Modeling the Impact of Future Climate on Drainage Infrastructures

Research has shown a potential 20% increase in future heavy and extreme precipitation events over the Midwestern States. Drainage infrastructures designed using current design conditions may not be able to convey projected runoffs resulting in flooding and damage to infrastructure. The objective of this paper is to determine the effects of future climate variability on culvert selections in a southwest South Dakota watershed. The scope of the study was defined through a comprehensive literature review. Future climate events were based on a 20% increase in current annual precipitation over the Upper White River Subbasin Watershed. A portion of the White River was modeled to obtain simulated current and future peak discharges for a 10, 25, 50, and 100 year return period using ArcGIS and HEC-HMS. A previously washed out 12 foot CMP culvert on BIA-route 32 was analyzed under each specified return period, using HY-8 and Hydraflow Express, to verify culvert performance. This was compared to the capacity of the current 12 foot x 12 foot – side by side – box culvert following the same procedure. Results indicated the 12 foot CMP culvert was underdesigned for the current 25 year return period; intuitively was also not able to convey the future 25 year return period. The 25 year return period was the main focus of the study because BIA-Route 32 is classified as local and street road (ADT \u3e 100) with a minimum design return period of 25 year precipitation event (SDDOT, 2013). Compared to the 12 foot x 12 foot –side by side xix –box culvert which was able to convey the current 25 and 50 year return periods, but was unable to convey the projected future 25 year return period. The 12 foot x 12 foot – side by side – box culvert being able to convey the current but not the future peak discharges was an indication of future climate having a possible effect on culvert design

Mn(Pt1−x_{1-x}Pdx_{x})5_5P: Isovalent Tuning of Mn Sublattice Magnetic Order

We report the growth and characterization of MnPd$_5$P, a ferromagnet with T$_C$ $\approx$ 295 K, and conduct a substitutional study with its antiferromagnetic analogue MnPt$_5$P. We grow single crystals of MnPd$_5$P and Mn(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_x$)$_5$P by adding Mn into (Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_{x}$)-P based melts. All compounds in the family adopt the layered anti-CeCoIn$_5$ structure with space group P4/mmm, and EDS and XRD results indicate that MnPt$_5$P and MnPd$_5$P form a solid solution. Based on magnetization and resistance data, we construct a T-x phase diagram for Mn(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_x$)$_5$P and demonstrate the antiferromagnetic order found in MnPt$_5$P is extraordinarily sensitive to Pd substitution. At low Pd fractions (x $<$ 0.010), the single antiferromagnetic transition in pure MnPt$_5$P splits into a higher temperature ferromagnetic transition followed on cooling by a lower temperature ferromagnetic to antiferromagnetic transition and then by a re-entrant antiferromagnetic to ferromagnetic transition at lower temperatures. The antiferromagnetic region makes up a bubble that persists to x $\approx$ 0.009 for T $\approx$ 150 K, with all samples x $<$ 0.009 recovering their initial ferromagnetic state with further cooling to base temperature. Over the same low x range we find a non-monotonic change in the room temperature unit cell volume, further suggesting that pure MnPt$_5$P is close to an instability. Once x $>$ 0.010, Mn(Pt$_{1-x}$Pd$_x$)$_5$P undergoes a single ferromagnetic transition. The Curie temperature increases rapidly with x, rising from T$_C$ $\approx$ 197 K at x = 0.013 to a maximum of T$_C$ $\approx$ 312 K for x $\approx$ 0.62, and then falls back to T$_C$ $\approx$ 295 K for pure MnPd$_5$P (x = 1). Given that Pt and Pd are isoelectronic, this work raises questions as to the origin of the extreme sensitivity of the magnetic ground state in MnPt$_5$P upon introducing Pd

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group