José António Raimundo Mendes da Silva

Performance of masonry enclosure walls: lessons learned from recent earthquakes

This paper discusses the issue of performance requirements and construction criteria for masonry enclosure and infill walls. Vertical building enclosures in European countries are very often constituted by non-load-bearing masonry walls, using horizontally perforated clay bricks. These walls are generally supported and confined by a reinforced concrete frame structure of columns and beams/slabs. Since these walls are commonly considered to be nonstructural elements and their influence on the structural response is ignored, their consideration in the design of structures as well as their connection to the adjacent structural elements is frequently negligent or insufficiently detailed. As a consequence, nonstructural elements, as for wall enclosures, are relatively sensitive to drift and acceleration demands when buildings are subjected to seismic actions. Many international standards and technical documents stress the need for design acceptability criteria for nonstructural elements, however they do not specifically indicate how to prevent collapse and severe cracking, and how to enhance the overall stability in the case of moderate to high seismic loading. Furthermore, a review of appropriate measures to improve enclosure wall performance and both in-plane and out-of-plane integrity under seismic actions is addressed.

The DISCOVERY PENTA study: a DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL‐C Value – an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY compared with atorvastatin

ABSTRACT Background: International guidelines emphasize the need to achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) levels in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, many patients with hypercholesterolemia fail to achieve LDL‐C goals on treatment. Objective: The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin for enabling patients to achieve National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL‐C goals. Secondary objectives were European LDL‐C goal achievement, changes in the lipid profile, and safety. Research design and methods: This 12‐week, multicenter, multinational, randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg with atorvastatin 10 mg in statin-naïve and switched patients with primary hypercholesterolemia from Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Portugal, and Venezuela. Results: A total of 1124 patients with similar baseline characteristics were randomized to the two treatment groups. After 12 weeks of treatment, a significantly greater percentage of patients receiving rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 10 mg achieved NCEP ATP III LDL‐C goals (71.2% vs 61.4%, p < 0.001), 1998 European LDL‐C goals (73.5% vs 59.2%, p < 0.001) and 2003 European LDL‐C goals (58.9% vs 44.6%, p < 0.001). Rosuvastatin treatment was associated with significant reductions in LDL‐C and total cholesterol (TC) and, in statin-naïve patients, a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C) compared with atorvastatin treatment. Both treatments were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events. Clinically significant elevations in creatinine, creatine kinase or hepatic transaminases were low and similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: Rosuvastatin 10 mg is significantly more effective at achieving NCEP ATP III and European LDL‐C goals, lowering LDL‐C and TC in both naïve and switched patients and increasing HDL‐C in naïve patients than atorvastatin 10 mg, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. This study also provides evidence regarding the comparative effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in Latin American and Portuguese populations.

Urban Fire Risk: Evaluation and Emergency Planning

Abstract The management, prevention and mitigation of urban risks are assumed as priority actions within the framework of any rehabilitation and requalification process at the urban scale, particularly in the case of the rehabilitation and refurbishment of old city centres. In the most specific domain of urban safety, seismic and fire risk, which can cause serious consequences, are part of the collective memory of several communities and must be inevitably highlighted. The severity of the resulting damages is a more than valid reason to strongly value prevention, planning and mitigation strategies, limiting their consequences and guaranteeing permanent improvement actions. In the view of the abovementioned, and in the scope of a research project carried out, a new urban fire risk assessment methodology was developed and applied to the old city centre of Seixal. This simplified methodology is based on a preestablished method designated ARICA. Over 500 buildings were assessed using this methodology, and the results were spatially analysed using an integrated geographical information system tool (GIS). It is worth noting that the integration of the risk results into a GIS platform is a valuable step towards the risk mitigation at a urban scale, allowing city councils or regional authorities to plan interventions on the basis of a global spatial view of the site under analysis leading to more accurate and comprehensive risk mitigation strategies that support the requirements of safety and emergency planning in case of urban fire.