Applied sciences

Archives of Civil Engineering

Content

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2013 | No 2

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The results of experimental test of nine thickset reinforced concrete slabs in punching are presented in the this paper. The aim of the tests was verifi cation of the Eurocode EC 2 procedure, by which the ultimate shear stresses vRd,c depend on the slenderness of the slab. Besides of the performed tests results, the analysis of the foreign investigation of the fundaments is also included. The test results, as well as other tests, show the correctness of the function assumed in Eurocode 2, which gives correlation between ultimate stresses vRd,c and shear slenderness.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

T. Urban
M. Gołdyn
J. Krakowski
Ł. Krawczyk
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In this research reactive powder concrete (RPC) was prepared using sand from North Sinai. The mechanical properties of locally cast RPC were investigated and evaluated by studying the effects of using different cement and silica fume contents and new steel fi bers’ aspect ratios as reinforce-ment for RPC. Specimens’ preparation, curing regimes and testing procedures to evaluate the com-pressive strength, the modulus of elasticity, the indirect tensile strength and the fl exural strength were discussed. A compressive strength of 154.5 MPa, indirect tensile strength of 11.98 MPa, mod-ulus of elasticity of 45.1 GPa and fl exural strength of 30.26 MPa have been achieved for reinforced RPC contains 800 kg/m³ cement content and silica fume content 30% of cement weight. The test results showed some improvements by increasing cement and silica fume contentsas well as adding steel fi bers on the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and indirect tensile strength.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Nageh N. Meleka
Alaa A. Bashandy
Mohamed A. Arab
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Detailed investigation of the effect of the number of end-panel studs on the seismic properties of light-steel shear-panel braces in cold-formed steel frames and in particular the associated response modifi cation coeffi cients (R) factor, are presented in this paper. A total of 6 full-scale 1200×2400 mm specimens are considered, and the responses investigated under a standard cyclic loading regime. Of particular interest are the specimens’ maximum lateral load capacity and deformation behavior as well as a rational estimation of the seismic response modifi cation factor. The study also looks at the failure modes of the system and investigates the main factors contributing to the ductile response of the tested shear-panel braces in order to suggest improvements so that braces respond plastically with a signifi cant drift and without any risk of brittle failure, such as connection failure or stud buckling.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Mohammad Reza Javaheri Tafti
Farhad Behnamfar
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The paper presents an approach for evaluation of the likelihood of damage to the transportation infrastructure in the context of the terrorist attacks on the example of a number of bridges located in Wrocław (Poland). Assuming that there will be only one bridge destroyed in a given area, in order to determine the probability of damage to one of the objects, there was one of multi-criteria optimi-zation methods used, i.e. the method of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The main advantage of the analysis carried out was that the accepted hierarchy of decision-making options could be easily explained in a scientifi c manner, not only with reference to personal knowledge, experience, and intuition.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

A. Duchaczek
D. Skorupka
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The road pollutant emissions, above all in urban context, are correlated to many infrastructural parameters and to traffic intensity and typology. The research work on road junction geometry, carried out in European research centres, has recently allowed to design new road intersection types which are of undoubted interest, especially in terms of traffic functionality and safety, like the fl ower roundabouts (in which right-turn manoeuvres do not confl ict with the circulating flow). The main objective of this paper is to propose a model for the estimation the capacity, delay, levels of service and the pollutant emissions into flower roundabouts. A comparative analysis between conventional roundabout and flower roundabout has been carried out in terms of CO, CO₂, CH₄, NO, PM₂,₅ and PM10 vehicular emissions, evaluated by mean of COPERT Software which is developed as a European tool for the calculation of emissions from the road transport sector.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

F. Corriere
M. Guerrieri
D. Ticali
A. Messineo
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an extensive investigation of asphalt concrete beams with geosynthetics interlayer. The subject of the research is an evaluation of infl uence of geosynthetics interlayer applied to bituminous samples on their fatigue life. The results of the tests evidences that when geosynthetics are used, the fatigue life depends mainly on the type of bituminous mixture, the type of geosynthetics, and the type and the amount of bitumen used for saturation and sticking. The amount of bitumen used to saturate and fix the geosynthetic signifi cantly changes the samples fatigue properties. Essential positive correlation between fatigue and parameters of interlayer bonding (shear strength, shear stiffness) occurs in both testing temperatures.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

P. Zieliński

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