cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
-
Contact Email
-
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
-
Editorial Address
-
Location
,
INDONESIA
Civil Engineering Journal
Published by C.E.J Publishing Group
ISSN : 24763055     EISSN : 24763055     DOI : -
Core Subject : Engineering,
Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture
Civil Engineering Journal is a multidisciplinary, an open-access, internationally double-blind peer -reviewed journal concerned with all aspects of civil engineering, which include but are not necessarily restricted to: Building Materials and Structures, Coastal and Harbor Engineering, Constructions Technology, Constructions Management, Road and Bridge Engineering, Renovation of Buildings, Earthquake Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Highway Engineering, Hydraulic and Hydraulic Structures, Structural Engineering, Surveying and Geo-Spatial Engineering, Transportation Engineering, Tunnel Engineering, Urban Engineering and Economy, Water Resources Engineering, Urban Drainage.
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 24 Documents
 1   2   3 
Search results for , issue "Vol. 12 No. 4 (2026): April" : 24 Documents clear
Numerical Assessment of Integrated Perforated and Recurved Seawall Designs for Tsunami Mitigation Weixiao Jiang; Wei Chek Moon; Huanhuan Du; Tze Liang Lau; How Tion Puay; Jin Chai Lee
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 12 No. 4 (2026): April
Publisher : Salehan Institute of Higher Education

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28991/CEJ-2026-012-04-01

Abstract

Tsunami wave overtopping remains a major challenge for conventional vertical seawalls. Alternative seawall designs have therefore been proposed to address the overtopping issue. This study aims to conduct a staged numerical investigation to evaluate the hydraulic performance of solid, perforated, and integrated perforated–recurved seawall configurations. Tsunami-like waves were simulated in a numerical flume at two impoundment depths under dry and wet bed conditions. The results reveal that perforation significantly reduced peak horizontal wave forces by about 25-30%, depending on the perforation ratio and wave conditions. Nevertheless, this force reduction led to an increase in overtopping discharge, along with higher inland flow depth and velocity. This demonstrates that wave energy is redistributed rather than eliminated. The subsequent multi-criteria performance evaluation found that a 20% perforation ratio offers an optimal compromise between hydraulic performance and material efficiency. Building on this configuration, two types of integrated perforated-recurved seawalls were tested, incorporating triangular and arc-recurved profiles. The results indicate that the addition of the recurved crest elements in the design improved overall energy dissipation from approximately 52% (perforated-only) to over 90% for near-threshold overtopping under dry bed conditions. Among the integrated design types, triangular recurved performed slightly better than arc types. Incorporating perforations and recurves partially offset the disadvantages of each design, and these results demonstrate that such a design is effective and adaptable for mitigating coastal flood risk and improving coastal resilience against tsunamis.
Decoupling Chemical Composition from Viscoelastic Recovery in Rejuvenated Asphalt Binders Multazam Hutabarat; Suwaphit Chamwon; Preeda Chaturabong
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 12 No. 4 (2026): April
Publisher : Salehan Institute of Higher Education

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28991/CEJ-2026-012-04-09

Abstract

This study investigates the decoupling between bulk chemical composition and high-temperature viscoelastic recovery in rejuvenated asphalt binders. A pressurized aging vessel (PAV)-aged binder (AC60/70) was rejuvenated using pyrolytic bio-oils from sugarcane bagasse (SBO) and rice straw (RSO) at 5–20 wt% dosages. SARA fractionation, colloidal instability index (Ic), penetration, and multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) testing at 0.1 and 3.2 kPa were conducted before and after a rolling thin film oven (RTFO) aging. Both bio-oils restored SARA fractions to nearly identical levels (Ic = 0.541–0.572), yet penetration diverged substantially (79 vs. 36 dmm at 20% for SBO and RSO, respectively). After RTFO aging, MSCR responses converged across all formulations regardless of pre-aging differences, yielding identical an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) classification. This convergence is attributed to selective volatilization of low-molecular-weight bio-oil components during thermal conditioning, consistent with findings from a companion rheological–fatigue study. The results reveal a fundamental decoupling: bulk chemical indices, while useful for compositional assessment, do not correspond to stress-dependent viscoelastic recovery mechanisms governing rutting resistance. Performance-based rheological testing is therefore essential for reliable evaluation of rejuvenated binders under field-relevant conditions.
Comparative Study of Crack Width Prediction Models for Reinforced Concrete Beams Vlora Shatri; Burbuqe Shatri; Armend Mujaj; Bajram Shefkiu
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 12 No. 4 (2026): April
Publisher : Salehan Institute of Higher Education

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28991/CEJ-2026-012-04-019

Abstract

Crack-width control is a critical serviceability limit state (SLS) requirement in reinforced concrete (RC) structures, as excessive cracking can compromise durability and accelerate reinforcement corrosion. This study evaluates the accuracy of crack width prediction models within major international design standards. An experimental investigation was conducted on a RC beam subjected to four-point bending, where crack propagation, beam deflections, and reinforcement stresses were monitored throughout the loading process. The measured crack widths were compared with analytical predictions from Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1), DIN 1045-1, and ACI-based formulations. The results indicate that while all evaluated codes capture the general trend of increasing crack width with rising steel stresses under incremental loading, significant discrepancies exist in their predicted magnitudes. In general, it is Eurocode 2 that consistently provides the most conservative estimates, whereas DIN 1045-1 yields slightly lower but also consistent values of the same. Conversely, ACI-based approaches tend to underestimate crack widths at higher load levels. This study highlights the influence of modeling assumptions—specifically those related to bond-slip behavior, crack spacing, and tension stiffening—on the reliability of crack-width predictions. The results provide experimental evidence regarding the reliability and limitations of common predictive methods, contributing to a refined understanding of design rules for the serviceability of RC structures.
Spatially-Adaptive Calibration for Reliable Uncertainty Quantification in Seismic Response Prediction of RC Frames Donwoo Lee; Seungjae Lee
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 12 No. 4 (2026): April
Publisher : Salehan Institute of Higher Education

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.28991/CEJ-2026-012-04-02

Abstract

Data-driven models offer the computational speed needed for rapid post-earthquake assessment, but their uncertainty estimates must be trustworthy to support safety decisions. This study reveals that Monte Carlo dropout uncertainty for RC frame seismic response prediction is severely miscalibrated: 95% prediction intervals capture only 46.6% of actual responses, meaning Immediate Occupancy assessments under ASCE 41-17 would be unconservative in over half of cases. We address this through post-hoc Temperature Scaling calibration. While a global scaling parameter (T* = 4.40) reduces calibration error by 91.4%, we discover that the optimal calibration factor varies systematically across structural locations: T* ranges from 1.94 at fixed-base nodes to 5.52 at mid-height floors—a 2.8-fold variation that single-parameter approaches cannot capture. This spatial variation reflects physical differences in prediction uncertainty: boundary-constrained nodes exhibit lower uncertainty requiring less scaling, while mid-height nodes dominated by higher-mode contributions show greater uncertainty underestimation. Building on this finding, we propose floor-adaptive calibration using location-specific scaling factors. Compared to global calibration, this approach reduces average calibration error by an additional 62%, with improvements of 61-70% at ground and top floors, where global calibration performs worst. The method requires no model retraining—only a lookup table mapping floor levels to optimal scaling factors. Validation across 12 RC frames (3-7 stories), 2,400 analysis cases, and 35,000+ node-level predictions confirms that spatially adaptive calibration provides more reliable uncertainty estimates across all structural locations, enabling trustworthy confidence intervals for performance-based post-earthquake assessment.

Page 3 of 3 | Total Record : 24

 1   2   3 

Filter by Year

2026 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 12 No. 4 (2026): April Vol. 12 No. 3 (2026): March Vol. 12 No. 2 (2026): February Vol. 12 No. 1 (2026): January Vol. 11 No. 12 (2025): December Vol. 11 No. 11 (2025): November Vol. 11 No. 10 (2025): October Vol. 11 No. 9 (2025): September Vol. 11 No. 8 (2025): August Vol. 11 No. 7 (2025): July Vol. 11 No. 6 (2025): June Vol. 11 No. 5 (2025): May Vol 11, No 3 (2025): March Vol. 11 No. 3 (2025): March Vol. 11 No. 2 (2025): February Vol 11, No 2 (2025): February Vol 11, No 1 (2025): January Vol 10, No 12 (2024): December Vol 10, No 11 (2024): November Vol. 10 No. 11 (2024): November Vol 10, No 10 (2024): October Vol 10, No 9 (2024): September Vol 10, No 8 (2024): August Vol 10, No 7 (2024): July Vol. 10 No. 7 (2024): July Vol 10, No 6 (2024): June Vol. 10 No. 5 (2024): May Vol 10, No 5 (2024): May Vol 10, No 4 (2024): April Vol 10, No 3 (2024): March Vol 10, No 2 (2024): February Vol 10, No 1 (2024): January Vol 10 (2024): Special Issue "Sustainable Infrastructure and Structural Engineering: Innovations in Vol 9, No 12 (2023): December Vol 9, No 11 (2023): November Vol 9, No 10 (2023): October Vol 9, No 9 (2023): September Vol 9, No 8 (2023): August Vol 9, No 7 (2023): July Vol 9, No 6 (2023): June Vol 9, No 5 (2023): May Vol 9, No 4 (2023): April Vol 9, No 3 (2023): March Vol 9, No 2 (2023): February Vol 9, No 1 (2023): January Vol 9 (2023): Special Issue "Innovative Strategies in Civil Engineering Grand Challenges" Vol 8, No 12 (2022): December Vol 8, No 11 (2022): November Vol 8, No 10 (2022): October Vol 8, No 9 (2022): September Vol 8, No 8 (2022): August Vol 8, No 7 (2022): July Vol 8, No 6 (2022): June Vol 8, No 5 (2022): May Vol 8, No 4 (2022): April Vol 8, No 3 (2022): March Vol 8, No 2 (2022): February Vol 8, No 1 (2022): January Vol 7, No 12 (2021): December Vol 7, No 11 (2021): November Vol 7, No 10 (2021): October Vol 7, No 9 (2021): September Vol 7, No 8 (2021): August Vol 7, No 7 (2021): July Vol 7, No 6 (2021): June Vol 7, No 5 (2021): May Vol 7, No 4 (2021): April Vol 7, No 3 (2021): March Vol 7, No 2 (2021): February Vol 7, No 1 (2021): January Vol 7 (2021): Special Issue "Innovative Strategies in Civil Engineering Grand Challenges" Vol 6, No 12 (2020): December Vol 6, No 11 (2020): November Vol 6, No 10 (2020): October Vol 6, No 9 (2020): September Vol 6, No 8 (2020): August Vol 6, No 7 (2020): July Vol 6, No 6 (2020): June Vol 6, No 5 (2020): May Vol 6, No 4 (2020): April Vol 6, No 3 (2020): March Vol 6, No 2 (2020): February Vol 6, No 1 (2020): January Vol 6 (2020): Special Issue "Emerging Materials in Civil Engineering" Vol 5, No 12 (2019): December Vol 5, No 11 (2019): November Vol 5, No 10 (2019): October Vol 5, No 9 (2019): September Vol 5, No 8 (2019): August Vol 5, No 7 (2019): July Vol 5, No 6 (2019): June Vol 5, No 6 (2019): June Vol 5, No 5 (2019): May Vol 5, No 4 (2019): April Vol 5, No 4 (2019): April Vol 5, No 3 (2019): March Vol 5, No 3 (2019): March Vol 5, No 2 (2019): February Vol 5, No 2 (2019): February Vol 5, No 1 (2019): January Vol 5, No 1 (2019): January Vol 4, No 12 (2018): December Vol 4, No 12 (2018): December Vol 4, No 11 (2018): November Vol 4, No 11 (2018): November Vol 4, No 10 (2018): October Vol 4, No 10 (2018): October Vol 4, No 9 (2018): September Vol 4, No 9 (2018): September Vol 4, No 8 (2018): August Vol 4, No 8 (2018): August Vol 4, No 7 (2018): July Vol 4, No 7 (2018): July Vol 4, No 6 (2018): June Vol 4, No 6 (2018): June Vol 4, No 5 (2018): May Vol 4, No 5 (2018): May Vol 4, No 4 (2018): April Vol 4, No 4 (2018): April Vol 4, No 3 (2018): March Vol 4, No 3 (2018): March Vol 4, No 2 (2018): February Vol 4, No 2 (2018): February Vol 4, No 1 (2018): January Vol 4, No 1 (2018): January Vol 3, No 12 (2017): December Vol 3, No 12 (2017): December Vol 3, No 11 (2017): November Vol 3, No 11 (2017): November Vol 3, No 10 (2017): October Vol 3, No 10 (2017): October Vol 3, No 9 (2017): September Vol 3, No 9 (2017): September Vol 3, No 8 (2017): August Vol 3, No 7 (2017): July Vol 3, No 7 (2017): July Vol 3, No 6 (2017): June Vol 3, No 5 (2017): May Vol 3, No 5 (2017): May Vol 3, No 4 (2017): April Vol 3, No 3 (2017): March Vol 3, No 2 (2017): February Vol 3, No 2 (2017): February Vol 3, No 1 (2017): January Vol 2, No 12 (2016): December Vol 2, No 12 (2016): December Vol 2, No 11 (2016): November Vol 2, No 11 (2016): November Vol 2, No 10 (2016): October Vol 2, No 9 (2016): September Vol 2, No 9 (2016): September Vol 2, No 8 (2016): August Vol 2, No 8 (2016): August Vol 2, No 7 (2016): July Vol 2, No 7 (2016): July Vol 2, No 6 (2016): June Vol 2, No 6 (2016): June Vol 2, No 5 (2016): May Vol 2, No 4 (2016): April Vol 2, No 3 (2016): March Vol 2, No 3 (2016): March Vol 2, No 2 (2016): February Vol 2, No 1 (2016): January Vol 1, No 2 (2015): December Vol 1, No 1 (2015): November More Issue