Profit Limitation Controls Prior to the Present War

In March 2014, four organisations, the Global School (Den Globala Skolan), the Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development (SWEDESD) at Uppsala University, the Swedish National Commission for UNESCO (Svenska Unescorådet) and WWF-Sweden commissioned Anders Jidesjö, senior lecturer and researcher at Linköping University, to undertake a study of the Swedish experience in the domain of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) over the last 10 years by analysing relevant background documentation and reports as well as information gathered through interviews with key informants. This report presents the result of this study. An earlier version served as background document for the "ESD – Call for Action" event on 3 June 2014 (see also below). The current version has benefited from incorporating factual information and insights presented during that event. The report was commissioned in view of the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development, scheduled for 11-12 November in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan. This conference will mark the end of the UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014. The four organisations considered that the official Swedish position at the Nagoya Conference would be strengthened if informed by the experiences and insights of Swedish pre-schools, schools, universities, municipalities and public, private and non-governmental organizations that over the last ten years and longer have engaged in education and learning for sustainable development. The official Swedish position would also be bolstered by having politicians, policy makers and experts reflect on these experiences and formulate recommendations for reinforced policy and accelerated and effective practice and research in the ESD domain. To this effect, the four organizations organized the event "ESD – Call for Action", on 3 June at Blåsenhus, Uppsala University. It brought together 120 representatives of Swedish ESD-related practitioners, researchers and policy makers who together formulated an extensive set of recommendations that are meant to support the Swedish delegation attending the Nagoya Conference. The report and the 3 June recommendations will be made available to the participants of a second event "Making ESD Action Possible", scheduled for 27 August, 2014 at Rosenbad Conference Centre, Stockholm. This event is expected to assemble 140 Swedish ESD-related politicians, policy makers, researchers and practitioners. The combined recommendations formulated by the participants during the two events will be submitted to the official Swedish delegation to the Nagoya Conference. August 2014 Den Globala Skolan (the Global School), Svenska Unescorådet (Swedish National Commission for UNESCO), Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development (SWEDESD) at Uppsala University, WWF-Swede

Teachers developing assessment for learning: impact on student achievement

While it is generally acknowledged that increased use of formative assessment (or assessment for learning) leads to higher quality learning, it is often claimed that the pressure in schools to improve the results achieved by students in externally-set tests and examinations precludes its use. This paper reports on the achievement of secondary school students who worked in classrooms where teachers made time to develop formative assessment strategies. A total of 24 teachers (2 science and 2 mathematics teachers, in each of six schools in two LEAs) were supported over a six-month period in exploring and planning their approach to formative assessment, and then, beginning in September 1999, the teachers put these plans into action with selected classes. In order to compute effect sizes, a measure of prior attainment and at least one comparison group was established for each class (typically either an equivalent class taught in the previous year by the same teacher, or a parallel class taught by another teacher). The mean effect size was 0.32

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semi-elliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT vs. SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semi-elliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT vs. SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application

Significant issues in proof testing: A critical appraisal

Issues which impact on the interpretation and quantification of proof test benefits are reviewed. The importance of each issue in contributing to the extra quality assurance conferred by proof testing components is discussed, particularly with respect to the application of advanced fracture mechanics concepts to enhance the flaw screening capability of a proof test analysis. Items covered include the role in proof testing of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, ductile instability analysis, deterministic versus probabilistic analysis, single versus multiple cycle proof testing, and non-destructive examination (NDE). The effects of proof testing on subsequent service life are reviewed, particularly with regard to stress redistribution and changes in fracture behavior resulting from the overload. The importance of proof test conditions are also addressed, covering aspects related to test temperature, simulation of service environments, test media and the application of real-time NDE. The role of each issue in a proof test methodology is assessed with respect to its ability to: promote proof test practice to a state-of-the-art; aid optimization of proof test design; and increase awareness and understanding of outstanding issues

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semielliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT versus SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application

Circulating endothelial cells are elevated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus independently of HbA1c

n/

The placebo and nocebo effects on peak minute power during incremental arm crank ergometry

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in European Journal of Sport Science on 19 May 2014, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17461391.2013.822564.This investigation aimed to explore the effects of inert sugar-free drinks described as either 'performance enhancing' (placebo) or 'fatigue inducing' (nocebo) on peak minute power (PMP;W) during incremental arm crank ergometry (ACE). Twelve healthy, non-specifically trained individuals volunteered to take part. A single-blind randomised controlled trial with repeated measures was used to assess for differences in PMP;W, oxygen uptake, heart rate (HR), minute ventilation, respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and subjective reports of local ratings of perceived exertion (LRPE) and central ratings of perceived exertion (CRPE), between three separate, but identical ACE tests. Participants were required to drink either 500 ml of a 'sports performance' drink (placebo), a 'fatigue-inducing' drink (nocebo) or water prior to exercise. The placebo caused a significant increase in PMP;W, and a significant decrease in LRPE compared to the nocebo (p=0.01; p=0.001) and water trials (p=0.01). No significant differences in PMP;W between the nocebo and water were found. However, the nocebo drink did cause a significant increase in LRPE (p=0.01). These results suggest that the time has come to broaden our understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects and their potential to impact sports performance.Peer reviewe

Guidelines for Proof Test Analysis

These guidelines integrate state-of-the-art elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) and proof test implementation issues into a comprehensive proof test analysis procedure in the form of a road map which identifies the types of data, fracture mechanics based parameters, and calculations needed to perform flaw screening and minimum proof load analyses of fracture critical components. Worked examples are presented to illustrate the application of the road map to proof test analysis. The state-of-the art fracture technology employed in these guidelines is based on the EPFM parameter, J, and a pictorial representation of a J fracture analysis, called the failure assessment diagram (FAD) approach. The recommended fracture technology is validated using finite element J results, and laboratory and hardware fracture test results on the nickel-based superalloy Inconel 718, the aluminum alloy 2024-T3511, and ferritic pressure vessel steels. In all cases the laboratory specimens and hardware failed by ductile mechanisms. Advanced proof test analyses involving probability analysis and multiple-cycle proof testing (MCPT) are addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided on how to account for the effects of the proof test overload on subsequent service fatigue and fracture behaviors