View More View Less
  • 1 Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Department, Faculty of Architecture, Civil and Transport Sciences, Széchenyi István University, H-9026, Egyetem tér 1, Győr, Hungary
Open access

Abstract

This paper studies the two widely used material models for predicting the dynamic behavior of soils, the Ramberg-Osgood and Hadrin-Drnevich models. Resonant column and torsional simple shear test results on dry sand were used to calibrate and evaluate the model built in the finite element software Midas GTS NX. Both material models are already implemented by the software. This study estimates the ability and efficiency of both soil models coupled with the Masing criteria to predict the behavior of soil when subjected to irregular loading patterns, (e.g., earthquakes), and measure the two most important dynamic properties, the dynamic shear modulus, and the damping ratio.

Abstract

This paper studies the two widely used material models for predicting the dynamic behavior of soils, the Ramberg-Osgood and Hadrin-Drnevich models. Resonant column and torsional simple shear test results on dry sand were used to calibrate and evaluate the model built in the finite element software Midas GTS NX. Both material models are already implemented by the software. This study estimates the ability and efficiency of both soil models coupled with the Masing criteria to predict the behavior of soil when subjected to irregular loading patterns, (e.g., earthquakes), and measure the two most important dynamic properties, the dynamic shear modulus, and the damping ratio.

1 Introduction

The response of structures to dynamic loading is directly dependent on the response of soil beneath or around it. Therefore, many researchers in the past few decades focused on studying the behavior of soils subjected to dynamic loads. It is agreed that the most important parameters to define this behavior are the dynamic shear modulus and the damping ratio, which contribute to variation in the stiffness and energy dissipation during cyclic loading. Thus, to be able to study the soil-structure interaction numerically with adequate accuracy, it is important to have a material model that is well representative of the soil in the field conditions. This has been a challenge when it comes to irregular loading patterns due to the complex nature of soils’ behavior and its dependence on many factors like the confining stress, void ratio, density and number of cycles, etc. However, the progressive development in computer technology accompanied with the increasing speed of processing complex calculations allowed the use of numerical modeling for easier and faster calibration of models for further use in real and much more complicated geotechnical problems (e.g. deep foundation [1–2] and tunnels [3] modeling). In this study, the Ramberg-Osgood and the Hardin-Drnevich models were used to predict and simulate the soil behavior in the TOrsional Simple Shear (TOSS) test, and the results were compared with test data for irregular loading patterns.

2 Nonlinear dynamic shear modulus

The shear stiffness of the soil is usually represented by the shear modulus G, which is the slope of the shear stress-shear strain curve. It can be determined by using seismic methods in the field to obtain in situ shear wave velocity, where the strain level is very low and the soil still behaves elastically. Other equations can be used as well based on extensive laboratory testing programs to calculate the initial dynamic shear modulus Gmax, where it is correlated to the confining stress, void ratio, and uniformity coefficient CU. The most used equations are presented by Hardin and Richart [4], Hardin and Black [5], and most recently by Wichtmann, Navarrete Hernández, and Triantafyllidis [6].

Vucetic and Dobry [7] and Ishihara [8] defined a volumetric cyclic threshold shearing strain γtv, which when exceeded; permanent microstructural change of soil occurs and soil stiffness changes permanently. Furthermore, the shear modulus decreases as the shear strain amplitude increases, and the soil’s behavior becomes nonlinear. In this phase, the shear modulus reduction curve is usually used to describe this property, which is important for the analysis of different dynamic problems where the strain is of high amplitude (e.g., strong ground motion during earthquakes). The shear modulus degradation curve can be obtained from the torsional simple shear test, which generates stress-strain hysteresis loops, from which values of the secant shear modulus Gsec are computed with the increasing strain level (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Estimation of shear modulus during cyclic loading

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2021; 10.1556/606.2021.00353

3 Combined resonant column and torsional shear test

The combined Resonant Column-Torsional Simple Shear Device (RC-TOSS device) related to this study was originally built by Prof Richard Ray at University of Michigan in the 1980s Ray, [9], Ray and Woods, [10]. Then it was rebuilt and calibrated in Győr at the Geotechnical Laboratory of the Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering at Széchenyi István University for the purpose of the PhD study of Zsolt Szilvágyi in 2013. The testing device was described in detail by Szilvágyi [11] in his thesis.

The tests were conducted on dry sand, a set of resonance column tests in addition to cyclic and irregular tests were performed up to a stress level of 60 kPa and a confining stress of 94 kPa. For this study, only one irregular TOSS test with a shear stress of 40 kPa was used to evaluate the ability of the material models to predict the dynamic behavior of the soil. An irregular load history was scaled to obtain a maximum value of shear stress of 40 kPa for this stress-controlled TOSS test, and the resulted shear stress-strain curve was used for curve fitting and calibrating the model. In Fig. 2, the maximum shear modulus obtained from RC test is 95,500 kPa, and other RC tests were conducted at higher strains. Shear modulus values from TOSS test were obtained from the monotonic one-way curve, as well as the Gsec which is the slope of the line that connects the two ends of each of the loops. Figure 2 shows good compatibility between RC and TOSS tests, and also similar behavior to the studies conducted by Seed and Idriss [12] and Vucetic and Dobry [7].

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Shear modulus degradation curves comparison

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2021; 10.1556/606.2021.00353

4 Material models

4.1 Ramberg-Osgood

Ramberg and Osgood [13] first proposed a model with three parameters that would describe the stress-strain curves of aluminum-alloy stainless-steel and carbon-steel sheets. This model was first used in soil modeling by Faccioli et al. [14] to predict the shear modulus degradation curve of sands. The formulation to be used in practical calculations for soils (1) describes the nonlinear stress-strain behavior, and with simple manipulation of the equation, the shear modulus reduction curve (2) and the damping ratio can be obtained as well,
γ=τGmax(1+α|τCτmax|R1),
GsecGmax=11+α|τCτmax|R1,
where γ is the shear strain, τ is the shear stress. Gmax is the small strain shear modulus, τmax is the maximum shear stress, usually obtained from triaxial test results, and it is a function of the confining stress, angle of friction, and cohesion. α, C and R are curve-fitting constants.
The model was modified to follow the original Masing criteria [15], as the shear modulus for the unloading-reloading curves is equal to Gmax, and the shape of these curves is equal to the one-way curve except that it is enlarged by a factor of 2. Two extra rules have been suggested by Pyke [16] to predict the path of the curves. These rules indicate that the unloading and reloading curves should follow the initial curve in case the previous maximum shear strain is exceeded, and if the current loading or unloading curve intersects a previous one, it should follow the previous curve. The extended rules can be programmed easily to determine the path that the stress-strain curve will follow for complicated load histories. And the original rules can be implemented by modifying the one-way equation, as it is shown in Eq. (3),
γ=2[ττi2Gmax(1+α|ττi2Cτmax|R1)]+γi,
where τi and γi are the shear stress and the shear strain at the turning point respectively.
The modified Ramberg-Osgood model was implemented in Midas GTS code to be used for solid soil layers. However, the equation in Midas shown in Eq. (4) is slightly different than the conventional one,
G0γ=τ(1+α|τ|β),
where G0=Gmax and α and β are given by
α=(2γrG0)β,β=2πhmax2πhmax,
where hmax is the maximum damping constant and γr is the reference shear strain.
Extended Masing criteria were also used for the hysteresis curve
G0(γγ12)=(ττ12)(1+α(τττ12)β).

4.2 Hardin-Drnevich

Hardin and Drnevich [17] proposed a modified hyperbolic relationship to predict the shear stress-strain behavior of soil. In their study, they found that the stress-strain behavior is not exactly described by a hyperbola. As a result, the hyperbolic equation was modified by distorting the strain scale to make the real stress-strain curve have a hyperbolic shape. Midas uses the same equation introduced by Hardin and Drnevich given by
τ=G0γ1+|γγr|,
where G0 is the initial shear modulus and γr is the reference strain, which can be modified to get the best fit with the testing data. Hysteresis curves are formulated on the basis of the Masing’s rule as well
τ=G0(γγ1)1+|(γγ1)2γr|+τ1.

5 Finite element model in Midas GTS

The model built on Midas for this study is based on the work of Szilvágyi and Ray [18]. However, their paper focused on studying the small strain stiffness of soils, and it verified the capability of the software to model the TOSS test in a more of static manner. Moreover, some modeling difficulties were faced in their analysis, which were fixed in the model developed in this study. This research concentrated mainly on predicting the dynamic behavior of soils under irregular and more complicated loading patterns, which was not captured by the previous study.

Modeling was performed using the cylindrical element coordinate system. The model simulates the TOSS test; consequently, it consists of a 1 cm thick hollow cylinder with the same dimensions as the tested soil specimen. The mesh elements used in the model are hexahedral of high order; each element has 20 nodes with the dimensions shown in Fig. 3b in meters.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Finite element mesh of soil sample, a) elements and nodes, b) dimensions of the middle element

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2021; 10.1556/606.2021.00353

2017 elements comprise this model, it is pinned at the bottom surface, and all the top nodes are connected with rigid links to a central node which is allowed to move along and rotate around the vertical axis. The prescribed rotation or moment is imposed on this central node, which will simulate the torsional load applied in the TOSS test. No stress irregularities were noticed at the base of the model after the confining stress stage.

The analysis is performed in construction stages in order to simulate the test conditions, where it starts with applying a confining stress of 94 kPa on the free surface of the elements, afterwards, the dynamic material model (R–O or H–D) is set for all the elements, and the torsional loading stage begins. The prescribed rotation around the vertical axis was assigned a time-varying function that is similar to the load history in the TOSS test with a maximum rotation of 0.00338 radians, which will cause an average shear strain in the θ-Z direction of 0.00067 mm/mm. Manual load stepping was not needed before and after turning points, unlike the previous study, and the analysis was stable and converged without problems or high number of iterations.

The method of least squares was used with the help of the solver tool in excel to find the curvature constants values that fit the Ramberg-Osgood (1) and Hardin-Drnevich equations curves with the test data (Table 1), by minimizing the sum of the squares of the strain residuals (the difference between an observed value, and the fitted value provided by a model). The same technique was used subsequently to find the reference strain that Midas uses in the R–O equation Fig. 4.

Table 1.

Material model parameters used in this study

ParameterConventional Ramberg-OsgoodMidas Ramberg-OsgoodHardin-DrnevichUnit
Initial dynamic shear modulusG095,50095,50095,500kPa
Max. shear stressτmax44.17kPa
Reference shear strainγr0.0004620.001480.0011mm/mm
Curve fitting constantsα10.0267
C1.55
R1.9
β0.8508
Max. damping constanthmax0.19%
Dry densityγd171717kN/m3
Poisson ratioυ0.30.30.3
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Curve fitting for the soil models with the TOSS test data

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2021; 10.1556/606.2021.00353

6 Results

After the first stage, the whole specimen is subjected to a confinement stress of 94 kPa, as a result, the normal solid stresses in the three directions will be the same for all the elements, with no noticeable irregularities even with the pinned bottom surface.

The load history duration is 0.801 seconds, with time increments of 0.001 seconds, which results in 801 total time steps for each analysis. Figure 5 shows the distribution of shear stresses and strains along the radius of the specimen at the final increment. As expected, similar observations will be made for both the R–O and H–D soil models, as the distribution is uniform along the height of the specimen and it increases with the distance from the center, which shows the benefit of using a hollow cylindrical specimen for more even distribution of stress and strain along the radius of the sample.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Shear stresses and strains distribution along the radius (R–O model), a) θ-Z shear stress, b) θ-Z shear strain

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2021; 10.1556/606.2021.00353

The average solid stresses and strains in the θ-Z direction (S-YZ, E-YZ) for three elements (inner, middle, and outer elements) in the model were compared to the shear stress-strain curves from the TOSS test for both material models. Moreover, the dynamic shear modulus was calculated from these curves and compared as well with the shear modulus degradation curves obtained from RC-TOSS tests.

Figure 6 shows a very good fit between the test data and the curves obtained from FEM calculations on Midas using the Ramberg-Osgood model. On the other hand, the fit was not as good when using the Hardin-Drnevich model with the parameters in Table 1 as it can be seen in Fig. 7, and the calculated values would drift even further from the test data at higher stress levels when using the conventional hyperbolic Hardin-Drnevich formula (7).

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Shear stress-strain curve from Midas using Ramberg-Osgood model

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2021; 10.1556/606.2021.00353

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Shear stress-strain curve from Midas using Hardin-Drnevich model

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2021; 10.1556/606.2021.00353

Figure 2 shows how both models predict the shear modulus in the Finite Element Method (FEM) calculations on Midas. The Ramberg-Osgood shear modulus degradation curve was calculated from Eq. (2), which matches perfectly with the FEM R–O calculations in Midas and shows a very good agreement with the RC and TOSS tests. While the modulus reduction curve for the Hardin-Drnevich model, which was obtained from the one-way monotonic curve resulted from analyzing the model on Midas, gives a curve that is higher than the real values until it reaches a strain value of 0.057%, where it drops below the TOSS test curve.

Darendeli [19] suggested modifying the hyperbolic model in order to reach a better representation of the normalized modulus reduction curve by integrating a curvature coefficient a into the equation. This modification can be applied to the hyperbolic equation by Hardin and Drnevich for better prediction of the hysteresis behavior of soils. The modified equation is given as follows:
τ=G0γ1+|γγr|a.

By using the same method as before (the least square method), the values of the reference strain: γr=0.00132 mm/mm, and the curvature coefficient: a=0.7129, give a much better fit with the testing data for both the stress-strain curve (Fig. 8) and the modulus degradation curve (Fig. 2) than the conventional Hardin-Drnevich model.

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Modified Hardin-Drnevich model by Darendeli

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2021; 10.1556/606.2021.00353

7 Conclusion

This study concentrates on the dynamic behavior of soils when subjected to irregular loading patterns. Resonant column and TOSS tests were analyzed, and their results were used as a reference to evaluate the ability of the Ramberg-Osgood and Hardin-Drnevich soil models to predict the shear stress-strain curves under such types of loads. The model built on Midas was developed, and some modeling difficulties in the previous model were solved in order for the model to be able to produce accurately more complex hysteretic curves for earthquake load histories. It was confirmed that this model has the capability to imitate the TOSS test conditions, as it shows good agreement with modulus degradation and hysteretic behavior of the soil in the test, especially for the Ramberg-Osgood model, while it was clear that the Hardin-Drnevich model struggled to accurately match the nonlinearity of the shear stress-strain curve. As a result, the curvature coefficient introduced to the equation is suggested to be used by the FEM software for better results. This model can be a useful and convenient tool to simulate the TOSS test for irregular load histories based on a simple cyclic or even one-way test, and then use the parameter for more complex geotechnical problems.

References

  • [1]

    E. Bak, “Numerical modeling of pile load tests,” Pollack Period., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 131140, 2013.

  • [2]

    J. Szép, “Modeling laterally loaded piles,” Pollack Period., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 117129, 2013.

  • [3]

    A. Achouri and M. N. Amrane, “Effect of structures density and tunnel depth on the tunnel-soil-structures dynamical interaction,” Pollack Period., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 91102, 2020.

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

    B. Hardin and F. Richart, “Elastic wave velocities in granular soils,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. , vol. 89, no. SM1, pp. 3365, 1963.

  • [5]

    B. Hardin and W. Black, “Sand stiffness under various triaxial stresses,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. , vol. 92, no. SM2, pp. 2742, 1966.

  • [6]

    T. Wichtmann, M. Navarrete Hernández, and T. Triantafyllidis, “On the influence of a non-cohesive fines content on small strain stiffness, modulus degradation and damping of quartz sand,” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 103114, 2015.

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

    M. Vucetic and R. Dobry, “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response,” J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE , vol. 117, no. 89, pp. 89107, 1991.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    K. Ishihara, Soil Behavior in Earthquake Geotechnics. Oxford University Press 1996.

  • [9]

    R. P. Ray, “Changes in shear modulus and damping in cohesionless soils due to repeated loading,” PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, 1983.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    R. Ray and R. Woods, “Modulus and damping due to uniform and variable cyclic loading,” J. Geotech. Eng. , vol. 114, no. 8, pp. 861876, 1988.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    Z. Szilvágyi, “Dynamic soil properties of Danube sands,” PhD Thesis, Győr, Hungary: Széchenyi István University, 2017.

  • [12]

    H. Seed and I. Idriss, “Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis,” Technical Report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Cal. Berkeley, 1970.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    W. Ramberg and W. R. Osgood, “Description of stress strain curves by three parameters,” Tech. Notes, Natl. Advisory Committee Aeronautics, vol. 902, 1943.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    E. Faccioli, V. Santayo, and J. Leone, “Microzonation criteria and seismic response studies for the city of Managua,” in Proceedings of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Conference, San Fransico, California, Nov. 29–30, 1973, 1973, pp. 271291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    G. Masing, “Self stretching and hardening for brass(in German), in Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. Appl. Mech., Zurich, 1926, 1926, pp. 332335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [16]

    R. Pyke, “Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 106, no. GT11, pp. 715726, 1979.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    B. Hardin and V. Drnevich, “Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., vol. 98, no. SM7, pp. 667692, 1972.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [18]

    Z. Szilvágyi and R. P. Ray, “Verification of the Ramberg-Osgood material model in Midas GTS NX with the modeling of torsional simple shear tests,” Period. Polytech. Civil Eng., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 629635, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [19]

    M. B. Darendeli, “Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves,” PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, USA, 2001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [1]

    E. Bak, “Numerical modeling of pile load tests,” Pollack Period., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 131140, 2013.

  • [2]

    J. Szép, “Modeling laterally loaded piles,” Pollack Period., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 117129, 2013.

  • [3]

    A. Achouri and M. N. Amrane, “Effect of structures density and tunnel depth on the tunnel-soil-structures dynamical interaction,” Pollack Period., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 91102, 2020.

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

    B. Hardin and F. Richart, “Elastic wave velocities in granular soils,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. , vol. 89, no. SM1, pp. 3365, 1963.

  • [5]

    B. Hardin and W. Black, “Sand stiffness under various triaxial stresses,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. , vol. 92, no. SM2, pp. 2742, 1966.

  • [6]

    T. Wichtmann, M. Navarrete Hernández, and T. Triantafyllidis, “On the influence of a non-cohesive fines content on small strain stiffness, modulus degradation and damping of quartz sand,” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 103114, 2015.

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

    M. Vucetic and R. Dobry, “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response,” J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE , vol. 117, no. 89, pp. 89107, 1991.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    K. Ishihara, Soil Behavior in Earthquake Geotechnics. Oxford University Press 1996.

  • [9]

    R. P. Ray, “Changes in shear modulus and damping in cohesionless soils due to repeated loading,” PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, 1983.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    R. Ray and R. Woods, “Modulus and damping due to uniform and variable cyclic loading,” J. Geotech. Eng. , vol. 114, no. 8, pp. 861876, 1988.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    Z. Szilvágyi, “Dynamic soil properties of Danube sands,” PhD Thesis, Győr, Hungary: Széchenyi István University, 2017.

  • [12]

    H. Seed and I. Idriss, “Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis,” Technical Report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Cal. Berkeley, 1970.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    W. Ramberg and W. R. Osgood, “Description of stress strain curves by three parameters,” Tech. Notes, Natl. Advisory Committee Aeronautics, vol. 902, 1943.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    E. Faccioli, V. Santayo, and J. Leone, “Microzonation criteria and seismic response studies for the city of Managua,” in Proceedings of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Conference, San Fransico, California, Nov. 29–30, 1973, 1973, pp. 271291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    G. Masing, “Self stretching and hardening for brass(in German), in Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. Appl. Mech., Zurich, 1926, 1926, pp. 332335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [16]

    R. Pyke, “Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 106, no. GT11, pp. 715726, 1979.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    B. Hardin and V. Drnevich, “Shear modulus and damping in soils: Design equations and curves,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., vol. 98, no. SM7, pp. 667692, 1972.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [18]

    Z. Szilvágyi and R. P. Ray, “Verification of the Ramberg-Osgood material model in Midas GTS NX with the modeling of torsional simple shear tests,” Period. Polytech. Civil Eng., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 629635, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [19]

    M. B. Darendeli, “Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves,” PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, USA, 2001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
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 Information Online subsscription: 321 EUR / 402 USD
Print + online subscription: 384 EUR / 480 USD
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 B5
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
Feb 2021 0 0 0
Mar 2021 0 0 0
Apr 2021 0 0 0
May 2021 0 1 0
Jun 2021 0 47 49
Jul 2021 0 47 13
Aug 2021 0 0 0