The collapse of building in most cases is associated with loss of life and properties. The incessant failures of building nowadays are so enormous that it has become a serious concern to the professionals in the building industry, clients, governments, and the general public. Most of the times, the architect and engineer who are directly involved in the construction of such building are held responsible for building failures while the geologist's input is neglected. The frequent collapse of some buildings in major cities in Nigeria can be attributed to absence of a geotechnical report on the project site before, during and after the construction exercise. Studies have shown that geotechnical investigation report of a four storey residential building covering 420 m 2 at No. 56 Bola Street, Ebute-Metta, Lagos, that collapsed on 26 th July, 2006 was as a result of the existence of reddish brown silty clayey material and compressible waste material like wood, plastic and nylon occurring from ground surface to about 11 m on which a shallow strip foundation was used. More so, on 1 st July, 2006, another 3-Storey building collapsed along Bank road, Port-Harcourt. The result of the liquid limit, plasticity index, shrinkage potential, moisture content, tri-axial stress range and coefficient of consolidation carried out on the two locations indicates that the soil have low bearing capacity. The collapsed of these buildings were attributed to under design, improper supervision, poor quality construction, poor funding, use of sub-standard construction materials and absence of geo-technical investigation and engagement of non-professionals (quacks). This paper therefore x-rays the causes of building failures in Nigeria and discusses how the solutions to natural and man-made factors can be integrated in order to mitigate or ameliorate future building collapse in Nigeria.
SummaryA cross-over trial of debrisoquine and guanethidine in 32 patients showed that both drugs were equally effective in lowering both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The degree to which they were tolerated by the patients, however, differed greatly. After three months on each drug 18 patients preferred debrisoquine, nine preferred guanethidine, and five showed no particular preference. At current prices the cost of daily treatment to the patient was cheaper with debrisoquine than with guanethidine. IntroductionPublished work shows that both guanethidine and debrisoquine are potent hypotensive agents in the management of moderate to severe cases of hypertension. Though both drugs act on the postganglionic sympathetic nerves, interfering with the release of noradrenaline at their nerve endings, their side effects though similar are not equally severe. Heffernan and Carty (1970) in their initial studies with debrisoquine were impressed with the low incidence of side effects. Though bethanidine, guanethidine, and methyldopa (Prichard et al., 1968) and debrisoquine and methyldopa (Heffernan et al., 1971) have been compared there has been no formal comparative clinical trial between debrisoquine and guanethidine. We therefore made a within-patient comparison of the effectiveness and tolerability of debrisoquine and guanethidine using the principles (with slight modifications) established by Prichard et al. (1968).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.