Nauki Techniczne

Archives of Civil Engineering

Zawartość

Archives of Civil Engineering | 2015 | No 3 |

Abstrakt

This paper presents the analysis of the influence of works related to the dynamic replacement column formation on the bridge pillar and the highway embankment located nearby. Thanks to DR columns, it is possible to strengthen the soil under road embankment in a very efficient way. However, the construction of such support carries risk to buildings and engineering structures located in the neighbourhood. Therefore modelling and monitoring of the influence of the conducted works should be an indispensable element of each investment in which dynamic replacement method is applied. The presented issue is illustrated by the example of soil strengthening with DR columns constructed under road embankment of DTŚ highway located in Gliwice. During the inspection, the influence of vibrations on the nearby bridge pillar and road embankment was examined. The acceleration values obtained during these tests were used to verify the elaborated numerical model.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

M. Łupieżowiec
P. Kanty

Abstrakt

Concrete is generally produced using materials such as crushed stone and river sand to the extent of about 80‒90% combined with cement and water. These materials are quarried from natural sources. Their depletion will cause strain on the environment. To prevent this, bottom ash produced at thermal power plants by burning of coal has been utilized in this investigation into making concrete. The experimental investigation presents the development of concrete containing lignite coal bottom ash as fine aggregate in various percentages of 25, 50, and 100. Compressive, split tensile, and flexural strength as part of mechanical properties; acid, sulphate attack, and sustainability under elevated temperature as part of durability properties, were determined. These properties were compared with that of normal concrete. It was concluded from this investigation that bottom ash to an extent of 25% can be substituted in place of river sand in the production of concrete.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

T.S. Thandavamoorthy

Abstrakt

The standard PN-EN_1993-1-5:_2008 (Eurocode 3) compared with the standard (PN-B-03200:_1990) used previously in Poland, introduces extended rules referring to the computations of the bearing capacity of the plated structural elements including the shear lag effect. The stress distribution in the width flanges is variable. Therefore in the case of the beam with the shear lag effect cannot be calculated by the classic beam theory.

In this article a comparison of the results of the calculations of forces distribution, stresses and displacement according to the rule presented in PN-EN_1993 and results of the numerical computations for_3D model (using finite element method) is presented. The elastic shear lag effects, the elastic shear lag effects including effects of the plate buckling and the elastic-plastic shear lag effects including the local instabilities were analysed. The calculations were performed for beams with a small and a large span and an influence of stiffeners was analysed.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

M. Szumigała
K. Ciesielczyk

Abstrakt

The article presents briefly several methods of working time estimation. However, three methods of task duration assessment have been selected to investigate working time in a real construction project using the data collected from observing workers laying terrazzo flooring in staircases. The first estimation has been done by calculating a normal and a triangular function. The next method, which is the focus of greatest attention here, is PERT. The article presents a way to standardize the results and the procedure algorithm allowing determination of the characteristic values for the method. Times to perform every singular component sub-task as well as the whole task have been defined for the collected data with the reliability level of 85%. The completion time of the same works has also been calculated with the use of the KNR. The obtained result is much higher than the actual time needed for execution of the task calculated with the use of the previous method. The authors argue that PERT is the best method of all three, because it takes into account the randomness of the entire task duration and it can be based on the actual execution time known from research.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

E. Plebankiewicz
M. Juszczyk
J. Malara

Abstrakt

The purpose of this article is to present the preparation of Project Risk Assessment Methodology and its mitigation in complex construction projects. The main text provides a summary of the approach, the method used and the findings. The conclusions have been drawn that the proper tools for quantifying risks have to be based on the criteria specific for mathematical statistic and probability or at least fuzziness. Function, which makes possible to categorize any risks into one of the five categories, is a combination of probability and the impact on one of the items: people and their safety or budget, cost, schedule and planning or quality and performance. An attempt was made to express numerically the relationship between risks impacts and their level of likelihood. Also, a method of associating the influence of projects risks impacts on the extent of the likelihood of project risk occurrence which makes possible to determine the direction and the strength of this relationship was presented.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

J. Konior

Abstrakt

Supplementing well recognised practical models of project and construction management, based on probabilistic and fuzzy events may make possible to transfer the weight of the change and extra orders assessment from the qualitative form to a quantitative one. This assessment, however, is naturally burdened with an immeasurable, subjective aspect. Elaboration of probability of occurrence in a construction project unforeseen building works requires application (in addition to the non-measureable, qualitative criteria) of measurable (quantitative) criteria which still appear during construction project implementation. In reimbursable engineering contracts, a random event described as an extra, supplementary building work has a random character and occurs with a specific likelihood. In lump sum contracts, on the other hand, such a random event has a fuzzy character and its occurrence is defined in a linear manner by the function of affiliation to the set of fuzzy events being identical with unforeseen events. The strive for quantitative presentation of criteria regarded by nature as qualitative and the intention to determine relations between them led to the application of the fuzzy sets theory to this issue. Their properties enable description of the unforeseen works of construction projects in an unambiguous, quantitative way.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

J. Konior

Abstrakt

The article presents the use of the Mamdani fuzzy reasoning model to develop a proposal of a system controlling partnering relations in construction projects. The system input variables include: current assessments of particular partnering relation parameters, the weights of these parameters’ impact on time, cost, quality and safety of implementation of construction projects, as well as the importance of these project assessment criteria for its manager. For each of the partnering relation parameters, the project’s manager will receive controlrecommendations. Moreover, the parameter to be improved first will be indicated. The article contains a calculation example of the system’s operations.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

E. Radziszewska-Zielina
B. Szewczyk

Abstrakt

Article deals with the problem of technology selection for construction project. Three criteria were proposed: cost, time and technological complexity. To solve the problem, fuzzy preference relations were used. Authors present an algorithm supporting multi-criteria decision-making process. The algorithm creates fuzzy preference relations on the basis of the fuzzy comparison: “xᵢ is better than xj”.Then, with the use of criteria weights it creates general fuzzy preference relation, finds all non-dominated (admissible) alternatives and the best one among them. The algorithm consists of 7 steps. Authors show application of the proposed algorithm – example calculations.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

N. Ibadov
J. Rosłon

Abstrakt

The study presents the summary of the knowledge of energy-active segments of steel buildings adapted to obtain electrical energy (EE) and thermal energy (TE) from solar radiation, and to transport and store TE. The study shows a general concept of the design of energy-active segments, which are separated from conventional segments in the way that allows the equipment installation and replacement. Exemplary solutions for the design of energy-active segments, optimised with respect to the principle of minimum thermal strain and maximum structural capacity and reliability were given [34]. The following options of the building covers were considered: 1) regular structure, 2) reduced structure, 3) basket structure, 4) structure with a tie, high-pitched to allow snow sliding down the roof to enhance TE and EE obtainment. The essential task described in the study is the optimal adaptation of energy-active segments in large-volume buildings for extraction, transportation and storage of energy from solar radiation.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

Z. Kowal
M. Siedlecka
R. Piotrowski
K. Brzezińska
K. Otwinowska
A. Szychowski

Abstrakt

The study deals with stability and dynamic problems in bar structures using a probabilistic approach. Structural design parameters are defined as deterministic values and also as random variables, which are not correlated. The criterion of structural failure is expressed by the condition of non-exceeding the admissible load multiplier and condition of non-exceeding the admissible vertical displacement. The Hasofer-Lind index was used as a reliability measure. The primary research tool is the FORM method. In order to verify the correctness of the calculations Monte Carlo and Importance Sampling methods were used. The sensitivity of the reliability index to the random variables was defined. The limit state function is not an explicit function of random variables. This dependence was determined using a numerical procedure, e.g. the finite element methods. The paper aims to present the communication between the STAND reliability analysis program and the KRATA and MES3D external FE programs.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

A. Dudzik
U. Radoń

Abstrakt

Buckling of the stiffened flange of a thin-walled member is reduced to the buckling analysis of the cantilever plate, elastically restrained against rotation, with the free edge stiffener, which is susceptible to deflection.Longitudinal stress variation is taken into account using a linear function and a 2nd degree parabola. Deflection functions for the plate and the stiffener, adopted in the study, made it possible to model boundary conditions and different buckling modes at the occurrence of longitudinal stress variation. Graphs of buckling coefficients are determined for different load distributions as a function of the elastic restraint coefficient and geometric details of the stiffener. Exemplary buckling modes are presented.

Przejdź do artykułu

Autorzy i Afiliacje

A. Szychowski

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