Applied sciences

Archives of Civil Engineering

Content

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2012 | No 3 |

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The research into the use of less costly modifications of road links and networks, and changes in the service of road surroundings aimed at ensuring an improvement of through traffic performance in suburban areas, and on roads passing through built-up areas as small localities, with application of simulation model, is presented in this paper. From among possible designs, the authors investigated and presented the effectiveness of two, i.e. implementation of an additional multifunctional median lane in the road cross-section, and construction of service roads with different locations of intersections (end or middle of the road section).

The analysis is focused on the impact of such changes on traffic performance and road safety. The authors analysed travel speed, delay and share of platoon traffic on a uniform sections of the road for different types of road surroundings service. The study presents the results of analyses of road network before and after modification, and the assessment of:

•impact of access points density and level of their use on road traffic performance,
•impact of driving through road sections in built-up area on building platoon traffic,
•impact of change in the cross-section type on traffic performance.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Kieć
M. Tracz
S. Gaca
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Reinforced concrete composite slab consists of a thin prefabricated slab in which span reinforcement is located and of concrete joined with the slab, with such concrete being laid on site.

The existence of a joint of two concretes in such floors is interpreted as introducing a contact layer into a monolithic slab. In the paper parameters of two models are estimated. The first is a model of a contact layer and the second is a model of a composite slab with a single degree of freedom. The models consider that the contact has elastic properties and inelastic properties causing energy dissipation. Experimental investigations are discussed further based on which the parameters values of the contact layer model were determined.

Delamination was experienced for the slabs characterised by low contact layer stiffness after applying a maximum load. In addition, the strains of a contact layer having low stiffness are accompanied by lower energy dissipation than of a layer with high stiffness.

The smaller stiffness of composite floors, as compared to monolithic floors, occurs as a consequence of the existence of a joint. Such decrease for a composite slab is interpreted in the model with a single degree of freedom as the serial connection of stiffness of a monolithic slab and an element considering the existence of a contact layer.

The stiffness of an element considering the existence of a contact layer decreases along with a load, and the elements corresponding to the higher stiffness of the contact layer are characterised by higher energy dissipation.

The aforementioned results of the investigations confirm the assumptions of the contact layer model and a composite slab model with a single degree of freedom. The findings made represent a basis for establishing a method of evaluating the condition of a joint in composite slabs according to statistical investigations.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

K. Gromysz
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The paper discusses the influence of the initial parameters on the strength parameters of S235JR steel at low stress triaxiality. The analysis was performed using the Gurson-Tvergaard-Needlem (GTN) material model, which takes into consideration the material structure. The initial material porosity was defined as the void volume fraction f₀. The fully dense material without pores was assumed and the typical and maximum values of porosity were considered for S235JR steel in order to analyse the porosity effect. The strength analysis of S235JR steel was performed basing on the force-elongation curves obtained experimentally and during numerical simulations. Taking into consideration the results obtained, the average values of the initial void volume fraction f₀ = 0.001 for S235JR steel is recommended to use in a common engineering calculations for elements operating at low stress triaxiality. In order to obtain more conservative results, the maximum values of f₀ = 0.0024 may be used.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

P.G. Kossakowski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The paper presents achievements in gluing technique in steel and aluminium structures. Adhesives currently in use and available on the market are characterized from the point of view of their mechanical properties. Design rules of adhesive connections and basic methods for their calculations are mentioned. The most significant examples of the applications of those joints in steel as well as aluminium structures are shown.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Piekarczyk
R. Grec
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper presents numerical two-dimensional results for fine-grained concrete under quasi-static three-point bending at meso-scale. Concrete was modelled as a random heterogeneous three-phase material. The simulations for notched concrete beams were carried out with the standard finite element method using an isotropic damage constitutive model enhanced by a characteristic length of micro-structure by means of a non-local theory. The effect of the volume fraction, shape, size, statistical distribution and stiffness of aggregate was analysed. Moreover, the effect of the bond thickness, notch size and characteristic length of micro-structure on the material behaviour was numerically investigated. The FE results were compared with own laboratory test results and other meso-scale calculations for three-phase concrete elements.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Ł. Skarżyński
J. Tejchman
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) method for buildings was originally developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) in the late 1980’s for potential seismic hazards. This is a simple and almost a quick way of assessing the building seismic vulnerability score based on visual screening. The logarithmic relationship between final score and the probability of collapse at the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) makes results somewhat difficult to interpret, especially for less technical users. This study is developed to improve the simplicity and usefulness of RVS methodology to determine the numeric scores for seismic vulnerability of buildings using vulnerability functional form. The proposed approach applies the existing method in FEMA 154 (2002) for calculating the building rank based on RVS method. In this study RVS scores are used to evaluate populations of buildings to prioritize detailed evaluations and seismic retrofits. The alternate non-logarithmic format of scoring scheme is much better meeting the needs of the project managers and decision makers, as they require results that are easier to understand. It shows the linear equivalent of RVS final scores which is consistent with the existing ranking systems used in the buildings management program such as budget allocation decision making. The results demonstrate that the weight determined for the factor of “Region Seismicity”, which is 0.4033, has the highest contribution to seismic vulnerability scores of buildings. The applicability of the proposed method is demonstrated through a hypothetical example to rank ten seismically vulnerable buildings.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Mohammadreza Yadollahi
Azlan Adnan
Rosli Mohamad Zin
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The use of shredded tyre in civil engineering applications is a significant potential end use market. The reuse of tyre chips may not only address growing environmental and economic concerns, but also help to solve geotechnical problems associated with low shear strength. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the properties of tyre chips and tyre chips – sand mixture, and to find the mixture with the highest shear strength. In this study, an experimental testing program was undertaken using a large – scale triaxial apparatus with the goal of evaluating the optimum percentage of tyre chips in sand. The effects on shear strength of varying percentage of tyre chips and varying confining pressure were studied. Tyre chips content was suspected to have influence on stress – strain and volumetric strain behaviour of the mixture. Some tests were conducted to check the influence of number of used membranes, of saturation and compaction, on sample properties.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

E. Dembicki
M. Kowalczyk
P. Gotteland

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