| 阅读理解。 |
| During the years after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, structural engineers have been trying hard to solve a question that would otherwise have been completely unthinkable: Can building be designed to stand catastrophic blasts (攻击) by terrorists? Soon after the terrorist attacks on the twin towers, structural engineers from the University at Buffalo and the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) traveled to ground zero as part of a project funded by the National Science Foundation. They spent two days beginning the task of formulating (构思) ideas about how to design such structures and to search for clues on how to do so in buildings that were damaged, but still are standing. "Our objective in visiting ground zero was to go and look at the buildings surrounding the World Trade Center, those buildings that are still standing, but that sustained damage," said M. Bruneau, Ph.D. "Our immediate hope is that we can develop a better understanding as to why those buildings remain standing, while our long-term goal is to see whether earthquake engineering technologies can be married to existing technologies to achieve enhanced performance of buildings in the event of terrorist attacks," he added. Photographs taken by the investigators demonstrate the monumental damage to the World Trade Center towers and buildings nearby. One building a block away from the towers remains standing, but was badly damaged. "This building is many meters away from the World Trade Center and yet we see a column (柱子) there that used to be part of that building," explained A. Whittaker, Ph.D. "The column became a missile that shot across the road, through the window and through the floor." The visit to the area also brought some surprises, according to the engineers. For example, the floor framing (框架) system in one of the buildings was quite strong , allowing floors that were pierced by tons of falling debris (残砾) to survive. "Good framing systems may provide a simple, but reliable strategy for blast resistance," he added. Other strategies may include providing alternate paths for gravity loads in the event that a load-bearing column fails. "We also need a better understanding of the mechanism of collapse," said A. Whittaker. "We need to find out what causes a building to collapse and how you can predict it." A. Reinhorn, Ph.D. noted that "earthquake shaking has led to the collapse of buildings in the past. Solutions developed for earthquake-resistant design may apply to blast engineering and terrorist-resistant design. Part of our mission now is to transfer these solutions and to develop new ones where none exist at present." |
| 1.The question raised in the first paragraph is one _____ . |
| A. that was asked by structural engineers a month ago B. that is too difficult for structural engineers a month ago C. that was never thought of before the terrorist attack D. that terrorists are eager to find a solution to |
| 2. The column mentioned by Dr. Whittaker _____ . |
| A. was part of the building close to the World Trade Center B. was part of the World Trade Center C. was shot through the window and the floor of the World Trade Center D. damaged many buildings near the World Trade Center |
| 3. A surprising discovery made by the investigators during their visit to ground zero is that _____. |
| A. floors in the faraway buildings remained undamaged B. some floor framing systems demonstrate resistance to explosion C. complex floor framing systems are more blast resistant D. floors in one of the buildings were pierced by tons of debris |
| 4. What Dr. Reinhorn said in the last paragraph may imply all the following EXCEPT that _____. |
| A. blast engineers should develop new solutions for terror-resistant design B. blast engineering can borrow technologies developed for terror-resistant design C. solutions developed for earthquake-resistant design may apply to terrorist-resistant design D. blast engineering emerges as a totally new branch of science |