Research Paper Proposal Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Paper - Research Proposal Example Emanating from Charles family once being a property it leaves a mark on the existence of specific person and their achievements. Being followed by ownership, ownership of anything claims person superiority over the properly. Music keeps records of historical events and personal records. The piano being a metaphor in the play line music is widely utilized to keep record of historical happening. The piano takes several meaning in the play and its lifetime. As a gift bought via slave exchange it signifies persons worth and interchangeability during slavery era and white kingship network over blacks. Under Boy Willie the piano signifies a symbolic attempt to keep the family together and history. The carving on it wooden parts are a narrative of the present and past historical events of the slaves and family story line. The piano being passed from one generation to another helps keep the past family historical memorials within the family. Ghost in the play were used to associate the play with the African American culture a trait the inherited from their African ancestors. Since the slave’s culture dissolved into white folks Christianity the writer used ghost to remind African American on their origin and reserve their spiritual beliefs. Therefore the ghost reserves historical events of the African American folks (Wilson

Traning in business Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Traning in business - Essay Example Most of the youths who joins an organization as a fresher, may not have much ideas about the organizational environments. Whatever they learned from the institutions might be the theoretical part and the practical part begins when they start their career in an organization. Training is the only option for the employers to make the fresh candidate suitable for their organization. The do’s and don’ts of the organization, organizational behavior, culture, objectives etc can be provided to the employees only through training. No knowledge can be perfect if the learner fail to update it. New knowledge is bursting from all the corners virtually in every second and without updating; the knowledge of an employee might not be enough to meet the current challenges. It is difficult for an employee to go to institutions for acquiring further knowledge because of his professional commitments. So it is necessary for the employers to train their employees properly to prepare them capable of meeting the ever changing challenges in the business world. The following diagram represents the flowchart of training in an organization. Training helps an employee to understand the business environment of the organization he is working for. Business environments can be different in different organizations. For example, business environments of Pepsi and Coke might be entirely different even thought they operate in the same soft drink manufacturing industry. In order to make the employee custom made, training is essential for each and every organization. Changes and challenges faced by different organizations might be entirely different. For example, as mentioned in the above example, the challenges faced by Pepsi might not be the same for Coke because of the different geographical locations they were operating. Even in same countries they may face different challenges. For example, Coke is accused of exploiting underwater resources more than the

Education Is the Most Important Thing Essay Example for Free

Education Is the Most Important Thing Essay Education is the most important thing we can offer to our children and the generations to come, yet it is one of the topics that we struggle with the most. With the choices between local, state and federal authorities, who should have control over education? It is my belief that the control should lie with the federal authorities because they are able to maintain a complete situational picture over all the states. Many of our founding fathers of the United States feared that leaving education in the hands of private families, churches, local communities or philanthropic societies would not guarantee the survival of a democracy. (Pulliam Van Patten, 2007, p. 122). In this paper I am going to defend my opinion of why the federal authorities should have control of education. How programs they have developed have flourished, and even how some of their programs could be run better. I currently serve as an instructor for the Navy teaching junior Sailors how to do their job better thus protecting the ship for harm, however; I am not the only one who teaches these classes, so to ensure that all Sailors are taught the same information all of our learning sites fall under one controlling entity. The education of our youth should be run the same, and if education was to be allowed to be completely run by local or even state entities, then the education opportunities may not be the same throughout the cities and even states. One of the best programs I have seen is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002. NCBL is a United States Act of Congress that was originally proposed by the administration of President George W. Bush immediately after taking office. The House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001, and United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001. President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002. NCLB is the latest federal legislation that enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those sta tes are to receive federal funding for schools. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.(â€Å"No Child Left Behind Act of 2001â€Å", 2006) Not only does the NCLB Act standardize learning for the students it also is used for standardization of teacher qualifications. For decades, local policymakers and school officials turned a blind eye to a set  of vexing problems in public education. In practice, there was a situational definition of teacher quality. No one thought anything about, as one principal said, scheduling a physical education teacher to fill in for one class of history. It was a common practice for middle school principals to employ elementary certified teachers because it provided the principals maximum flexibility in assigning teachers to classes, whether or not the teachers were qualified to teach those classes. (Hayes , 2003) As stated earlier, I believe that all children should not only have the same opportunity to get an education, but should also be entitled to the same education as every other child. If control of our educational system was given to the local or even state authorities this would probably not be the case as each state would want to do it â€Å"their way†. The No Child Left Behind Act ensures that all children no matter race, religion, or financial status is given the same opportunities for education, and educated children are our future. References: Hayes , M. (2003). NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity?. Retrieved from http://www.middleweb.com/HMnclb.html No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2006). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/02/02062006.html Pulliam, J. D., Van Patten, J. J. (2007). History of Education in American (9th Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Columbus, Ohio.

Comparison Of Building Vulnerability Assessment Methods Engineering Essay

Comparison Of Building Vulnerability Assessment Methods Engineering Essay A review of vulnerability assessment methods for buildings is conducted out with a view to evaluate their appropriateness for use in seismic risk assessment. A ranking scheme has been developed to score each vulnerability assessment method. The ranking considers general description of vulnerability, building response factors, variance in output, applicability and ease of use, which are the major characteristics for vulnerability assessment tools used in seismic risk assessment. A case study in the older portion of Dhaka city, Bangladesh has been conducted to investigate the efficiency of some state-of-the- art vulnerability assessment methods. The hybrid vulnerability scale, which uses a FEMA 310 and IITK GSDMA approaches score high in the ranking, whilst the other scales based on the Rapid Visual Screening FEMA 154, Euro Code 8, New Zealand Guidelines, Modified Turkish Method and NRCC perform differently in various weighting scenarios. However, it is found that none but the hybrid ( which includes the local site specific issues as well as the results from non destructive testing and experimental data) method effectively suits all the criteria essential for their use in seismic risk assessment, especially emphasis on physical vulnerability factors, applicability and variances in output. Keywords vulnerability assessments, physical vulnerable parameters, seismic risk assessment 1. Introduction Seismic risk assessment is a vital tool to manage the growing risk in the face of the ever-increasing exposure in highly seismic regions. Due to the changes in the built environment and continuously evolving seismic sciences, it is essential to refine the risk assessment modeling continuously. In particular, vulnerability of buildings to ground shaking is recognized as a key element in any seismic risk model (Spence et al. 2008). Therefore, seismic vulnerability assessment is an essential tool for governments and individuals to mitigate the consequences of earthquakes. Existing vulnerability assessment methodologies vary with various postulations proposed for the characterization and prediction of earthquake hazard and the methodology used to evaluate building regarding the hazard (FEMA 1999; Bertogg et al. 2002). The development of a region-wide seismic vulnerability assessment framework, such as FEMA 310 for the US (FEMA 1999), requires a unique vulnerability assessment tool to acc ommodate all the above mentioned issues. Within this paper, a comparison and critical review of existing vulnerability assessment methodologies for buildings is conducted out, with a view to their utilization in a region-wide seismic risk assessment. A hybrid method consisting of FEMA 310 (FEMA 1999) and IITK GSDMA (Durgesh 2005) has been set up to evaluate vulnerability, combining an analysis of building typologies with expert judgment. Background information on the most significant vulnerability assessment methods are provided in the paper together with their advantages and disadvantages for use in seismic risk assessment. Moreover, the seismic vulnerability for contemporary and historical 93 buildings in old Dhaka City, Bangladesh has been assessed as a case study to show the spatially distributed qualitative risk within the area with the help of different vulnerability assessment tools. Finally, a scoring method is proposed to qualitatively represent the relative rankings of the selected vulnerability assessment tools t o find out a suitable uniform approach to be used for seismic risk assessment. 2. Selection of suitable building classification system Vulnerability can be defined as the susceptibility of buildings to damage in presence of seismic ground motion (Hill and Rossetto 2008). The evaluation of building vulnerability is a basic part of any risk assessment methodology. An accurate, transparent and conceptually sound algorithm for assessing the seismic vulnerability of the building stock is one of the main ingredients in a seismic risk model and indeed over the past 30 years many tools and methodologies have been proposed for this purpose. This study takes an overview on some of the most noteworthy contributions in the field of vulnerability assessment and the key advantages and disadvantages of these procedures have been identified in order to distinguish the main characteristics of an ideal methodology (Calvi et al. 2006). In vulnerability studies, it is essential to differentiate various building types, since, different types of buildings tend to respond in a different way under similar ground motions (Tesfamariam and Sa atcioglu 2008). Hence, the buildings should be classified according to their similar dynamic properties, before the conducting a vulnerability assessment of an urban area. The parameters that influence the dynamic response of a structure to ground motion are well recognized, for example, in Euro code 8 (BSSC 2003; CEN 2004), and embrace the structures geometrical and material properties. A building classification system that considers a high-degree of segregation in vulnerability studies and an enhanced estimate of the financial losses, has been expressed elsewhere (Carvalho et al. 2002). This study focuses on the dominant building types of the Indian region (Alam et el. 2010), which comprises mainly of reinforced concrete buildings and masonry buildings. 3. Existing seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies: an overview Table 1 in Appendix A briefly describes each vulnerability assessment tool selected and the rationale for their selection. It is obvious that the review is not extensive; however, the tools have been selected for the predominant building classes as well as to the contemporary practices in seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings. From the literature, it is evident that, there is a lack of unified vulnerability assessment technique, which covers the entire local as well as the global parameters. To cover the location-specific physical components present in both the developed and the developing countries, a hybrid method has been formulated for the vulnerability assessment of existing structures incorporating FEMA 310 (FEMA 1998, 2003, ASCE 1998) and IITK GSDMA (Durgesh 2005) methods. Other vulnerability assessment tools are chosen from a wide range of published and peer reviewed papers in seismology, structural vulnerability, and earthquake engineering fields. Since, most of the tools have been developed for some particular circumstances, such as vulnerability assessment in the field, for structural analysis etc. they may not contain some of the uniqueness specified in the scoring structure. However, they are included in this study, as either elements of these guidelines or tools have been used in past seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings or they illustrate a distinctive characteristic, which is essential in a tool for the seismic vulnerability assessment. 4. Investigation of the suitability of different vulnerability assessment tools: a case study A case study of 93 buildings of older portion of Dhaka city-the capital of Bangladesh (Alam et al. 2010) has been selected to evaluate the suitability of various vulnerability assessment tools for seismic risk assessment. The predominant structural types, specially associated with medium to high seismicity, present in South Asian countries have been presented in the building classification system. After considering building inventories of different countries of South Asian region, it was found that South Asian building inventory is primarily composed of reinforced concrete buildings and masonry buildings. The study includes Bangladesh (CDMP 2009), Nepal (AUDMP 2007), and India (Durgesh 2005) for classifying major building classes for the area. There exist some other types, such as adobe (mud house), tin-shed housing, timber and steel structures etc, which contribute a very small proportion of the existing inventory with moderate to high seismicity. The premier resolutions of relevant building type sub-categories for the vulnerability assessment are the reinforced concrete frames with and without masonry infill as well as the unreinforced masonry buildings for the study area. The seismic vulnerability of buildings in the stock varies widely with different vulnerable factors (Hugo 2002). The principal vulnerability factors used in the categorization of buildings in the study area are structure type (the main lateral force resisting system of buildings), number of story, and code level (seismic design standard applied in the design of buildings). Moreover, architectural features which are the parameters for defining geometry of buildings such as story height, span length, presence of open first-storey etc. act as factors for the vulnerability assessment. Several structural features may be considered as the factor affecting vulnerability of buildings. These factors include soft story, heavy overhang, short column, pounding possibility between adjacent buildings, and visible ground settlement. During this study a number of vulnerable factors were identified that are comprehensively discussed here. According to Turkish method (Bommer et al. 2002, Tesfamariam a nd Saatcioglu 2010), the level of building damage during earthquakes depends on the apparent building quality which is, in turn, related to the quality of construction materials, workmanships and building maintenance. Well-trained observers can classify a buildings quality roughly as good, moderate, or poor. Many building collapses during seismic events may be ascribed to the absence of the bracing elements (e.g. available walls in the upper floors) in the ground floor, and hence develop a ground floor soft in the horizontal direction. The plastic deformations at the plastic hinge points of the columns can develop an undesirable sway mechanism with a large concentration of the plastic deformations at the column ends (Hugo 2002). Hence, the soft story buildings exhibit a less safe behavior than the similar regular structures during moderate and severe earthquake. Normally, this situation can be resulted from the building that locates along the side of the main street as the first sto ry is being used for a commercial space that has opening between the frame members for customer circulation. Figure 1 shows some of the examples of soft story (ground floors being used as shop) in Shakhari Bazar, Dhaka, Bangladesh. In addition to soft stories, another vulnerable factor, termed as heavy overhanging floors in multistory buildings lead to irregularity in stiffness and mass distributions (Hugo 2002). From the earthquake engineering view point, these irregular plan shapes are undesirable as they cause inappropriate dynamic behaviors when subjected to horizontal earthquake ground motion. Typical heavy overhangs found in the old part of Dhaka City are shown in figure 2. Moreover, the shear failure of short columns is another major cause of building collapse during a seismic event (Hugo 2002). It is also termed as squat columns, i.e. columns having relatively high thickness compared to their height, and most of the cases are fixed in strong beams or slabs. By unintentional addition of parapet infill in frame structures, slender columns can also be converted into short columns. In case of short columns with significant bending capacity, enormous moment gradient can develop a large shear force under horizontal actions of a seismic event, which generally leads to a shear failure before the plastic moment capacity is being reached (Hugo 2002). It was observed after the August 17th, 1999 earthquake in Turkey (Mw=7.4) that a large number of buildings were damaged due to the presence of short columns (Saatcioglu et al. 2001). Damage due to pounding can also be observed after almost every earthquake events. Different vibration periods and non-synchronized vibration amplitudes cause the close buildings to knock together. Buildings subjected to pounding receive heavier damage on higher stories (NZSEE 2000, 2003). Topographic amplification may also increase ground motion intensity on hilltops during earthquake; hence, this factor should be taken into account in the seismic risk assessment. In the last not the least, building shape and elevation are major factors affecting buildings during an earthquake. It was evident from the experience of different seismic events, that the buildings with irregular shape are more damaging than the buildings of regular shape (Hugo 2002). Similarly elevation of building is also another important factor responsible for structural/building damage during an earthquake. Narrow tall buildings are more vulnerable during an earthquake (Hugo 2002). Figure 3 shows vertical irregularity of an existing building in the study area. There exists a numerous numbers of vulnerability assessment techniques, that utilize various types of vulnerability factors. Table 2 summarizes different vulnerability factors, which are frequently, used in different seismic vulnerability assessment techniques utilized in the study. From this study, it can easily be identified that some of the seismic vulnerability assessment techniques are very robust, e.g. FEMA 310, FEMA 154 etc, whereas in case of some other methods, (e.g. Euro Code 8) some of the major vulnerability parameters are not clearly defined. The results from the assessment of 93 buildings in the study area are depicted in the figure 4. For risk evaluation, it is required to collect, analyze and properly match a huge quantity of data. Geographic information system (GIS) can effectively be utilized to manage and overlay the information levels and graphical output of the results (Codermatz 2003). Therefore, a geographical information system (GIS) database has been developed to represent the spatial distribution of the vulnerable buildings for different assessment techniques within the study area. Figure 5 shows the distribution of vulnerable buildings in GIS environment, resulted with the use of FEMA 154 method, which shows that most of the buildings fall under very high risk group. Whereas, the distribution of risk classes within the buildings are in a wide range in case of hybrid method, depicted in figure 6. The distribution of vulnerable buildings assessed by Euro Code 8 and NRCC are also presented in figure 7 and figur e 8 respectively, which show comparatively lower risk variances. 5. Vulnerability assessment methodology scoring system The general description of vulnerability assessment methods which include the input variables, are very useful for the people involved in the field directly, where as the information about physical measurable parameters are necessary for the detailed analysis of a structure and the decision makers utilize the description of output for generating an effective decision (Hill and Tizina 2008). A reliability or performance scoring system has been developed to rank the vulnerability assessment methodologies according to the criteria mentioned above. The proposed scoring system consisting of 3 main sections with 17 sub-categories is depicted in Table 2 of Appendix A. The score obtained in each of the 3 sections is given equal weighting in the computation of the total reliability score for vulnerability assessment. The system tries to reduce most of the subjectivity implicated in the ranking of different vulnerability assessment methods. Since, some subjectivity has been utilized to assign the categories, the resultant scores can be utilized only as a qualitative representation of performance or reliability. To provide a clear indication of each methodologys performance or reliability, an affirmative score is given as 3 points, a moderate score is given as 2, a negative score 0 point, whereas the method partially fulfills the requirement is given 1 point. Since, experimental value provides data based on real-life experiences, it is more preferred in the scoring system. Analytical and judgment-based values are considered as second and third best respectively. For the sub-categories, the scoring is based on the Table 3 of Appendix A. This scoring for reliability or performance has been applied to the vulnerability assessment methods applicable for mainly reinforced concrete buildings as well as unreinforced masonry building types. Category A of the scoring system in Table 2 deals with the basic input description of vulnerability assessment tools, i.e. ease of measurement (Saatcioglu, et al. 2001), range of buildings types covered (FEMA 2002, ASCE 2003, UNDRO 1980), site specific factors, including local and global aspects regard (ASCE 2003, ASCE 1988, NRCC 1993, Durgesh 2005) .This is important for the people working in the field measurement. In category B mostly physical measurable vulnerability factors have been considered, which is very useful for analyzing the structural behavior. It deals with the scope of vulnerable parameters (ASCE 2003), quantity of database (ATC 2004), applicability of tools as non-structural components of the structures (NRCC 1993). Finally category C of the proposed scoring system utilizes the involvement of the output factors, which encompasses the well defined vulnerability scales (FEMA 2002) (ASCE 2003), risk variances (ASCE 2003, Durgesh 2005), impact of non-structural components as well as the adoptability (NRCC 1993). This category mainly focuses on the preferences for the decision makers. For different specific needs, risk assessment specialists may prefer different weightings on the scoring categories. The categories are weighted according to four different scenarios (I-IV) as depicted in Table 4 of Appendix A. These weightings give a maximum score of 51 points in each case which are only for illustrative indication. An example of use of the proposed scoring method is given in Table 5 of Appendix A. The final ranking for the vulnerability assessment tools considered is shown in Table 6 of Appendix A. The individual scores are given in Table 7 of Appendix A 6. Discussion on vulnerability assessment method scoring This section discusses about the performance of different vulnerability assessment tools in different scoring categories in wider aspect for all the weighting scenarios proposed. At this point it is essential to re-state that the vulnerability assessment ranking reflects how appropriate the method is for use in seismic risk assessment. To rank the techniques, several weighting scenarios have been utilized with the calculated scores. For weighting scenario I, equal weighting for each category was adopted which provides an overall view of the vulnerability assessment methods performances. The authors believe that each of the identified features is equally important and it is suggested that proposed scoring system utilizes this weighting scenario. Hybrid method, NRCC (NRCC 1993) guidelines and FEMA 154 (FEMA 2002, ATC 1998) rank the top three positions for the weighting scenario I. The Hybrid method contains detailed descriptions for different classes of buildings and has a well defined methodology for calculating physical vulnerability factors. The ASCE 31 standard (FEMA 310) is not a building code.  Ã‚  It is a method of evaluating existing buildings to determine if they meet seismic performance objectives such as Life Safety or Immediate Occupancy.   NRCC guideline follows the similar principles as the hybrid one; however, the calibration for building typology for NRC guidelines considers the Canadian construction practice. Fundamentally, the score ( seismic priority index) in NRCC is related to the seismic risk for a particular building, given the occurrence of an earthquake equivalent to that specified in the National Building Code of Canada (NRCC 1993). It is to be used as an initial assessment for deciding which building should have more detailed evaluation in order of priority. Moreover, the effect of torsional irregularities has not been taken in to account. In FEMA 154, the score was affected by the lack of sufficiently detailed analysis; rather it e ncompasses a rapid visual screening method (FEMA 2002). The use of seismicity regions, rather than site-specific seismic hazard data, for the Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) procedure substantially reduces the accuracy of results because the calculations use levels of ground motion which differ from the levels of ground motion at all sites except those where ground motions are at the median value for a seismicity region. Thus, RVS final scores are systematically shifted and overestimate the level of risk for locations with below-median ground motions and underestimate risk for locations with above median ground motions. In case of weighting scenario II, more weighting is given to general description of vulnerability to highlight the methods suited for in-field measurements. For weighting scenario II, again the same results happened, i.e. Hybrid one out ranked all other approaches. For weighting scenario III, more weighting values have been given to the physical vulnerable parameters. And in case of scenario IV, weighting has been given to the variance in output. For this purpose, a case study of 93 buildings of old Dhaka city of Bangladesh has been conducted. In this case study, different types of buildings have been assessed with various methodologies. Here, Hybrid and NRCC Guidelines ranked the 1st where as FEMA 154 (FEMA 2002, ATC 1998) and NZ Code ranked 2nd and 3rd. The variation and the results of the assessment have been depicted in Figure 5 through Figure 8. In weighting scenario V, more conscious was given to Canadian present construction practices (Cook 1999, Onur et al. 2004). Here, the Hybrid as well as the NRCC method outranked the other methods. 7. Scoring Summary with Different Multi Criteria Decision Making Tools The proposed scoring system is a wide-ranging tool to compare different vulnerability assessment methods in the context of ease of use and applicability. It cannot catch all the parameters, but qualitatively gives a better indication of the suitable seismic vulnerability assessment method for buildings. First of all, it can be remarked that, the positions of the methods in the ranking change markedly between the different weighting scenarios. Of the considered seismic vulnerability assessment methods, it is seen that the Hybrid method composed of FEMA 310 (FEMA 1998, 2003, ASCE 1998) and IITK-GSDMA outperforms other vulnerability assessment in all respects. However, NRCC (NRCC 1993) method also performs adequately, where the guideline was developed specifically with Canadian buildings in mind, though certain features are lacking within the description of detailed analysis. Nonetheless, for all the weighting scenarios, the proposed hybrid method performs well and should be considered as the preferred alternative. Moreover, the presence of FEMA 154, Euro Code 8(Milutinovic and Trendafiloski 2003, CEN 2004) and New Zealand Guidelines (NZSEE 2000, 2003) in the ranking system are notable. However, it is clear that the methods do not capture a sufficient quantity of characteristics that are required of such a guideline for the particular weighting scenarios. In this study different multi criteria decision making tools (e.g. AHP. Elctre I Is, and TOPSIS) have been utilized to find out the suitable most alternative. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision-aiding method developed by Saaty (Saaty 1980). The main goal of AHP is to quantify the relative priorities for a given set of alternatives on a ratio scale, based on the judgment of the decision-maker, and stresses the significance of the perceptive judgments of a decision- maker as well as the consistency of the comparison of alternatives in the decision-making process (Saaty 1990). Whereas ELECTRE I (Benayoun et al, 1966; Roy 1971) is an overall method of ranking alternative systems in the presence of qualitative criteria. The idea in this algorithm is to choose those nodes (i.e. alternative systems) which are preferred for most of the criteria and yet do not cause an unacceptable level of discontent for any one criterion. Moreover in case of TOPSIS (Technique for Order pre ference by Similarity to Ideal Situation) method, the selected alternative should be as close to the ideal solution as possible and as far from the negative-ideal solution as possible. The ideal solution is formed as a combination of the best performance values revealed in the decision matrix by any option for each attribute. The negative-ideal solution is the combination of the worst performance values. Propinquity to each of these performance poles is measured in the Euclidean sense (e.g., square root of the sum of the squared distances along each axis in the attribute space), with elective weighting of each attribute (Olson 2004). By utilizing Electre I Is (Hwang and Yoon 1981) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (Yang and Lee 1997); it was found that the proposed hybrid method outranks all the methods in all cases (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Finally TOPSIS method (Chu 2002) has validated the same decision about the proposed hybrid method to be the preferred one. In the context of decision making and field measurement, hybrid method consisting of FEMA 310 (FEMA 1998, 2003, ASCE 1998) and IITK-GSDMA is recommended. Whereas, if the rapid assessment of buildings is the major concern, vulnerability assessment through FEMA 154 (FEMA 2002, ATC 1998) and NRCC (NRCC 1993) guidelines should also be considered as the preferred options. 8. Conclusion This study has identified significant characteristics that should be included for an appropriate seismic vulnerability assessment method of buildings. A scoring system has been proposed for the qualitative review of various vulnerability assessment techniques and a particular attention was given to potential use in Canada. It is found that a vulnerability assessment technique termed as hybrid method i.e. combination of FEMA 310 (FEMA 1998, 2003, ASCE 1998) IITK GSDMA (Durgesh 2005) captures characteristics to a wider degree that a suitable vulnerability assessment method should posses. However, the proposed hybrid method is calibrated with the data from US and Bangladesh, which can be applied to other regions with slight modifications. In seismic risk assessment, the building vulnerability assessment depends on data from many sources, amongst which, the past earthquake damage survey data are of major concern. Existence of various vulnerability assessment approaches, raises concern over worldwide to have a simplistic effective vulnerability assessment tool, to be useful world-wide. The authors believe that the proposed hybrid method provides a robust basis for vulnerability interpretation and recommended future studies of vulnerability assessment method to combine more consistent and wider descriptions of the parameters for use in seismic risk assessment. Reference: Alam M.J., M. Abdur Rahman Bhuiyan, and M.Roqibul Islam(2006) Seismic Structural Assessment of Damaged Chittagong Public Library Building During 27 July 2003 Earthquake 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering Taipei, Taiwan Alam M. N., K. Mashfiq, A. Rahman, and S. M. Haque , (2010)Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings in heritage and non-heritage areas in the older part of Dhaka city, 3rd International Earthquake Symposium, Bangladesh Dhaka, March 5-6, 2010, ISBN: 978-984-8725-01-6 ATC (1987), Evaluating the seismic resistance of existing buildings, ATC 14. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. ASCE (2003), Sismic evaluation of buildings, ASCE/SEI 31-03. Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. ASCE (1988a). Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-154, Washington, D.C. ATC 21 (2004), Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards training manual, ATC-21-T, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Washington, DC ASCE (1998), Handbook for the seismic evaluation of buildings a pre-standard, American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 310 Report, Washington D.C. ASCE (2003), Seismic evaluation of buildings, ASCE/SEI 31-03, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. ATC-21 (1998), Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook, Applied Technology Council, Redwood city, CA, USA. AUDMP (2007), www.adpc.net/audmp/audmp.html Benayoun, R., Roy, B. Sussmann, B. (1966) ELECTRE: une mà ©thode pour quiderle choix en presence de points de vue multiples. Sema (Metra International), Dir. Sci., Note de Travail No. 49, Paris, France. Bertogg M, Hitz L, Schmid E (2002), Vulnerability functions derived from loss data for insurance risk modelling: findings from recent earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the twelfth European conference on earthquake engineering (paper 281), London, September 2002 BIS (2002), IS 1893 (Part I)- Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures part I general provisions and buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, Del Re D, Peterken O, (2002), Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance, J Seismol 6:431- 36 Building Seismic Safety Council National Institute of Building Sciences (BSSC) (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions and commentary for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, 2003 Edition (FEMA 450). Washington New Zealand Government (2004), Building Act, Wellington, New Zealand Calvi, G. M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J. J., Restrepo-Velez, L., Crowley, H. (2006). Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(3), 75-104. Carvalho E, Coelho E, Campos-Costa A, Sousa M, Candeias P (2002), Vulnerability evaluation of residential buildings in Portugal. In: Proceedings of the twelfth European conference on earthquake engineering (paper 696), London, September 2002 Codermatz, R., Nicolich, R., Slejko, D. (2003). Seismic risk assessments and GIS technology: Applications to infrastructures in the friuli-venezia giulia region (NE italy). Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32(11), 1677-1690. CDMP (2009), http://www.cdmp.org.bd/ C.L. Hwang, K. Yoon (1981), Multiple attribute decision making, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Comità © Europà ©en de Normalization, CEN (2004), Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance- Part 1. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1). Brussels Cook S. (1999), Evaluation of non-structural earthquake damage to buildings in southwestern British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1999. D. DAyala and A. W. Charleson,(2002), Review of seismic strengthening guidelines for R. C. buildings in developing countries, 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering Paper Reference 820 Department of General Services (2002), Seismic safety inventory of California public schools, a Report to the Governor of California and the California State Legislature D. L. Olson (2004), Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models, Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 40, (7) 21-727, 2004. FEMA (1985) An action plan for reducing earthquake hazards for existing buildings, FEMA 90. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA( 1992), NEHRP handbook for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings, FEMA-178. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA 310 (1998), Handbook for the seismic evaluation

Analysis of Peter Brimelows Thank You for Smoking? Essay example -- S

Analysis of Peter Brimelow's Thank You for Smoking Growing up with a best friend who has been smoking since middle school, I have seen many of the negative effects it has on a person. Football was a passion and way of life for Andy; however, smoking caused him to struggle with breathing while running up and down the field. He would cut down on his daily amount of cigarettes before and during the season, but cutting down was little help for him. Not only was his breathing affected by smoking, but he also had yellow teeth, smoker’s cough, and would get â€Å"the shakes† when in need of a smoke. The essay â€Å"Thank You for Smoking,† written by Peter Brimelow, is far from an influential essay on why people should smoke. Through this essay, he gives many examples as to why â€Å"smoking might be, in some small ways, good for you† (Brimelow 141). A lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, osteoarthritis, and different types of cancer are examples of benefits of smoking given by Brimelow (Brimelow 142). Brimelow compares smoking to driving cars because driving also has risks and can be a cause of death. Would you consider that a wise comparison? If he were going to compare smoking to driving, he would be better off comparing it to something along the same lines such as drinking and chewing tobacco. At least these are also optional habits like smoking, where people chose to do it. Very little, if any, good can come from these, whereas driving is a common action in which accidents can happen. Health Issues: Brimelow states in his article â€Å"Smoking seems also to offer subtler health rewards to balance against its undisputed risks† (Brimelow 142). A few of these include a reduced risk of diseases such as Par... .... This is why we have freedom, and everyone has the right to decide for themselves. Works Cited: Action on Smoking and Health. 4 Oct. 2003 http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact02.html American Lung Association. â€Å"Smoking and Pregnancy.† June 2003. 5 Oct. 2003. http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/pregnancy_factsheet99.html Clark, I. L. (1998). â€Å"Thank You for Smoking†¦?† The genre of argument. Boston:Thompson/Heinle. P. 141-143 Kovac, Rachel. "Study Shows Ignorance of Smoking Hazards." Knoxville News-Sentinel (2003) : Lexus-Nexus. 1 July 2003. McFadden, J. Introduction to Toulmin. Lecture. (Sept. 12 & 14). Buena Vista University. Storm Lake, IA. "Pregnancy and Childbirth," Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2003 http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761557963&pn=1 ¶=3#p3 1997-2003.

Snow Writing :: Writing Nature Writers Essays

Snow Writing When this project first came to my attention, I thought long and hard about what I would use to write and write on. I was sure I could come up with something creative and different. After a half hour of deep, deep thought, I came to the conclusion that I was going to take the easy way out and just write in snow with my finger. I was ashamed, but it needed to be done. It’s hard to imagine walking up to a large open field in the bitter cold to write or read the latest Hunter S. Thompson book, an issue of The Onion, or this very paper. In fact, it would be downright stupid. Yet, this was the technology that I choose to use. After writing the lengthy demonstration piece (I wrote â€Å"Demo†), it became abundantly clear that the process which writing technology has undergone has been nothing short of spectacular. The first part of the process is to understand that not only do you need to make a writing tool, but something to use the tool on. There are two things that someone needs to take into account when doing this: 1) permanence and 2) portability. Each rival each other in importance and both are vital to the process. We must first look at the pros and cons of each part of the equation: the snow and the finger. Starting with what was written on - the snow - you must look at what it does offer to you. First of all, snow is abundant in certain areas. From about Ohio and up the United States is covered in the stuff for a good few months a year. However, the drawback is that the snow is far from permanent. With the onset of warmer weather, the master works of the season would be lost forever. Snow has a natural fluidity to it which makes it easier to write in. It is also this fluidity of the snow that also causes the major problem in snow writing: the bunching of snow.

Boston Tea Party Essay

Attention Getter: You probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you that a drug that creates the same signaling activity in the brain as cocaine is sold legally on almost every street corner across the nation. This is a fact however, and the drug is caffeine. It is one of the main ingredients in coffee, and is currently the most frequently used recreational drug in the world. Establish Credibility: I personally consider myself a coffee expert, and have been drinking at least one cup of coffee almost every morning for the last three years. Relate to the audience: Now, I know not every one of you drinks coffee but as you can tell by the multiple Dutch Bros, Starbucks, and other coffee shops around town it is a very big part of our culture today. Preview: Throughout the course of this speech, I will discuss three major points relating to coffee. First, I will give some information on the history of coffee and when it first came into human culture, followed by the positive health benefits and some of the negative health risks associated with coffee. [First of all, I’m going to talk a little bit about the historical side of coffee and how it first got popular in our culture. ] Body I. Main Point: To understand why coffee is such a big part of modern day society, we must first understand where it originated. A. Sub-point: Coffee was first cultivated on the Arabian Peninsula in the 15th century. 1. Supporting details: Not only were the Arab’s the first to cultivate coffee, but they also were the first to trade coffee. 2. By the 16th century, the popularity of coffee was already expanding and Persia, Egypt, Syria and Turkey all had discovered about the amazing beverage. B. Sub-point: By the 17th century coffee was still gaining notoriety around the world, however it was still not a household favorite as it as today. 1. Supporting Details: Coffee houses started sprouting up everywhere in the 1700’s, however tea was still the most popular drink around. 2. In 1773 a heavy tax on tea was inflicted by King George, which led to a pretty famous revolt called The Boston Tea Party. 3. Since people couldn’t afford tea after the tax, coffee quickly took over as the most popular morning beverage across the world, and remains the most popular today. [Although coffee has been drank for hundreds of years, the majority of its health benefits have only recently been discovered in the last few decades. ] II. Main Point: The majority of people drink coffee just to get through each day, however it does have many positive benefits to your health. A. Sub-point: Within just the last few years alone there has been research done showing that coffee may protect against type 2 diabetes, liver cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease. 1. Supporting details: According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, liver cancer is the ninth leading cause of cancer and coffee has been shown to reduce risk of liver cancer by 40%. 2. Drinking coffee reduces the risk of diabetes as well, which is a common risk factor of liver cancer. B. Sub-point: One of the other medical uses of coffee is in preventing Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. 1. Supporting details: The most common neurodegenerative disease and number 1 cause of dementia is Alzheimer’s. 2. There is no cure for Alzheimer’s, however it has been shown that coffee drinkers have up to a 65% lower risk of getting the disease. [You might be thinking coffee is a miracle drink after some of those statistics, however it also has many negative effects on health as well. ] III. Main Point: There are a great deal of health issues that can result from drinking coffee, with some of the most common being addiction, insomnia and increased blood pressure. A. Sub-point: As a college student, one of the last things you will ever want to experience is insomnia, but it is a regular side effect of coffee. 1. Supporting details: By blocking certain receptors in the brain, coffee prevents chemicals that induce sleep from being used. B. Sub-point: Another widely studied effect of coffee, specifically caffeine, is how addictive it is. 1. Supporting details: Caffeine stimulates the central nervous system and regular use will result in a physical dependence. 2. If a regular coffee drinker doesn’t have their daily cup, they will feel fatigued, irritable, and experience headaches within the first 24 hours. Conclusion 1. Transition Signal: In conclusion, coffee isn’t for everyone but if you do choose to consume it, you at least now know how it affects you. 2. Summary of Main Points: Throughout this speech we looked at how coffee first gained popularity in the human race, some of it’s positive health benefits as well as some of the negatives. 3. Call to Action: Even if you’ve never been a fan of coffee, try drinking a cup before your next study session and see if you still don’t like it. 4. Memorable end: Although it may be addicting and cause serious potential health problems, there must be something special about coffee considering over half of adults in the U. S. drink it daily. References: 1) â€Å"Coffee Acts Just like Cocaine, Says Scientist. † BeverageDaily. com. Beverage Daily, 02 Sept. 2002. Web. 12 Nov. 2014. 2) Goldschein, Eric. â€Å"11 Incredible Facts About The Global Coffee Industry. † Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 14 Nov. 2011. Web. 12 Nov. 2014. 3) Gunnars, Kris. â€Å"13 Proven Health Benefits of Coffee† Authority Nutrition. N. p. , n. d. Web. 12 Nov. 2014. 4) â€Å"The History Of Coffee. † – National Coffee Association. NCA, n. d. Web. 12 Nov. 2014. 5) Stromberg, Joseph. â€Å"This Is How Your Brain Becomes Addicted to Caffeine. † Smithsonian. N. p. , 9 Aug. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. 6) Van Dam, Rob. â€Å"Ask the Expert: Coffee and Health. † The Nutrition Source. Harvard School of Public Health, n. d. Web. 09 Nov. 2014. 7) Weber, Belinda. â€Å"Coffee Consumption Cuts Liver Cancer Risk. † Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.