View More View Less
  • 1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, University of Miskolc, Egyetemváros, H-3515, Miskolc, Hungary
Open access

Abstract

A calculation system has been developed to determine the optimum dimensions of asymmetric I-beams for minimum shrinkage. The objective function is the minimum mass; the unknowns are the I-beam dimensions; the constraints are the stress, local buckling, and deflection. Different steel grades have been considered (235, 355, 460 (MPa) yield stress) and other aluminum alloys (90, 155, 230 (MPa) yield stress). The material, the span length, the loading, and the applied heat input have been changed. It is shown, that using optimum design; the welding shrinkage can be reduced with prebending and can save material cost as well.

Abstract

A calculation system has been developed to determine the optimum dimensions of asymmetric I-beams for minimum shrinkage. The objective function is the minimum mass; the unknowns are the I-beam dimensions; the constraints are the stress, local buckling, and deflection. Different steel grades have been considered (235, 355, 460 (MPa) yield stress) and other aluminum alloys (90, 155, 230 (MPa) yield stress). The material, the span length, the loading, and the applied heat input have been changed. It is shown, that using optimum design; the welding shrinkage can be reduced with prebending and can save material cost as well.

1 Introduction

When steel structures are constructed by welding, deformations and residual welding stresses could occur due to the high heat input and subsequent cooling [1]. The welding process can create significant locked-in stresses and deformations in fabricated steel structures [2, 3].

These adversely affect the structure’s operation because tensile stresses increase the rate of fatigue crack propagation and compressive stresses reduce the flexural strength of the compressed bars and the buckling strength of the plates and shells. Warps can result in dimensionally inaccurate structural elements and scrap. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate their magnitude in advance by calculating and applying ex-ante or ex-post reduction procedures.

The residual stresses and initial imperfections can influence the structure’s behavior under compression [4]. It is well known that these initial imperfections due to welding reduce the structure’s ultimate strength. Even though various efforts have been made in the past to express the deflection of panels from experimental aspects and measurements of actual structures, it may be said that there are few investigations from the theoretical point of view. For higher heat, the behavior of the steel is even more complicated [5, 6].

2 Calculation method

In the books [7–10] different computational procedures have been developed. Okerblom provided relatively simple formulas for calculating shrinkage and warping from longitudinal welds of straight bars, which can be used well for preliminary estimates, so they were adapted [11].

For the A T shrinkage heat pulse, Okerblom derived the following formula:
AT=0.4840αoQTcoρtln2=0.3355αoQTcoρt,
where QT=η0UIwvw=qoAw is the heat load; U is the voltage; I w is the current; v w is the welding speed; c o is the specific heat; η o is the thermal efficiency; q 0 is the specific heat per unit weld cross-section (J/mm3); A w is the cross-sectional area of the weld.

This formula contains the welding parameters and the base material’s characteristics, so it is very well applicable to materials other than steel, e.g. aluminum alloy. For welded structures αo = 12∙10−6 (1/Co), coρ = 4.77∙10−3 (J/mm3/Co), so ATt=0.844·103QT.

The basic Okerblom formulas for the specific shrinkage and warp curvature of the center cross-section fiber of the rod
ϵG=ATtA=0.844·103QTA,
C=ATtyTIx=0.844·103QTyTIx.
The minus symbol refers to shrinkage. The equation of Q T can be changed
QT=η0UIwvw=η03600UραNAw,
where I x is the moment of inertia; ρ=7.85·106 (kg/m3) is the density of the steel; αN=8.8·103 (kg/Ah) is the fusion factor. With the above values U = 27 (V), η0=0.7. The heat input for fillet welds, for butt welds and for submerged arc welds are as follows
QT=60.7Aw,QT=78.8Aw,QT=59.5Aw.
The residual compressive stress can be calculated
σc=ATtfyAϵy=ATtAE=0.3355αoηoUIEcoρvwbt,
where A is the cross-section area, b is the plate width, t is the plate thickness, E is the Young modulus.
This Okerblom formula has been compared with that proposed one by [12] with the data he used αo=11·106; coρ=3.53·103 (J/mm3 °C); E = 2.05∙105 (MPa); v w is the welding speed. According to the Okerblom equation
σc=0.214ηoUIvwbt.
The proposed White’s [12] formula for single-pass welding based on his own experiments
σc=0.2ηoUIvwbt.

It can be seen that Okerblom’s formula agrees well with White’s experimental results.

3 Effect of initial strain

In the calculations so far, it was assumed that there are no initial deformations in the structural part to be welded structure. In the case of multiple welds, these deformations may occur or may be caused by the previous welds. Preheating, flame-cutting, or pre-stressing can generate these. The modifying factor ν m considers the effect of these. This is the quotient of the heat load with and without the initial elongation.
νm=ATAT=1ln(1+ϵIϵy)ln21ϵIϵy.
The approximate formula is valid for the initial tensile specific elongation, that is, if ϵI/ϵy0. The modifying factor can be used to determine the correct welding sequence in simpler cases. The deformation after the first weld can be calculated as follows
ϵG1=AT1tA,C1=AT1tyTIx.
The strain at the other weld place (before it has been made) is as follows
ϵI12=ϵG1+C1y2=AT1t(1A+y1y2Ix).
The modifying parameter
νm12=1ln(1+ϵI12ϵy)ln21ϵI12ϵy.
The total strain and curvature after both welds have been made
ϵG(1+2)=ϵG1+νm12ϵG2=ϵG1(1+νm12QT2QT1),
C1+2=C1+νm12C2=C1(1+νm12QT2y2QT1y1).

In the case of an asymmetric I-beam, the welding parameters that allow the warps from the two welds to be zero are defined. The welding shrinkage is always larger at asymmetric than symmetric beams.

4 Reduction of residual stresses and strains

Preventive methods: symmetrical weld arrangement, design of appropriate welding sequence, welding in the clamping device, application of pre-bending, preheating. Subsequent methods: straightening, vibration [13] heat treatment, treatment of the weld edge by Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) or plasma arc melting, hammering, shot peening, ultrasonic treatment.

4.1 Welding in an elastically pre-bent state in a clamping device

The production sequence: tacking, pre-bending, clamping, welding, and loosening (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Welding in a pre-bent state in a clamping device

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 3; 10.1556/606.2021.00363

To prevent substantial deformations and cracks, it is advisable to use pre-bending moments not larger than
My=fyIxymax.
The curvature and deformation caused by M y are
Cy=MyEIx,wy=ϵyL28ymax.
The pre-bending w p<w y causes a tensile pre-strain in the place of the longitudinal weld
ϵp=CpyT=wp8yTL2,
the corresponding modifying factor is
νm=1ϵpϵy.
The bending moment necessary to keep straight the beam after welding consists of two parts as follows: the moment which is required for pre-bending
M=IζECp=8wpEIζL2
and the moment, which is necessary to eliminate the residual welding deformations
M=νmIζEC=8νmwEIζL2.
These moments act opposite after the loosening and decrease the pre-bending deformations,
M=M+M=IζECp+νmIζEC,
so that the remaining final deformations can be expressed as
wf=wwp=M+M8EIxL2wp,
wf=(wp+νmw)IζIxwp,
where νm=18wpyt/(L2ϵy); I x is the moment of inertia for the elastic section area. I ξ is the moment of inertia for the elastic section area, reduced by the plastic zone, C is the curvature of the beam caused by welding in a free state, νm is the correction parameter, according to Eq. (12).
The pre-bending w p necessary to totally eliminate the residual welding deformations can be calculated from the condition w p = 0,
wp=wIxIζ+8yTwL2ϵy1.

5 Numerical examples for welding in a pre-bent state in a clamping device

Let us consider an asymmetric I-section beam in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

The cross-section of the welded I-beam

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 3; 10.1556/606.2021.00363

There is one welding joint at the section. Given parameters are as follows for the welded beams: length of the beam L in (m), changing between 5–10 (m); uniformly distributed force F in (N), changing between 10,000–100,000 (N); Young modulus E in (MPa), for steels 210 (GPa), for aluminum 70 (GPa); yield stress of the steel f y in (MPa), changing between 235–460 (MPa), for aluminum 80–230 (MPa); the density of the material is ρ in (kg/m3), for steels 7,850 (kg/m3), for aluminum 2,700 (kg/m3); specific heat c in (J/kgK), for the steel c = 510 (J/kgK), for the aluminum c = 910 (J/kgK); thermal expansion parameter α in K, for steels α = 11∙10−6 (K), for aluminum α = 22∙10−6 (K).

The sizes of the cross-section are the following: b 1 is the width of the upper flange; t 1 is the width of the upper flange; h is the height of the web; t is the thickness of the web; b 2 is the width of the lower flange; t 2 is the width of the lower flange (Table 1).

Table 1.

Optimized results for a steel beam in (mm), the beam is fixed at both ends during production (prebent)

b1188.67685t7.3591728
t19.427696b2188.67685
h362.93855t29.4276958

Input data: L = 10 (m); F = 98,100 (N); f y = 460 (MPa); the plate’s angle before welding is β = 50°; the applied heat input is 60,700 (J/m3), the applied standard is Eurocode 3 [14].

The optimum has been calculated using Excel, the results are visible in Table 1.

The moment of inertia: I x = 1.6008∙108 (mm4), the cross-section area: A = 6228.504 (mm2). The pre-bending value, according to Eq. (24) is as follows
wf=0,wp=wIxIζ+8yTwL2ϵy1,
where y T is the distance of the weld from the gravity center of the cross-section, ϵ y is the strain belongs to yield stress. With the data y T = 181.469 (mm); w = 26.83 (mm); ϵ y = 2.19∙10−3; w P = 61.975 (mm).
The pre-bending should be in the elastic zone. The limit pre-bending deflection is as follow:
wy=CyL28=ϵyL28ymax=143.43(mm),
where y max = 190.89 (mm). Since the pre-bending deflection w P is less than the yield deflection. So the result is suitable.

6 Optimization for minimum mass

The optimization is made by the generalized reduces gradient technique, built-in Excel Solver. The objective function to be minimized is the mass of the welded beam. The unknowns are the six sizes of the cross-section b 1, t 1, h, t, b 2, t 2.

Constraints are:

  • static stress, the limit is fy/1.5;

  • local buckling constraint according to Eurocode 3 and 9 [14, 15], for steel for flanges b/tf1/δ=28ϵ, for webplate h/tw1/β=69ϵ, and ϵ=235MPa/fy and for aluminum b/tf1/δ=4ϵ for flanges and h/tw1/β=15ϵ for webplate, where ϵ=250MPa/fy;

  • deflection constraint Eqs (10), (35).

During optimization, the material (steel, aluminum), the yield stress 235, 355, 460 (MPa) for steel, 90, 155, 230 (MPa) for aluminum, the span length 5 (m), 10 (m) and the heat input (for steel 12.5, 60.7, 91.8 (kJ/m3), for aluminum 14, 45, 61.2 (kJ/m3) have been considered and compared.

7 Optimization results

For the steel, the optimum results are as follows using different steel grades and span length. The heat input is 60.7 (kN/m3).

Figure 3 shows that the cross-section is near linearly proportional to the loading, but the increment depends on the span length. If one double-span length, the cross-section, so the mass of the beam does not double. Using higher strength steel, one can save material. The material savings are 21.4 % using f y 355 (MPa) instead of 235 (MPa) and 31.4% using f y 460 (MPA) instead of 235 (MPa) steel.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Optimum results for different steel grades and span lengths, heat input is 60.7 (kN/m3).

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 3; 10.1556/606.2021.00363

For the aluminum, the results are as follows using different alloys.

Figure 4 shows that the cross-section is linearly proportional to the loading using aluminum, but the increment depends on the span length. The applicable load is limited; it cannot go up to 100 (kN).

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Optimum results for different aluminum alloys and span lengths, heat input is 45 (kN/m3)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 3; 10.1556/606.2021.00363

At the lighter aluminum, the stability constraint has a high effect on larger span length. Using higher strength aluminum, one can save material. The material savings are 54.5% using f y 155 (MPa) instead of 90 (MPa) and 64.8% using f y 230 (MPa) instead of 90 (MPa) aluminum. For larger span length, the optimum cross-section value is jumping due to the local buckling limit.

Having smaller heat input for steel, 12.5 (kJ/m3) the tendency is different. The cross-section areas increase not linearly, but smaller, applying larger loads (Fig. 5). The effect is similar to aluminum, with 14 (kN/m3) heat input (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Optimum results for different steel grades and span lengths, heat input is 12.5 (kN/m3)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 3; 10.1556/606.2021.00363

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Optimum results for different aluminum alloys and span lengths, the heat input is 14 (kN/m3)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 3; 10.1556/606.2021.00363

The heat input depends on the voltage, current, welding speed, and the welding technology’s efficiency. In most cases, the applied current and the welding speed can be changed. For smaller energy input, the results are different for both materials For higher heat input (Figs 7 and 8) give the results.

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Optimum results for different steel grades and span lengths, heat input is 91.8 (kN/m3)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 3; 10.1556/606.2021.00363

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Optimum results for different aluminum alloys and span lengths, heat input is 61.2 (kN/m3)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 16, 3; 10.1556/606.2021.00363

At the smaller heat input for aluminum, 14 (kJ/m3), the tendency is different (Fig. 6). There are solutions for L = 10 (m), when the force is increasing. The cross-section areas do not increase linearly, but smaller, applying larger loads. For the Al 230 (MPa) at 10 (m), the cross-section is 22% less, when the heat input went down from 46 (MPa) to 14 (kJ/m3).

Figure 7 shows that the different steel grades are still applicable for larger span-lengths using higher heat input (higher current or lower welding speed). For aluminum, this is not the case. Figure 8 shows that increasing the heat input; the maximum applicable load values are very limited. For Al 90 (MPa), 10 m it is only 20 (kN).

8 Conclusions

This article has presented the calculation to determine the optimum dimensions of asymmetric I-beams for minimum shrinkage. The welding shrinkage is always larger at asymmetric than symmetric beams. The objective function is the minimum mass; the unknowns are the I-beam dimensions; the constraints are the stress, local buckling and deflection. Different steel grades have been considered (235, 355, 460 MPa yield stress) and different aluminum alloys (90, 155, 230 MPa yield stress). The material, the span length and the loading have been changed. It is shown that using pre-bending, welding shrinkage can be eliminated, and using optimum design, the material cost can be saved as well. During optimization the minimum sizes of the asymmetric I-beam have been calculated. The design constraints were the static stress, local buckling of the web, flange and pre-bending to eliminate shrinkage. The material (steel, aluminum), the yield stress (235, 355, 460 (MPa) for steel, 90, 155, 230 (MPa) for aluminum), the span length (5 (m), 10 (m)) and the heat input (for steel 12,5; 60,7; 91,8 (kJ/m3), for aluminum 14; 45;61,2 (kJ/m3)) have been changed and compared.

The cost-saving for different steels is up to 31.4% and for other aluminum is up to 63.8%. Various steel grades are more applicable for more considerable heat input and larger span-lengths. With these calculations welding shrinkage and mass of the beam can be reduced as well.

Acknowledgement

The research was partially supported by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office under the project number K 134358.

References

  • [1]

    M. Urner , T. Welters , and K. Dilger , “Calculation of welding residual stresses and distortions under complex process conditions, design, fabrication and economy of welded structures,” in Design, Fabrication and Economy of Welded Structures, K. Jarmai , J. Farkas , Eds., International Conference Proceedings, Miskolc, Hungary, Apr. 24–26, 2008, 2008, pp. 395402.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    H. Wohlfahrt , T. Nitschkepagel , K. Dilger , D. Siegele , M. Brand , J. Sakkiettibutra , and T. Loose , “Residual stress calculations and measurements – Review and assessment of the IIW round robin results,” Weld. World, vol. 56, no 9–10, pp. 120140, 2012.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    A. Kawaguchi , S. Itoh , M. Mochizuki and M. Kameyama , “Large-scale computation of welding residual stress,” Prog. Nucl. Sci. Technol., vol. 2, pp. 613619, 2011.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    K. Jármai and M. Petrik , “Optimization and comparison of different standards for compressed welded box columns,” Pollack Period., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 314, 2020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    Z. Virág , “Determination of optimum diameter of a welded stiffened cylindrical shell,” Pollack Period., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 4152, 2009.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    K. Jármai and R. Szűcs , “Investigation of welded protective covers for heat treatment,” Pollack Period., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1526, 2020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    N. O. Okerblom , V. P. Demyantsevich , and I. P. Baikova , Design of Fabrication Technology of Welded Structures (in Russian). Leningrad: Sudpromgiz, 1963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    V. A. Vinokurov , Welding Stresses and Distortion: Determination and Elimination (Translated from Russian). British Library Lending Division, 1977.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    K. Masubuchi , Analysis of Welded Structures. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980.

  • [10]

    S. A. Kuzminov , Welding Deformations of Ship Structures (in Russian). Leningrad: Sudostroenie, 1974.

  • [11]

    J. Farkas and K. Jármai , “Analysis of some methods for reducing residual beam curvatures due to weld shrinkage,” Weld. World, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 385398, 1998.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    J. D. White , “Longitudinal shrinkage of a single pass weld,” Technical Report, No. CUED/C-Struct/TR.59 c, Cambridge University; Department of Engineering, 1976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    G. P. Wozney and G. R. Crawmer , An Investigation of Vibrational Stress Relief in Steel. Defense Technical Information Center, 1968.

  • [14]

    Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Brussels, CEN 2009.

  • [15]

    Eurocode 9, Design of aluminum structures, Brussels, CEN 2007.

  • [1]

    M. Urner , T. Welters , and K. Dilger , “Calculation of welding residual stresses and distortions under complex process conditions, design, fabrication and economy of welded structures,” in Design, Fabrication and Economy of Welded Structures, K. Jarmai , J. Farkas , Eds., International Conference Proceedings, Miskolc, Hungary, Apr. 24–26, 2008, 2008, pp. 395402.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    H. Wohlfahrt , T. Nitschkepagel , K. Dilger , D. Siegele , M. Brand , J. Sakkiettibutra , and T. Loose , “Residual stress calculations and measurements – Review and assessment of the IIW round robin results,” Weld. World, vol. 56, no 9–10, pp. 120140, 2012.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    A. Kawaguchi , S. Itoh , M. Mochizuki and M. Kameyama , “Large-scale computation of welding residual stress,” Prog. Nucl. Sci. Technol., vol. 2, pp. 613619, 2011.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    K. Jármai and M. Petrik , “Optimization and comparison of different standards for compressed welded box columns,” Pollack Period., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 314, 2020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    Z. Virág , “Determination of optimum diameter of a welded stiffened cylindrical shell,” Pollack Period., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 4152, 2009.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    K. Jármai and R. Szűcs , “Investigation of welded protective covers for heat treatment,” Pollack Period., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1526, 2020.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    N. O. Okerblom , V. P. Demyantsevich , and I. P. Baikova , Design of Fabrication Technology of Welded Structures (in Russian). Leningrad: Sudpromgiz, 1963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    V. A. Vinokurov , Welding Stresses and Distortion: Determination and Elimination (Translated from Russian). British Library Lending Division, 1977.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    K. Masubuchi , Analysis of Welded Structures. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980.

  • [10]

    S. A. Kuzminov , Welding Deformations of Ship Structures (in Russian). Leningrad: Sudostroenie, 1974.

  • [11]

    J. Farkas and K. Jármai , “Analysis of some methods for reducing residual beam curvatures due to weld shrinkage,” Weld. World, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 385398, 1998.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    J. D. White , “Longitudinal shrinkage of a single pass weld,” Technical Report, No. CUED/C-Struct/TR.59 c, Cambridge University; Department of Engineering, 1976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    G. P. Wozney and G. R. Crawmer , An Investigation of Vibrational Stress Relief in Steel. Defense Technical Information Center, 1968.

  • [14]

    Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Brussels, CEN 2009.

  • [15]

    Eurocode 9, Design of aluminum structures, Brussels, CEN 2007.

Submit Your Manuscript
 
The author instructions template is available in MS Word.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Amália

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Péter

 

Scientific Secretary

Miklós M. Iványi

Editorial Board

  • Bálint Bachmann (Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Jeno Balogh (Department of Civil Engineering Technology, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA)
  • Radu Bancila (Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Terrestrial Communications Ways, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, “Politehnica” University Timisoara, Romania)
  • Charalambos C. Baniotopolous (Department of Civil Engineering, Chair of Sustainable Energy Systems, Director of Resilience Centre, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, U.K.)
  • Oszkar Biro (Graz University of Technology, Institute of Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Austria)
  • Ágnes Borsos (Institute of Architecture, Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Matteo Bruggi (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Politecnico di Milano, Italy)
  • Ján Bujňák (Department of Structures and Bridges, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Slovakia)
  • Anikó Borbála Csébfalvi (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Mirjana S. Devetaković (Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Szabolcs Fischer (Department of Transport Infrastructure and Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Architerture, Civil Engineering and Transport Sciences Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Radomir Folic (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad Serbia)
  • Jana Frankovská (Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • János Gyergyák (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Kay Hameyer (Chair in Electromagnetic Energy Conversion, Institute of Electrical Machines, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany)
  • Elena Helerea (Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania)
  • Ákos Hutter (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technolgy, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Károly Jármai (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Teuta Jashari-Kajtazi (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina, Kosovo)
  • Róbert Kersner (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Rita Kiss  (Biomechanical Cooperation Center, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • István Kistelegdi  (Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Stanislav Kmeť (President of University Science Park TECHNICOM, Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia)
  • Imre Kocsis  (Department of Basic Engineering Research, Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • László T. Kóczy (Department of Information Sciences, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, University of Győr, Hungary)
  • Dražan Kozak (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia)
  • György L. Kovács (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Balázs Géza Kövesdi (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Engineering and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Tomáš Krejčí (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Jaroslav Kruis (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Miklós Kuczmann (Department of Automations, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Tibor Kukai (Department of Engineering Studies, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Maria Jesus Lamela-Rey (Departamento de Construcción e Ingeniería de Fabricación, University of Oviedo, Spain)
  • János Lógó  (Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary)
  • Carmen Mihaela Lungoci (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Universitatea Transilvania Brasov, Romania)
  • Frédéric Magoulés (Department of Mathematics and Informatics for Complex Systems, Centrale Supélec, Université Paris Saclay, France)
  • Gabriella Medvegy (Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Tamás Molnár (Department of Visual Studies, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Ferenc Orbán (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Zoltán Orbán (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Dmitrii Rachinskii (Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA)
  • Chro Radha (Chro Ali Hamaradha) (Sulaimani Polytechnic University, Technical College of Engineering, Department of City Planning, Kurdistan Region, Iraq)
  • Maurizio Repetto (Department of Energy “Galileo Ferraris”, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
  • Zoltán Sári (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Grzegorz Sierpiński (Department of Transport Systems and Traffic Engineering, Faculty of Transport, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland)
  • Zoltán Siménfalvi (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Andrej Šoltész (Department of Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • Zsolt Szabó (Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary)
  • Mykola Sysyn (Chair of Planning and Design of Railway Infrastructure, Institute of Railway Systems and Public Transport, Technical University of Dresden, Germany)
  • András Timár (Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Barry H. V. Topping (Heriot-Watt University, UK, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)

POLLACK PERIODICA
Pollack Mihály Faculty of Engineering
Institute: University of Pécs
Address: Boszorkány utca 2. H–7624 Pécs, Hungary
Phone/Fax: (36 72) 503 650

E-mail: peter.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu 

or amalia.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • SCOPUS

 

2020  
Scimago
H-index
11
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,257
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
340/243=1,4
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 219/318 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 487/693 (Q3)
General Materials Science 316/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 217/290 (Q4)
Software 307/389 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
1,09
Scopus
Cites
321
Scopus
Documents
67
Days from submission to acceptance 136
Days from acceptance to publication 239
Acceptance
Rate
48%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
10
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,262
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
269/220=1,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 206/310 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 445/636 (Q3)
General Materials Science 295/460 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 212/274 (Q4)
Software 304/373 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,933
Scopus
Cites
290
Scopus
Documents
68
Acceptance
Rate
67%

 

Pollack Periodica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2021 Online subsscription: 321  EUR / 402 USD
Print + online subscription: 384 EUR / 480 USD
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 327 EUR / 411 USD 321
Print + online subscription: 393 EUR / 492 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

 

Pollack Periodica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2006
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 16
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
3
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1788-1994 (Print)
ISSN 1788-3911 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2021 0 0 0
Jun 2021 0 0 0
Jul 2021 0 0 0
Aug 2021 0 0 0
Sep 2021 0 0 0
Oct 2021 0 21 11
Nov 2021 0 0 0