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

Article on How Teenagers Spend Their Free Time

What do teenagers do in their spare time? They are on Facebook! This is Bristol FollowWednesday, November 10, 2010 WHAT do we teenagers do in our spare time? Hang round by shops with our hoods up, knifes in pocket, shouting abuse and getting drunk? Yes, all those grown ups would like to think that but, we normally just go out to have fun – go to the cinema, shopping and places like that! Or we are on Facebook. We will spend our lives, sharing our lives, on Facebook. From posting pictures, writing statuses, and joining funny yet sometimes offensive groups or fan pages.But, have you ever thought, that maybe, you could get into heaps of trouble from those little comments? Facebook can get quite abusive. With us posting pictures, which, yes, aren't very modest of ourselves, with skimpy outfits, and slapped-on make-up. But the nasty comments, are where we draw the line. Consider this, once it's on there, will your digital footprint ever be erased? Imogen Rodgers, Lucy Perry, Bethan y Seymour, Year 9, St Bede's CAN Facebook fight to stay on our favourites or is it time to ignore the friend you don't like?It's most people's way of life – an addiction. With no less than 400 million active users Facebook is ranked the number one social networking site worldwide but with so many others, like Twitter, Bebo, MySpace, Flickr, Google buzz, Habbo, Friendster, the list is endless, Will Facebook keep its crown or will one of its enemies take over? At the moment 35 million Facebook users update their status each day, this shows how popular it is. The site's publicity and popularity levels are soaring, but over the past four years another site has had quite a bit of the spotlight too.Twitter was launched in 2006 and with its appeal of getting to hear what celebrities have to say directly from them and reading their every â€Å"tweet† it seemed like there was a new social fish in town. However, even though it may seem like Facebook is starting to slip away, no other site could take over from what stole our hearts first. Elsie Bradley, The City Academy, Bristol DO you have Facebook? Some people feel that entertainment is sitting in front of a computer and watching the lives of others dissolve into this new cyber life.How many times have you seen a message saying â€Å"I'm bored! â€Å"? They make me want to scream, â€Å"THEN GO AND DO SOMETHING ELSE! † But the truth is that our lives are now revolving around these social networking sites. Those who don't have such groups as Facebook are constantly under peer pressure to create an account and get sucked in. Especially if you don't have an account, you have no control whatsoever of what pictures of you are being pinned up on the internet.All those pictures that you thought your â€Å"friends† deleted – they're all up on Facebook. Sarah Orr, Amy McGrath, and Evie Gowie, Year 9, St Bede's I, LIKE many other people really enjoy going home and using the computer maybe to play games, send an email or go on Facebook but are we getting too addicted to Facebook? Do you really need to go on Facebook, when you have just spent a day at school talking to those people? Emily Shiga, Banor Kofi-Ofuafor and Jess Chapman, Year 9, St Bede's

Forensic Psychology Essay

1.How often is the insanity defense used and how successful is it? I would like to answer this question, with the presentation of my opinion and the performed research. It is within my opinion, that the insanity defense is used over excessively and is taking part in almost every defense to any crime. Offenders seem to have the knowledge to the use of this defense and will often provide a plea to guilty by insanity or temporary insanity, within the faith, to receive a reduced sentence. While insanity has to be a proven fact and a psychologist has to conduct a variety of tests to confirm the offender is suffering from a mental incompetence or insanity, most offenders have the ability to mislead or deceive psychologists to receive the evaluation they seek. Such action, if discovered, would actually prove the sanity of such offenders, but in most cases, it cannot be ascertained. The success of such defense is, within my view, very effective. The performed research is revealing a different answer. According to the St. Joseph News Press (2007), it has stated the opposite to my opinion. This article within a study of the national mental health institute claim’s; â€Å"the insanity defense plea is used in less than one (1) percent of criminal cases in the United States and less than a quarter of those pleas are successful†. Retrieved from; St. Joseph News Press (2007). With these opinions and views in combination, one would have to conduct further studies on this subject, to establish the correct answer. Everyone has different sentiments, within the use of the insanity defense and the successfulness of such validation. 2. Identify and discuss the major criticisms of the insanity defense. It is my belive,the major criticism of the insanity defense could be the establishment of prove to the claim of insanity. More often, offenders will try to make use of this defense for the hope of receiving a reduced sentence or the sentence to receive institutional care. According to my research, there are three (3) major criticisms within the insanity defense. The Insanity defense is mentioned as confusing to the psychiatric and legal concept. Furthermore, it is explained that the word â€Å"insane† is more of a legal word, then a medical term, and therefor to prove a person or a criminal insane, one must find the mental condition, of a criminal, severely impaired to the point of losing one’s free will. A psychiatrist may be or may not able to determine such illness, and a jury’s decision solely based on a psychiatrists’ opinion may be grounded on unreliable evidence. Retrieved from; West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008). 2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008). 3. This last criticism, is turned to the rich and wealthy criminals, who make use of the insanity plea. It is argued; â€Å"only wealthy defendant have the ability to retain a high-priced psychiatrist, who may be able to declare the defendant insane with the performed examination†. It also is believed, people who have less monetary funds and depend on the defense of a public defender, will not receive the same quality of defense, and they are also unable to receive the same value within the insanity exam. Such critic is based on the suggestion, that the insanity defense should be eliminated. Retrieved from; West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008). 3. When a mentally ill person is convicted and incarcerated, what are some of the difficulties in providing appropriate psychological treatment for these offenders? The difficulties in providing appropriate care, to a incarcerated mentally ill person, would stand to the inappropriate care and knowledge of the staff or facility personnel, to the condition of the mentally ill. A prison or jail is not equipped nor can such establishment provide the correct treatment to the mentally ill. To take in consideration the staff and the special medical treatment such person would require, every day, while in such confinement. But the alternative to this problem is stated in: Wrightsman’s Psychology and the Legal System, 6e,(2011) in which it is proposed; â€Å"When defendants are found incompetent to stand trial, they can be committed for a period of treatment designed to restore their competence†. And also; â€Å"for dealing with the unrestorably incompetent criminal defendant include her or his waiving the right to be found incompetent to proceed to trial and using a special form of commitment for incompetent defendants who are judged at a provisional trial to be guilty of the crimes with which they are chargedâ€Å". Retrieved from; Wrightsman’s Psychology and the Legal System, 6e, pg; 249 (2011). It is my believe, the above suggested method, would be the better approach to the incarceration of incompetent or the mentally ill offenders.

The Legacy Of The Vietnam War - 1832 Words

The Vietnam War is widely regarded as the lowest point in the history of U.S. foreign affairs. It mercilessly dragged an unwilling country on a fatal ride for twenty years, all while receiving low approval ratings and high funding. The Vietnam conflict served as an optimum environment for the virus of controversy. No one has more experience with controversy than Heinz Alfred Kissinger. He is the ultimate pragmatist, as embodying his philosophy of realpolitik, a diplomatic ideology based on utilitarianism rather than international ethical standards. When one’s political calling card downplays the role of ethics in diplomacy, that individual is bound to garner a high profile reputation. Kissinger himself has lamented the national predicament during this conflict—squeezed between the ultimate rock, his duty to keep peace, and hard place, his duty to act with the approval of the American people. This predicament was rooted in an omnipresent opposition to Communism, as was America’s role in the entire Cold War. Cold War politics were politics of fear. That fear drove competition, which bred a certain variety of leader – a logical, calculating politician with regard for nothing but his country’s success. To avoid an uncontrollable spread of Communism through the westernized world, some moral casualties were strewn about the wayside. However, the American public had no trouble rolling up their collective sleeves to back this forward-thinking activist. In more recent years, someShow MoreRelatedThe Legacy of the Vietnam War2297 Words   |  10 PagesThe Legacy of the Vietnam War The Legacy of the Vietnam War University of Phoenix The Legacy of the Vietnam War The Vietnam War (1965-1975) was fought between the North and South Vietnam. The North was called Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the South was the Republic of Vietnam which was supported by the United States. The Vietnam War brought so many mixed emotions, fear from communism, and many lost lives. The Vietnam War was also very costly the war had spending over $140 billion dollarsRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Vietnam War1113 Words   |  5 PagesThe Vietnam War, similar to the past wars broke down, had an enduring financial legacy because of the expanded levels of government consumption which was financed by expansions in tax collection from 1968 to 1970. The victory in spending plan deficiencies was driven by both military and non-military expenses in mix with an expansionary financial arrangement that prompted quickly rising swelling in the mid-1970s. Figure six demonstrates the expansion in government spending which crested in 1968. UtilizationRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Vietnam W ar934 Words   |  4 Pages Upon reflecting on the three main generations that comprise the workplace today, a few differences emerge. â€Å"Baby Boomers† grew up in a time when movements were prominent, the Vietnam War occurred, key figures were assassinated, the Watergate Scandal occurred, and television was introduced (Twenge et al., 2010; Schullery, 2013). Overall, â€Å"Baby Boomers† seem to exhibit a distrust of authority, value hard work, and want to enjoy their achievements (Robbins Judge, 2015; Twenge et al., 2010). As suchRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Vietnam War865 Words   |  4 Pages As a society, we are gradually losing faith in our political system. We live in a country casted by a shadowed of dark cloud, clouds of lie and arrogance. The Vietnam War, a war in which we are set up to believe is a war against communist, a war in which the United States felt they could have won, yet didn t. We brainwash our children to believe that the Indians and the pilgrims enjoyed a festive celebration yet we don t acknowledge that we wiped out almost their entire population and take overRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Vietnam War1517 Words   |  7 Pagesthe United States of America. First of all the Vietnam War was taking place during this time. It was a war that took place during the years that followed World War 2. These years were characteristic of the cold war era where political and military tension was still at an all time high between the United States of America and its NATO allies and the eastern allies of the Soviet Union. Therefore when war broke out between North Vietnam and South Vietnam the United States with its very anticommunistRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Vietnam War967 Words   |  4 Pagesyears afterwards. The Vietnam War had been going on for nine years up to this point, and the events that would occur during 1968 would help solidify anti-war sentiments. One of these events is the Tet Offensive, which occurred on January 30th, a campaign that targeted strategically important cites, all major US bases, and the Saigon embassy. While the losses were much heavier on the enemy side, the effects on the ARVN and the US army were more severe, with the realities of the war being exposed (RoarkRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Vietnam War Essay1246 Words   |  5 PagesWhile historians place considerable focus on his role in the Vietnam War, McNamara also helped shape the U.S.’s greater Cold War strategy. A large component of this included the relatively new field of nuclear politics. He understood the significance of nuclear weapons as a strategic tool for bargaining. Through clear messaging, the weapons could create gains while never actually being fired. However, he also proposed that nucl ear war could be limited, and not inevitably lead to global extinctionRead MoreThe Legacy Of The Vietnam War1691 Words   |  7 Pages1942, in the throes of World War II and the lingering aftershocks of the Great Depression, the movement of social and technological change that Brenhofer experienced was more than a quantitative list of advancements and historical events, but the melding of the two into a continual and formative span of life. The upheavals that Brenhofer would come face to face with in his time were indescribable, whether they be the lasting effects of the Vietnam War and every war that followed, or the events thatRead MoreThe Vietnam War : Nixon s Policy And Legacy Essay1540 Words   |  7 PagesThe Vietnam War: Nixon’s Policy and Legacy The true history of the Vietnam War does not appear to be widely know, and did not begin with the Eisenhower Administration, but in fact actually dates back to 1945 and the end of WWII. The issues first began when the Japanese recognized their lost efforts during WWII and surrendered. This is now as the First Indochina War, which took place between 1946 and continued until 1954. Their surrender left Vietnam vulnerable as they were now any formal nationalRead MoreThe Failure Of Guerilla Warfare Methods During The Vietnam War1369 Words   |  6 PagesGuerilla Warfare Methods in the Vietnam War: An Analysis of the Causality of the â€Å"Counter Insurgency† Governmental Policies and the Presidential Campaign of 1968 This colloquium will define the connection between various sources related to the â€Å"counter insurgency† policies of the American government throughout the 1960s that caused a slow escalation of the Vietnam War in the fight against communist expansion in Southeast Asia. The Campaign of 1968 defines the legacy of president Kennedy â€Å"counter