the reinforcement of base courses in traffic areas based on lab and field tests in the USA are presented.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

G. Heerten

Abstrakt

The problem of consolidation of soil has been widely investigated. The basic approach was given by Terzaghi who assumed soil of constant physical and mechanical parameters. In the case of peat consolidation, the permeability coefficient of soil and the elasticity modulus are functions of the settlement which is an important additional factor. The model proposed here assumes varying the elasticity and permeability coefficients. Moreover, the settlement is described by the so-called elementary curve which was approximated empirically based upon laboratory tests. The model allows to consider the case when the filtration in the peat body goes in horizontal direction. It happens so when the charging layer does not receive outgoing water from the pores. The model includes also the case when the load involving consolidation varies in time i.e. the charging layer grows up gradually. The model has been applied practically in several cases and it comes that there is a good agreement between calculated and measured settlement of the consolidated peat layer.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Z. Meyer
R. Coufal
M. Kowalów
T. Szczygielski

Abstrakt

A certain non-linear differential equation containing a power of unknown function being the solution is considered with application to selected geotechnical problems. The equation can be derived to a linear differential equation by a proper substitution and properties of operations G and S.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

A. Milewska

Abstrakt

This paper presents simulation results of the consolidation process of the flotation waste landfill “Żelazny Most”. The mathematical model used in presented research is based on Biot’s model of consolidation and is extended with rheological skeleton. The load is the mass pressure of the landfill itself. The initial point selected for calculations was based on the ground water level calculated in a landfill. The creeping process in this waste landfill was analyzed along the north – south section. The solution is therefore 2D with the assumption of a plane strain state. Effective model parameters data were obtained in laboratory tests on the material from the waste landfill. Results obtained for a stress state in a storage state can help to determine whether the adopted linear model of visco-elastic medium does not lead to changes in the Coulomb – Mohr potential yield, showing the emergence of plasticity of material storage areas.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

T. Strzelecki
M. Bartlewska-Urban

Abstrakt

This paper compares numerical solutions of transient two-dimensional unsaturated flow equation by using different averaging schemes for internodal conductivities. Averaging methods such as arithmetic mean, geometric mean, upstream weighting, and integrated mean are taken into account, as well as a recent approach based on steady-state approximation. The latter method proved the most flexible, producing relatively accurate solutions for both downward and upward flow cases.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

A. Szymkiewicz
K. Burzyński

Abstrakt

The paper deals with the properties and microstructure of Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC), which was developed at Cracow University of Technology. The influence of three different curing conditions: water (W), steam (S) and autoclave (A) and also steel fibres content on selected properties of RPC was analyzed. The composite characterized by w/s ratio equal to 0.20 and silica fume to cement ratio 20%, depending on curing conditions and fibres content, obtained compressive strength was in the range from 200 to 315 MPa, while modulus of elasticity determined during compression was about 50 GPa. During three-point bending test load-deflection curves were registered. Base on aforementioned measurements following parameters were calculated: flexural strength, stress at limit of proportionality (LOP), stress at modulus of rapture (MOR), work of fracture (WF), and toughness indices I₅, I₁₀ and I₂₀. Both amount of steel fibres and curing conditions influence the deflection of RPC during bending.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

T. Zdeb
J. Śliwiński

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