Al hilo de la discusión de Alberto Montaner con Haroldo Dilla, me pregunto cómo hay gente con dos dedos de frente que pueda defender el comunismo. Aunque todo se haga dentro de un marco teórico, la realidad es que el comunismo sólo ha traído muerte, destrucción, pobreza y sufrimiento, entre otras muchas cosas deplorables.
Da pena escuchar a muchas personas decir que se perdió el equilibrio cuando cayó el muro de Berlín. O atacar a las democracias en las que pueden expresarse libremente y disfrutar de una vida cómoda, Reinaldo Arenas se lo recordaba aquí.
Supongo que las ideas simples y utópicas del comunismo son más fáciles de entender y hacen pensar en un supuesto mundo más feliz y fácil. Aunque la realidad es muy distinta, solo hace falta ver los ejemplos de Corea del Norte y Cuba.
Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited. 2003. M.J.N.Priestley
Descargar en PDF.
Ten years ago, we critically examined a number of the fundamental principles on which the seismic design of structures is based. It was suggested that the current emphasis on strength-based seismic design, based on elastic structural characteristics, modified by ductility capacity or behaviour factors leads designers in directions that are not always rational. The “holy grail” of maximized energy absorption was shown to be at least a mixed blessing. It was concluded that in many cases current practices, particularly as entrenched in design codes, were based on unrealistic concepts and approximations – which we termed, with some hyperbole, myths and fallacies.
The more relevant points made in the original paper are briefly summarized in this chapter. In subsequent chapters the arguments are revisited and re-examined in the light of ten years research and design development to determine what, if any, progress has occurred in developing more rational design approaches.
Más documentos sobre Estructuras.
Ten years ago, we critically examined a number of the fundamental principles on which the seismic design of structures is based. It was suggested that the current emphasis on strength-based seismic design, based on elastic structural characteristics, modified by ductility capacity or behaviour factors leads designers in directions that are not always rational. The “holy grail” of maximized energy absorption was shown to be at least a mixed blessing. It was concluded that in many cases current practices, particularly as entrenched in design codes, were based on unrealistic concepts and approximations – which we termed, with some hyperbole, myths and fallacies.
The more relevant points made in the original paper are briefly summarized in this chapter. In subsequent chapters the arguments are revisited and re-examined in the light of ten years research and design development to determine what, if any, progress has occurred in developing more rational design approaches.
Más documentos sobre Estructuras.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)