Reliability of buildings in service limit state for maximum horizontal displacements

Brazilian design code ABNT NBR6118:2003 - Design of Concrete Structures - Procedures - [1] proposes the use of simplified models for the consideration of non-linear material behavior in the evaluation of horizontal displacements in buildings. These models penalize stiffness of columns and beams, representing the effects of concrete cracking and avoiding costly physical non-linear analyses. The objectives of the present paper are to investigate the accuracy and uncertainty of these simplified models, as well as to evaluate the reliabilities of structures designed following ABNT NBR6118:2003[1&] in the service limit state for horizontal displacements. Model error statistics are obtained from 42 representative plane frames. The reliabilities of three typical (4, 8 and 12 floor) buildings are evaluated, using the simplified models and a rigorous, physical and geometrical non-linear analysis. Results show that the 70/70 (column/beam stiffness reduction) model is more accurate and less conservative than the 80/40 model. Results also show that ABNT NBR6118:2003 [1] design criteria for horizontal displacement limit states (masonry damage according to ACI 435.3R-68(1984) [10]) are conservative, and result in reliability indexes which are larger than those recommended in EUROCODE [2] for irreversible service limit states.

Cross-national differences in questionnaires do not necessarily reflect comparable differences in disorder prevalence

To examine whether the widely used Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) can validly be used to compare the prevalence of child mental health problems cross nationally. We used data on 29,225 5- to 16-year olds in eight population-based studies from seven countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Britain, India, Norway, Russia and Yemen. Parents completed the SDQ in all eight studies, teachers in seven studies and youth in five studies. We used these SDQ data to calculate three different sorts of "caseness indicators" based on (1) SDQ symptoms, (2) SDQ symptoms plus impact and (3) an overall respondent judgement of 'definite' or 'severe' difficulties. Respondents also completed structured diagnostic interviews including extensive open-ended questions (the Development and Well-Being Assessment, DAWBA). Diagnostic ratings were all carried out or supervised by the DAWBA's creator, working in conjunction with experienced local professionals. As judged by the DAWBA, the prevalence of any mental disorder ranged from 2.2% in India to 17.1% in Russia. The nine SDQ caseness indicators (three indicators times three informants) explained 8-56% of the cross-national variation in disorder prevalence. This was insufficient to make meaningful prevalence estimates since populations with a similar measured prevalence of disorder on the DAWBA showed large variations across the various SDQ caseness indicators. The relationship between SDQ caseness indicators and disorder rates varies substantially between populations: cross-national differences in SDQ indicators do not necessarily reflect comparable differences in disorder rates. More generally, considerable caution is required when interpreting cross-cultural comparisons of mental health, particularly when these rely on brief questionnaires.