No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Different cost effective design methods have been developed to reduce the cost of buildings, of which structural optimum design methods and cost effective designs methods using estimating data, are the most common. However, there is no record of the use of cost effective design methods in practice. Consequently, potential benefits of such methods remain untapped. This research evaluated the cost savings through cost effective design methods, identified difficulties involved in their use and examined favourable conditions for the implementation of such methods in design practice. The research aimed at investigating whether or not the opinion among practising designers, (structural engineers and architects) that "cost benefits through cost effective designs are insignificant and methods are not practical" is justified. Previous researchers have developed cost effective design methods, but very little has been done to change the opinion of building designers regarding these methods. A proper evaluation of cost effective design methods and a study of the design process are therefore necessary to gain the attention of designers in practice. The opinion among practising designers is that cost savings through optimum methods are less than 10% of elemental cost and 1% of total building cost. The analysis of cost savings of 22 historical buildings have shown that this is not the case. Optimum design methods using the computer to find the minimum cost from a set of feasible designs were developed for reinforced concrete elements; slabs, beams, columns and independent footing foundations. These optimum methods were applied to the design of 22 historical buildings. More than 10% of elemental cost savings were observed. 2.91% of total building cost can be saved using optimum methods for design of reinforced concrete elements, which is more than 45% of the total design fee of a building. The study proved that for a given building, probabilities of total building cost saving exceeding 1%, 2% and 3% are 0.96, 0.79 and 0.47 respectively. Design and build contracts provide not only a facility but also an incentive, to designers to use cost effective design methods. On the contrary, percentage fee contracts act as a disincentive. Therefore, the legal procedures in design practice, may sometimes serve as obstacles for the use of cost effective design methods. Furthermore, current design practice lacks motivating factors to designers to use cost effective design methods. Therefore building construction industry may need to pay additional fee to get benefits from cost effective design methods.

No description available.

Rotavirus diarrhea causes a disproportionate amount of the world's childhood mortality. Approximately 611,000 children die each year due to complications of rotavirus infections. In this study we evaluate rotavirus vaccination using four different methods. We look at the epidemiological history of the disease and vaccination against the disease, then we evaluate the effectiveness of vaccination first using a cost-benefit analysis, then using an ordinary differential equations based model, and last through computer simulations in Matlab. We do a traditional cost-benefit analysis as suggested by the Public Health Service of the United States to evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing a rotavirus vaccination program in Egypt with the RotaRix vaccine. Our results show that given the current standards of care in Egypt, it would be more cost-beneficial for Egypt not to use the rotavirus vaccine. We formulate a model of the spread of rotavirus diarrhea based on a continuous time ordinary differential equations model of two viral strains of influenza. We expand this influenza model to include the case of co-infection. We further expand the original model to explore the effects of vaccination. We used computer simulations to further analyze the effect of vaccination as a control method. These simulations show that the spread of the disease is highly sensitive to the levels of cross-immunity between the strains, and the level of vaccination in the population. We found that the dynamics observed in the new model are similar to the dynamics observed in the original model. We found the minimum levels of vaccination necessary in this model to eradicate severe rotavirus disease and minimum levels of cross-immunity between the strains

Investment in electricity is a key element of the development process. Its importance is reflected in the growing recognition, since the 1960's, that investing in electricity provides and enhances knowledge, attitude and motivation necessary for economic and social development. The development and utilization of electricity create an economic atmosphere that has direct and indirect benefit for the economy. The direct impact is felt by most households who are able to affect households tasks more rapidly than before and save much time and effort in the process. Electricity also has an indirect impact on development. It improves the quality of life of the community by raising their income. The results of the survey at Katlehong confirms that the availability of electricity as a basic need appears to be far from satisfactory. Areas without electricity experience major social and economic costs as a result of dependency on costly and inconvenient energy sources. / Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 1993. / Economics / unrestricted

Reducing inefficiencies without compromising quality is a major challenge facing college and university leaders. Measuring efficiency and quality is often addressed through various statistical analyses (Archibald & Feldman, 2008; Flegg, Allen, & Thurlow, 2004). Researchers have also applied cost benefit analysis to measure efficiency. Collaboration is one mechanism used by university personnel to enhance efficiency and quality (Wiley, 2008). The literature on collaboration includes collaboration in research (Rigby & Elder, 2005), teaching (Kezar, 2005; Letterman & Dugan, 2004), and cross-divisional collaboration, learning communities (O’Connor & Associates, 2003). Residential colleges (where faculty live and work in residence halls) are another form of collaboration emerging across college campuses. A thorough review of the literature reveals no studies exploring the costs and benefits of residential colleges. The purpose of this study was to understand and describe the costs and benefits of residential colleges. The theoretical framework for this study was based on Nas’ (1996) cost benefit analysis framework. Data were collected through 60-90 minute telephone interviews with live-in faculty leaders of residential colleges and chief housing officers on campuses that offer residential colleges. Participants came from 11 different campus and included 12 chief housing officers and 11 faculty members. There are substantial institutional and individual costs associated with starting and maintaining a residential college. Institutional costs include departmental financial implications for facility renovations, staffing, and faculty incentives. Faculty principals and students bear individual costs. Impact on research, intensive time requirements for the position, and lack of recognition are costs affecting faculty. Residential college (RC) students incur additional fees and non-RC students are impacted by a diminished residential experience (as compared to their RC peers). Conversely, there are significant benefits resulting from residential colleges that may mitigate these costs. Institutions benefit from improved faculty pedagogy, expanded learning opportunities for students, and increased faculty connection to the institution. Individual benefits include positive faculty and student relationships (for faculty and students), increased understanding of students (for faculty), and faculty housing and other related incentives. / Ph. D.

Reducing inefficiencies without compromising quality is a major challenge facing college and university leaders. Measuring efficiency and quality is often addressed through various statistical analyses (Archibald and Feldman, 2008; Flegg, Allen, and Thurlow, 2004). Researchers have also applied cost benefit analysis to measure efficiency. Collaboration is one mechanism used by university personnel to enhance efficiency and quality (Wiley, 2008). The literature on collaboration includes collaboration in research (Rigby and Elder, 2005), teaching (Kezar, 2005; Letterman and Dugan, 2004), and cross-divisional collaboration, learning communities (O'Connor and Associates, 2003). Residential colleges (where faculty live and work in residence halls) are another form of collaboration emerging across college campuses. A thorough review of the literature reveals no studies exploring the costs and benefits of residential colleges. The purpose of this study was to understand and describe the costs and benefits of residential colleges. The theoretical framework for this study was based on Nas' (1996) cost benefit analysis framework. Data were collected through 60-90 minute telephone interviews with live-in faculty leaders of residential colleges and chief housing officers on campuses that offer residential colleges. Participants came from 11 different campus and included 12 chief housing officers and 11 faculty members. There are substantial institutional and individual costs associated with starting and maintaining a residential college. Institutional costs include departmental financial implications for facility renovations, staffing, and faculty incentives. Faculty principals and students bear individual costs. Impact on research, intensive time requirements for the position, and lack of recognition are costs affecting faculty. Residential college (RC) students incur additional fees and non-RC students are impacted by a diminished residential experience (as compared to their RC peers). Conversely, there are significant benefits resulting from residential colleges that may mitigate these costs. Institutions benefit from improved faculty pedagogy, expanded learning opportunities for students, and increased faculty connection to the institution. Individual benefits include positive faculty and student relationships (for faculty and students), increased understanding of students (for faculty), and faculty housing and other related incentives. / Ph. D.

no