Applied sciences

Archives of Civil Engineering

Content

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2011 | No 1 |

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This report describes the community involved in technology, organisation, and economics of theconstruction industry. The community includes mainly academics gathered around KILiW PAN, the Polish Academy of Sciences Section for Civil Engineering Projects. The results have been obtainedbased on the survey conducted in the period of 2007–2010. Some financial issues are presentedhere which influence the scope of the research underway and the didactic process. Some of theissues presented here comprise the subject matters of research, postgraduate studies, academicdegrees, as well as publications and international cooperation. Conclusions were presented in theform of suggestions in the field of research and teaching.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

O. Kapliński
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article presents the application of finite element method for estimating settlements of road embankments founded on the soil reinforced with vertical drains and preloading method. The ideaof the method was the transition from the solution of one-dimensional consolidation proposed for two-dimensional solution, while maintaining the same consolidation time and comparison withresults obtained from measurements settlements of road embankment which is a part of planned Gdańsk Southern Ring Road near Przejazdowo site.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

K. Binder
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

A multi-laminate constitutive model for soft soils incorporating structural anisotropy is presented. Stress induced anisotropy of strength, which is present in multi-laminate type constitutive models, is augmented by directionally distributed overconsolidation. The model is presented in theelastic-plastic version in order to simulate strength anisotropy of soft clayey soils and destructuration effects. Performance of the model is shown for some element tests and for the numericalsimulation of a trial road embankment constructed on soft clays at Haarajoki, Finland. The numerical calculations are completed with the commercial finite element code capable to performcoupled static/consolidation analysis of soils. Problems related to the initiation of in situ stress state, conditions of preconsolidation, as well as difficulties linked to estimation of the model parametersare discussed. Despite simple assumptions concerning field conditions and non-viscous formulationof the constitutive model, the obtained final results are of a sufficient accuracy for geotechnical practice.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

M. Cudny
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Field investigations concerning screw piles and columns have been carried out for the “Bearing capacity and work in the soil of screw piles” research project, financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education – project No N N506 369234. The tests of three instrumented screw piles were conducted together with CPTU tests and measurements of pile installation parameters (especially torque). The objectives of field investigations and the entire research project include discovering how screw piles work in the soil, locating and describing the correlations between CPTU results and rotation resistance during pile auger installation and next establishing correlations between CPTU results, rotation resistance and the bearing capacity of this kind of piles. The paper describes the investigation procedure and the basic results of tests carried out in the first of a series of sites.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

A. Krasiński
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Deep excavation walls can be analyzed and calculated by using classical methods (currently rarely in use due to their many simplifications) or numerical methods. Among the numerical methods we can distinguish a simplified approach, in which the interaction between soil and a wall structure is modelled by a system of elasto-plastic supports, and the finite-element method (FEM) in which the soil is modelled with mesh of elements. It is a common view that if we want to analyze only wall constructions, the first, simplified method of calculation is sufficient. The second method, FEM, is required if we want to further analyze the stress and strain states in the soil and the influence of the excavation on the surrounding area. However, as it is demonstrated in the paper, important differences may appear in the calculation results of both methods. Thus, the safety design of a deep excavation structure depends very much on the choice of calculating method.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

A. Krasiński
M. Urban
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The poorly cemented Ciężkowice poorly sorted sandstone and the compact Mucharz fine grain sandstone have been laboratory tested at the triaxial compressing conditions in thermo-pressurized chamber of a rigid press MTS-815. The confining pressure: P = σ₂ = gσ₃ range from 0 to 96 MPa and the temperature: T from 22°C to 120°C (simulated 500 m intervals from the surface to the depth of 3500 m). During (the) each test, the characteristics of deformation and the elastic wave velocity paths were simultaneously monitored. The volume density and longitudinal wave velocity showed a non-linear increase with the progress of simulated depth, a volume density growth by 1.6 to 4.0%, and the elastic wave velocity up to 250% of the primary value (surface condition), dependable on loading path, phase of deformation, and varying type of lithology. That may lead to wide error margin in a determination of rock’s engineering properties and also create discrepancies between the static parameters of rocks (Est, gνst) determined by standard laboratory load tests, and the dynamic parameters (Ed, νd) determined from the wave velocity and volume density.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

J. Pinińska
A. Dziedzic
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The paper shows methods of analysis and assessment of partnering relations of construction enterprises with the use of questionnaires, statistics, and fuzzy logic. The results were obtained from Polish, Slovak and Ukrainian enterprises. The definition of partnering in the construction industry indicates that it is a qualitative concept. By applying a scale in the questionnaire, and due to mathematical analysis of the data, the final research result, showing the level of partnering relations of construction enterprises, is rendered quantitatively.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

E. Radziszewska-Zielina
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The fully coupled, porous solid-fluid dynamic field equations with up formulation are used in this paper to simulate pore fluid and solid skeleton responses. The present formulation uses physical damping, which dissipates energy by velocity proportional damping. The proposed damping model takes into account the interaction of pore fluid and solid skeleton.

The paper focuses on formulation and implementation of Time Discontinuous Galerkin (TDG) methods for soil dynamics in the case of fully saturated soil. This method uses both the displacements and velocities as basic unknowns and approximates them through piecewise linear functions which are continuous in space and discontinuous in time. This leads to stable and third-order accurate solution algorithms for ordinary differential equations. Numerical results using the time-discontinuous Galerkin FEM are compared with results using a conventional central difference, Houbolt, Wilson θ, HHT-α, and Newmark methods. This comparison reveals that the time-discontinuous Galerkin FEM is more stable and more accurate than these traditional methods.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

B. Wrana

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