# Archives of Civil Engineering

Słowa kluczowe:

### Abstrakt

The process of railway track adjustment is a task which includes bringing, in geometrical terms, the actual track axis to the position ensuring safe and efficient traffic of rail vehicles. The initial calculation stage of this process is to determine approximately the limits of sections of different geometry, i.e. straight lines, arcs and transition curves. This allows to draw up a draft alignment design, which is subject to control the position relative to the current state. In practice, this type of a project rarely meets the requirements associated with the values of corrective alignments. Therefore, it becomes necessary to apply iterated correction of a solution in order to determine the final project, allowing to introduce minor corrections while maintaining the assumed parameters of the route. The degree of complexity of this process is defined by the quality of determining a preliminary draft alignment design. Delimitation of the sections for creation of creating such a design, is usually done by using the curvature diagram (InRail v8.7 Reference Guide [1], Jamka et al [2], Strach [3]), which is, however, sensitive to the misalignment of the track and measurement errors. In their paper Lenda and Strach [4] proposed a new method for creating curvature diagram, based on approximating spline function, theoretically allowing, inter alia, to reduce vulnerability to interference factors. In this study, the method to determine a preliminary draft alignment design for the track with severe overexploitation was used, and thus in the conditions adversely affecting the accuracy of the conducted readings. The results were compared to the ones obtained using classical curvature diagram. The obtained results indicate that the method allows to increase the readability of a curvature graph, which at considerable deregulation of a track takes an irregular shape, difficult to interpret. The method also favourably affects the accuracy of determining the initial parameters of the project, reducing the entire process of calculation.

Przejdź do artykułu

G. Lenda
Słowa kluczowe:

### Abstrakt

In the paper, the method of a numerical simulation concerning diagonal crack propagation in con-crete beams was presented. Two beams reinforced longitudinally but without shear reinforcement were considered during the Finite Element Method analysis. In particular, a nonlinear method was used to simulate the crack evaluation in the beams. The analysis was performed using the commercial program ANSYS. In the numerical simulation, the limit surface for concrete described by Willam and Warnke was applied to model the failure of concrete. To solve the FEM-system of equations, the Newton-Raphson method was used. As the results of FEM calculations, the trajectories of total stains and numerical images of smeared cracks were obtained for two analyzed beams: the slender beam S5 of leff = 1.8 m and the short beam S3k of leff = 1.1 m. The applied method allowed to generate both flexural vertical cracks and diagonal cracks in the shear regions. Some differences in the evaluation of crack patterns in the beams were observed. The greater number of flexural vertical cracks which penetrated deeper in the beam S5 caused the lower stiffness and the greater deformation in the beam S5 compared to the short beam S3k. Numerical results were compared with the experimental data from the early tests performed by Słowik [3]. The numerical simulation yielded very similar results as the experiments and it confirmed that the character of failure process altered according to the effective length of the member. The proposed numerical procedure was successfully verified and it can be suitable for numerical analyses of diagonal crack propagation in concrete beams.

Przejdź do artykułu

M. Słowik
P. Smarzewski
Słowa kluczowe:

### Abstrakt

The paper presents a numerical study of an aircraft wheel impacting on a flexible landing surface. The proposed 3D model simulates the behaviour of flexible runway pavement during the landing phase. This model was implemented in a finite element code in order to investigate the impact of repeated cycles of loads on pavement response.

In the model, a multi-layer pavement structure was considered. In addition, the asphalt layer (HMA) was assumed to follow a viscoelastoplastic behaviour.

The results demonstrate the capability of the model in predicting the permanent deformation distribution in the asphalt layer.

Przejdź do artykułu

G. Leonardi
Słowa kluczowe:

### Abstrakt

The energy saving tendencies, in reference to residential buildings, can be recently seen in Europe and in the world. Therefore, there are a lot of studies being conducted aiming to find technical solutions in order to improve the energy efficiency of existing, modernized, and also new buildings. However, there are obligatory solutions and requirements, which must be implemented during designing stage of the building envelope and its heating/cooling system. They are gathered in the national regulations.

The paper describes the process of raising the energy standard of buildings between 1974–2021 in Poland. Therefore, the objective of this study is to show energy savings, which can be generated by modernization of thermal insulation of partitions of existing buildings and by the use of different ways of heat supply. The calculations are made on the selected multi-family buildings located in Poland, with the assumption of a 15 years payback time.

It is shown that it is not possible to cover the costs of the modernization works by the projected savings with the compliance to the assumption of 15 years payback time.

Przejdź do artykułu

A. Życzyńska
T. Cholewa
Słowa kluczowe:

### Abstrakt

Przejdź do artykułu

O. Giuffrè
A. Granà
T. Giuffrè
R. Marino
S. Marino
Słowa kluczowe:

### Abstrakt

The present paper is dedicated to presentation and energy verification of the methods of stabilization the strain energy by penalty coefficients. Verification of the methods is based on the consistency and ellipticity conditions to be satisfied by the finite elements. Three methods of stabilization are discussed. The first does not satisfy the above requirements. The second is consistent but cannot eliminate parasitic energy terms. The third method, proposed by the author, is based on the decomposition of the element stiffness matrix. The method can help to eliminate locking of the finite elements. For two-noded beam element with linear shape functions and exact integration a stabilized free of locking (and elliptical) element is received (equivalent to reduced integration element). Two plate finite elements are analyzed: four-noded rectangular element and DSG triangle. A new method of stabilization with the use of four independent parameters is proposed. The finite elements with this kind of stabilization satisfy the consistency condition. In the rectangular element it was not possible to eliminate one parasitic term of energy which appears during the procedure. For DSG triangle all parasitic terms of energy are eliminated. The penalty coefficients depends on the geometry of the triangle.

Przejdź do artykułu

W. Gilewski

### Instrukcja dla autorów

Submission of articles for publication in the journal Archives of Civil Engineering should be made via the website:

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