Applied sciences

Archives of Civil Engineering

Content

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2013 | No 4 |

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The reverse bending and straightening test is conducted on wires used for civil engineering applications to detect laminations which can pose a threat to the integrity of the wires. The FE simulations of the reverse bending and straightening of wires with laminations revealed that the reverse bending and straightening test is only effective in revealing or detecting near-surface laminations with lengths from 25 mm located up to 30% of the wire’s thickness and may not be an effective test to detect mid-thickness, near-mid-thickness, and short near-surface laminations with lengths below 15 mm. This is because wires with mid-thickness, near-mid-thickness and short near-surface laminations will pass through the reverse bending and straightening procedures without fracturing and therefore mid-thickness, near-mid-thickness and short near-surface laminations may go undetected. Consequently, other in-line non destructive testing methods might have to be used to detect mid-thickness, near-mid-thickness and short near-surface laminations in the wires.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

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

Abstract

The basis for calculating of resistance of welded RHS connections is provided by codes and international guidebooks. In the matter of calculation of the resistance of welded joints, the European standard contains very general recommendations without specifying the detailed calculation procedures, which (the) designers could use in their work. Estimation of resistance of welded semi-rigid joints is a complex issue because it requires determining of effective lengths of welds, their placement on the member walls with their different rigidity, and distribution of components of the load acting on each section of welds in various joint areas. In this paper an approximate assessment is suggested of the resistance of the welded connection in the overlapped K type joints, made of rectangular hollow sections.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

J. Bródka
M. Broniewicz
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The mechanical characteristics of the railway superstructure are related to the properties of the ballast, and especially to the particle size distribution of its grains. Under the constant stress-strain of carriages, the ballast can deteriorate over time, and consequently it should properly be monitored for safety reasons. The equipment which currently monitors the railway superstructure (like the Italian diagnostic train Archimede) do not make any “quantitative” evaluation of the ballast. The aim of this paper is therefore to propose a new methodology for extracting railway ballast particle size distribution by means of the image processing technique. The procedure has been tested on a regularly operating Italian railway line and the results have been compared with those obtained from laboratory experiments, thus assessing how effective is the methodology which could potentially be implemented also in diagnostic trains in the near future.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Guerrieri
G. Parla
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In this paper, transient analysis on heat transfer across the residential building roof having various materials like wood wool, phase change material and weathering tile is performed by numerical simulation technique. 2-dimensional roof model is created, checked for grid independency and validated with the experimental results. Three different roof structures are included in this study namely roof with (i). Concrete and weathering tile, (ii). Concrete, phase change material and weathering tile and (iii). Concrete, phase change material, wood wool and weathering tile. Roof type 3 restricts 13% of heat entering the room in comparison with roof having only concrete and weathering tile. Also the effect of various roof layers’ thickness in the roof type 3 is investigated and identifi ed that the wood wool plays the major role in arresting the entry of heat in to the room. The average reduction of heat is about 10% for an increase of a unit thickness of wood wool layer.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

D. Prakash
P. Ravikumar
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Investor bears responsibility for proper preparation of the investment process. One of his tasks is to prepare the project documentation and obtaina building permit. Frequently, during his work, there are situations and events whose im pact interferes with the design solutions. Regardless of reasons, alterations to a project constitute a source of cost risk. In each case, the Investor should be prepared for this type of a risk. Exposure to risk should be taken into account in the planning stage of the investment. Also, a model of investment execution should be chosen at this stage. The type of model is associated with the distribution of risk throughout the project. The aim of this paper is to identify events that generate risk related to alterations to Project Documentation in the context of the selection of the investment executionmodel.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

I. Rybka
E. Bondar-Nowakowska
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper presents numerical simulationsof the behavior of a sandy layer subjected to a cyclic horizontal acceleration in shaking table tests, with a particular attention focused on the settlements of a dry sand layer, and on the liquefaction of saturated sand. A compaction/liquefaction model (C/L) is applied to these simulations. The infl uence of specifi c parameters of the model on the compaction and liquefaction of a sandy layer is shown and discussed. The results of simulations are compared with selected experimental data.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

A. Sawicki
W. Świdziński
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article aims to evaluate the Portuguese building stock energy policies and strategy for energy saving in buildings among the EU members. It was found out the average heat transfer coefficients of the main structural elements of Portuguese Buildings and analyzed the U-values of this elements considering different time periods. The fundamentals of this study were funded by the Agency for Development and Innovation (ADI) and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) through the Operational Program for Competitiveness Factors (POFC) assigned to the Building Physics and Construction Technology Laboratory with the reference SB Tool SPT_2011_4.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

J. Sousa
L. Bragança
M. Almeida
P. Silva
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In this paper, the distances between pedestrian crossings in twenty one places in the city of Wrocław, together with their evaluation by the researched groups of students, were analyzed. The database created from the collected questionnaires contains a set of two-dimensional variables: the distance between crossings and the rating of the students. The database set was analyzed using a fuzzy data mining approach to create particular clusters. Various numbers of clusters were analyzed, and the division of data into three clusters made it possible to relate the analysis to the LOS methodology. Each variable was enriched with a third dimension representing a membership value. The obtained evaluated distances are similar to values recommended in literature, although the distances highly evaluated by the students do not often occur in reality. This might suggest that there is the need to create new crossings, especially in the city centre, where pedestrian traffic is or should be important.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Kruszyna
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Communication noise is classified as one of the pollutions for the current environment. Experimental techniques to measure tire-pavement noise generation from asphalt pavements in the laboratory have been limited. A series of experiments were conducted on six different asphalt mixtures to determine if Purdue University’s Tire-Pavement Test Apparatus (TPTA) could be used to overcome these limitations. The procedure produced samples with low tire-pavement noise; however, the air void contents of the samples were higher than designed. Despite these difficulties, the sample preparation technique and the TPTA testing protocol were shown to offer an effective approach for quick laboratory assessment of tire-pavement noise characteristics of hot mix asphalt pavements at a substantially reduced cost compared to field testing.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

K.J. Kowalski
T. Dare
R.S. Mcdaniel
J. Olek
R. Bernhard

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