Nauki Techniczne

Archives of Civil Engineering

Zawartość

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2013 | No 3 |

Abstrakt

This study aims to evaluate the efficiency of strengthening reinforced concrete beams using some valid strengthening materials and techniques. Using concrete layer, reinforced concrete layer and steel plates are investigated in this research. Experiments on strengthening beam samples of dimensions 100x150x1100 mm are performed. Samples are divided in to three groups. Group “A” is strengthened using 2 cm thickness concrete layer only (two types). Group “B” is strengthened using 2 cm thickness concrete layer reinforced with meshes (steel and plastic). Group “C” is strengthened using steel plates. The initial cracking load, ultimate load and crack pattern of tested beams are illustrated. The experimental results show that for group A and B, the ultimate strength, stiffness, ductility, and failure mode of RC beams, with the same thickness strengthening layer applied, will be affected by the mesh type, type of concrete layer. While for group C, these parameters affected by the fixation technique and adhesion type.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Alaa A. Bashandy

Abstrakt

The paper presents the results of the study of the effect of a Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthetic wax on the resistance to permanent deformation of the AC 11S asphalt concrete. The synthetic wax was dosed at 1.5%, 2.5% and 3.5% by weight of bitumen 35/50. The compaction temperatures were 115ºC, 130ºC and 145ºC. The criteria adopted for measuring the resistance to permanent deformation included the following parameters: stiffness modulus at 2, 10 and 20ºC, permanent deformation (RTS), fatigue life determined using the indirect tensile fatigue test (ITFT) and resistance to rutting (WTSAIR, PRDAIR). The test results confirmed the positive infl uence of F-T synthetic wax on enhancing the permanent deformation resistance of asphalt concrete placed at lower compaction temperatures compared to that of standard asphalt concrete compacted at 140ºC.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

M. Iwański
G. Mazurek

Abstrakt

The introduction of a baseline term to the dependency network most often results in a change, break and/or generation of a new sequence of critical path, depending on the type of such a baseline term and the exact date selected. Each of those situations has an impact on the location or need to include new time buffers in the modified Goldratt’s method. The purpose of this article was to identify possible effects brought by declaration of each type of baseline term and to point out actions to be taken in each case. It must be noted that guidelines provided should in each individual case be adapted to the specific character of schedule changes caused by implementation of the relevant baseline term. The example presented herein exemplifies one of such solutions to be implemented as a result of break of the critical path and need to introduce new time buffers.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

M. Połoński
K. Pruszyński

Abstrakt

Synthetic polymer latexes, such as styrene–butadiene rubber (SBR) latex addition in Portland cement has gained wider acceptance in many applications in the construction industry. Polymer-modified cementitious systems seals the pores and micro cracks developed during hardening of the cement matrix, by dispersing a film of polymer phase throughout the concrete. A comprehensive set of experimental test were conducted for studying the compressive properties of SBR latex polymer with crimped polypropylene fibres at relative volume fractions of 0.1 and 0.3%. The results indicated that the addition of polypropylene fibre has little effect on the reduction in the workability of concrete composite containing fly ash and SBR Latex. Increase in polypropylene fibres upto 0.3% Vf showed increase in compressive strength upto 57.5 MPa. The SBR concrete without fibre showed an increase in strength upto 20% compared to plain concrete. Test results also indicated that the compressive strength was increased in SBR fibre concrete by means of an ordinary dry curing process than wet curing because of their excellent water retention due to polymer film formation around the cement grains. On the contrary the compressive strength reduces for SBR fibre concretes under wet curing compared to dry curing.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

S. Thirumurugan
A. Sivakumar

Abstrakt

This article aims to evaluate the potential application of prefabricated panels in energy retrofit of facades in the Portuguese building stock. The fundamentals of this study were part of Annex 50, which was an international ECBCS IEA project, with the purpose of developing an innovative concept of building renovation for the most representative buildings based on prefabricated systems. To analyze the potential application of energy retrofit using prefabricated panels, was important to know the reality of the existing building stock and its morphology. To know the reality of the building stock, an analysis was done based on the existing statistical data and to find the most representative residential buildings, target of the study, three criteria were defined: buildings built before 1990, with 2 to 6 floors and with renovation needs in the exterior envelope.

In the absence of statistical information about buildings morphology, a research work was done in the field. During the collection of data a methodology was developed in which each opening was classified according to a code with three parameters. In the end of the classification, 29 final codes were achieved and was verified that three types of panels have a higher probability of being applied.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

J. Sousa

Abstrakt

The application of stone column technique for improvement of soft soils has attracted a considerable attention during the last decade. However, in a very soft soil, the stone columns undergo excessive bulging, because of very low lateral confinement pressure provided by the surrounding soil. The performance of stone column can be improved by the encapsulation of stone column by geosynthetic, which acts to provide additional confinement to columns, preventing excessive bulging and column failure. In the present study, a detailed experimental study on behavior of single column is carried out by varying parameters like diameter of the stone column, length of stone column, length of geosynthetic encapsulation and stiffness of encapsulation material. In addition, finite-element analyses have been performed to access the radial deformation of stone column. The results indicate a remarkable increase in load carrying capacity due to encapsulation. The load carrying capacity of column depends very much upon the diameter of the stone column and stiffness of encapsulation material. The results show that partial encapsulation over top half of the column and fully encapsulated floating column of half the length of clay bed thickness give lower load carrying capacity than fully encapsulated end bearing column. In addition, radial deformation of stone column decreases with increasing stiffness of encapsulation material.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Y.K. Tandel
C.H. Solanki
A.K. Desai

Abstrakt

The paper presents the author’s non-linear FEM solution of an initially stressless deformed flat frame element, in which the nodes are situated along the axis of the bar initially straight. It has been assumed that each node may sustain arbitrary displacements and rotation. The solution takes into account the effect of shear, the geometrical non-linearity with large displacements (Green-Lagrange’s strain tensor) and moderate rotations (i.e. such ones which allow a linear-elastic behaviour of the material) and alternative small rotations when the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor is applied. This solution is based on [1], concerning beams without any initial bow imperfections. The convergence of the obtained results at different numbers of nodes and Gauss points in the element was tested basing on the example of circular arcs with a central angle of 120°÷180°. The analysis concerned elements with two, three, five, seven, nine and eleven nodes, for the same number of points of numerical integration and also with one more or less. Moreover, the effect of distributing the load on the convergence of the results was analyzed.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

J. Zamorowski

Abstrakt

This investigation is carried out to evaluate the repair and strengthening the techniques of elliptical paraboloid reinforced concrete shells with openings. An experimental program of several different techniques in repair and strengthening is executed. The materials, which are considered for strengthening, are; Glass fiber reinforced polymers GFRP at different position of the shell bottom surface, steel strip and external tie. They loaded by four concentrated loads affected on the corners of the opening. The initial and failure loads as well as the crack propagation for the tested shells at different loading stages, defl ections and failure load for repaired and shells are recorded. A non-linear computer program based on finite element techniques is used to study the behavior of these types of shells. Geometric and materials nonlinearities are considered in the analysis. The efficiency and accuracy of computer program are verified by comparing the program results with those obtained experimentally for the control shell with opening and strengthened shells.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

N.N. Meleka
M.A. Safan
A.A. Bashandy
A.S. Abd-Elrazek

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