FRAGILITY OF STANDARD INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES BY A RESPONSE SURFACE BASED METHOD

National and international regulatory standards require industrial risk assessment, taking into account natural hazards including earthquakes, in the framework of Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA). Seismic fragility analysis of industrial components may be carried out similarly as what has been done for buildings, even though some peculiar aspects require the development of specific tools. In the present paper a contribution to the definition of a rational procedure for seismic vulnerability assessment of standardised industrial constructions in a probabilistic framework is given. The method covers a range of components of the same structural type. Seismic reliability formulation for structures is used. Both seismic capacity and demand are considered probabilistic with the latter assessed by dynamic analyses. The application example refers to shell elephant foot buckling of unanchored sliding tanks. A regression-based method is applied to relate fragility curves to parameters varying in the domain of variables for structural design.     

The culture of investment‐led international development: the Chatham House circle (1939–45) and lessons for today

In 1939–45 an economic group for the discussion of postwar economic order was established at Chatham House, gathering a transnational community of economists and scholars at 10 St James Square in London. Papers were written and seminars were held before—and following—the conference held in Bretton Woods in 1944. Polish‐born economist Paul Rosenstein‐Rodan (1902–1985) coordinated the group, which invoked investment‐led growth and new international institutions for development. Chatham House played a role in making sense of, and disseminating, this new culture of international development. To be clear, this ‘new’ culture was not entirely new, and had its roots in the interwar years, including colonial development policy. Nor was Chatham House the only hub of this culture. This article aims at filling a gap in our understanding of the role of economic research done at Chatham House during the Second World War. In addition, by looking to the past, it may also help at broadening our views on how to globally reignite growth today. Policy‐makers seem to have learnt some of the monetary lessons of the 1930s, but not the development ones of the 1940s. This article is based on sources from the Chatham House archive and brings to special attention articles published in International Affairs.