Matching Items (6)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Civil Engineering
- All Subjects: Sustainability
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
- Resource Type: Text
Description
The 8.1 magnitude earthquake that struck Mexico City in 1985 left 10,000 people dead, and over 400 buildings collapsed. The extent of the damage left behind by this powerful quake has been extensively studied to make improvements to engineering and architectural practices in earthquake-prone areas of the world. Thirty-two years later, on the exact anniversary of the devastating earthquake, Mexico City was once again jolted by a 7.1 magnitude earthquake. Although still significant, the 2017 earthquake collapsed only about a tenth of the buildings collapsed by the 1985 Earthquake, and in turn resulted in a lower death toll. Even though these earthquakes struck in the same seismic region, their effects were vastly different. This thesis completes a comparison between the two earthquakes focusing on the structural impacts including background on Mexico City's unique geology, basic concepts necessary to understand the response of structures to earthquake excitation, and structural failure modes observed in both earthquakes. The thesis will also discuss the earthquake's fundamental differences that led to the discrepancy in structural damage and ultimately in lower death tolls. Of those discussed, is the types of buildings that were targeted and collapsed. In 1985, buildings with 6 or more floors had the highest damage category. Resonance frequencies of these buildings were similar to the resonance frequencies of the subsoil, leading to amplified oscillations, and ultimately in failure. The 2017 earthquake did not have as much distance from the epicenter for the high frequency seismic waves to be absorbed. In contrast, the shorter, faster waves that reached the capital affected smaller buildings, and spared most tall buildings.
ContributorsGonzalez, Diana Laura (Author) / Hjelmstad, Keith (Thesis director) / Ward, Kristen (Committee member) / Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
The loading provisions were compared between the ASCE 7-10 standard and ASCE 7-16 standard. Two different structural models were considered: an office building with a flat roof located in Tempe and a community center with a gable roof located in Flagstaff. The following load types were considered: dead, live, wind, and snow loads. The only major changes between the standards were found in the wind load calculations. The winds loads were reduced by approximately 22% for the office building in Tempe and 37% for the community center in Flagstaff. A structural design was completed for the frame of the Flagstaff community building. There was a 19% reduction in cost from the design using ASCE 7-10 provisions compared to the design utilizing ASCE 7-16 provisions, leading to a saving of $7,599.17. The reduction in loading, and subsequently more cost-effective design, is attributed to the reduction in basic wind speed for the region and consideration of the ground elevation factor. The introduction of the new ASCE 7-16 standard was met with criticism, especially over the increase in specific coefficients in the wind load and seismic load chapters. Proponents of ASCE 7-16 boast that the new chapter on tsunami loads, new maps for various environmental loads, and a new electronic hazard are some of the merits of the newest standard. Others still question whether the complexity of the provisions is necessary and call for further improvements for the wind and seismic provisions. While tension exists in the desire for a simple standard, ASCE 7-16 prioritizes in having its provisions provide economical and reliable results. More consideration could be devoted to developing a more convenient standard for users. Regardless, engineering professionals should be able to adapt alongside newly developed practices and newly discovered data.
ContributorsCajegas, Cyam Joshua Dato (Author) / Rajan, Subramaniam (Thesis director) / Neithalath, Narayanan (Committee member) / Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
This project is focused on local scale sustainability. The goal is to understand the impact of small unsustainable actions of people, and hopefully create a change in their habits. The focus was plastic usage, such as the use of water bottles, grocery bags, or even the packaging that our food and other products typically come in. Plastic has become an integral part of lives, where we do not even think of our actions as we stuff our leftover grocery bags in its designated drawer. My goal throughout this project was to guide people to an environmentally conscious lifestyle by increasing the likelihood of recycling on the ASU campus. I created an interactive informative presentation that focused on recycling and preventing plastic and unwanted trash from ending up in landfills and oceans. The presentation was given to a small group of participants along with two surveys. There was a survey provided before the presentation to gauge a participant's present recycling habits then there was a survey that was given some time after the presentation to track if certain recycling habits had changed due to the presentation. The post presentation survey did report that there were changes to some of the participants' recycling habits. The research provides suggestions to help increase recycling and waste prevention based off surveys that were widely distributed on campus. The top three suggestions that would help make recycling more prevalent on campus are: education on the subject, more accessibility to recycling bins, and creating an incentive program.
ContributorsVazquez, Juliana Evone (Author) / Parrish, Kristen (Thesis director) / Burke, Rebekah (Committee member) / Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program (Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
Description
This thesis was prepared by Tyler Maynard and Hayley Monroe, who are students at Arizona State University studying to complete their B.S.E.s in Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering, respectively. Both students are members of Barrett, the Honors College, at Arizona State University, and have prepared the following document for the purpose of completing their undergraduate honors thesis. The early sections of this document comprise a general, introductory overview of earthquakes and liquefaction as a phenomenon resulting from earthquakes. In the latter sections, this document analyzes the relationship between the furthest hypocentral distance to observed liquefaction and the earthquake magnitude published in 2006 by Wang, Wong, Dreger, and Manga. This research was conducted to gain a greater understanding of the factors influencing liquefaction and to compare the existing relationship between the maximum distance for liquefaction and earthquake magnitude to updated earthquake data compiled for the purpose of this report. As part of this research, 38 different earthquake events from the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association with liquefaction data were examined. Information regarding earthquake depth, distance to the furthest liquefaction event (epicentral and hypocentral), and earthquake magnitude (Mw) from recent earthquake events (1989 to 2016) was compared to the previously established relationship of liquefaction occurrence distance to moment magnitude. The purpose of this comparison was to determine if recent events still comply with the established relationship. From this comparison, it was determined that the established relationship still generally holds true for the large magnitude earthquakes (magnitude 7.5 or above) that were considered herein (with only 2.6% falling above the furthest expected liquefaction distance). However, this relationship may be too conservative for recent, low magnitude earthquake events; those events examined below magnitude 6.3 did not approach established range of furthest expected liquefaction distance. The overestimation of furthest hypocentral distance to liquefaction at low magnitudes suggest the empirical relationship may need to be adjusted to more accurately capture recent events, as reported by GEER.
ContributorsMonroe, Hayley (Co-author) / Maynard, Tyler (Co-author) / Kavazanjian, Edward (Thesis director) / Houston, Sandra (Committee member) / Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program (Contributor) / Construction Engineering (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
Description
Midwestern cities are in decline, with shrinking populations and corresponding disinvestment. Many organizations and city governments are working on addressing the problem of vacancy while bringing these urban areas into the global economy. The EcoBlock Organization (EBO), a St. Louis-based non-profit, proposes block-level redevelopment as a method of fostering community and economic development while minimizing the impact on the environment. The EcoCode is a block-level form-based code describing the vision of the EBO and its implementation. This vision is centered around eight key design principles: energy, public health, social, urban design, water, transportation, resilience, and landscape. It manifests as an EcoBlock: a block of buildings surrounding a shared green space, connected by an energy grid and a shared geothermal loop with the goal of net-zero energy. The residences are a mix of building types for a variety of incomes and some building space will be designated for shared use, all physically reflecting the historic design of houses in the city in which the EcoBlock is implemented. Specifications like design, building placement, and mechanisms by which to strive towards net-zero energy and water will be determined in each location in which the EcoBlock is developed. The EcoCode describes the process and the desired outcome, providing a framework for this implementation.
The EcoCode resembles a typical form-based code in structure, but at a smaller geographic scale. General Provisions describes the context of the surrounding area that must be assessed before choosing to create an EcoBlock. Development and Adoption strategy explains the evolving role of the EBO and how the realization of this design is currently envisioned. Regulating Block, Block Development Standards, Building Envelope Standards, and Building Development Standards describe the detail that will need to be developed for the physical aspects of each block. Streetscape Standards describe the vision of the EBO as applicable to the streets surrounding an EcoBlock. Finally, the Sustainability Standards contain the contribution of each board member of the EBO with their unique expertise on implementing the design principles.
As a supplement to The EcoCode itself, this document contains three topics for case studies looking into the feasibility of the EcoBlock as a whole: shared space, net-zero energy, and mixed-income housing. Shared space development and management uses Montgomery Park in Boston to show the potential of community-based organization while warning against gentrification. The West Village campus of the University of California in Davis shows the technical possibility and the financial challenges of a net-zero community. Brogården, an affordable housing community in Sweden, demonstrates the possibility for decreasing energy consumption in public housing. Finally, Via Verde in New York City is an example of combining health, green space, and affordability in a mixed-income housing development. Though there is not yet an example of a fully implemented EcoBlock, these case studies speak to the challenges and the facilitators that the EBO will likely face.
The EcoCode resembles a typical form-based code in structure, but at a smaller geographic scale. General Provisions describes the context of the surrounding area that must be assessed before choosing to create an EcoBlock. Development and Adoption strategy explains the evolving role of the EBO and how the realization of this design is currently envisioned. Regulating Block, Block Development Standards, Building Envelope Standards, and Building Development Standards describe the detail that will need to be developed for the physical aspects of each block. Streetscape Standards describe the vision of the EBO as applicable to the streets surrounding an EcoBlock. Finally, the Sustainability Standards contain the contribution of each board member of the EBO with their unique expertise on implementing the design principles.
As a supplement to The EcoCode itself, this document contains three topics for case studies looking into the feasibility of the EcoBlock as a whole: shared space, net-zero energy, and mixed-income housing. Shared space development and management uses Montgomery Park in Boston to show the potential of community-based organization while warning against gentrification. The West Village campus of the University of California in Davis shows the technical possibility and the financial challenges of a net-zero community. Brogården, an affordable housing community in Sweden, demonstrates the possibility for decreasing energy consumption in public housing. Finally, Via Verde in New York City is an example of combining health, green space, and affordability in a mixed-income housing development. Though there is not yet an example of a fully implemented EcoBlock, these case studies speak to the challenges and the facilitators that the EBO will likely face.
ContributorsJohn, Raveena Susan (Author) / Allenby, Braden (Thesis director) / Redman, Charles (Committee member) / Garcia, Margaret (Committee member) / Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program (Contributor) / School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
Arizona's transportation infrastructure is in need of an update. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) State Infrastructure 2017 Report Card scores Arizona's roads at a D+ and Arizona's bridges at a B. These grades are indicative that the serviceability levels of the roads and bridges are less than adequate. These grades may seem tolerable in light of a national bridge C+ grade and a national road D grade, but the real problem lies in Arizona's existing funding gap that is in danger of exponentially increasing in the future. With an influx of vehicles on Arizona's roads and bridges, the cost of building, repairing, and maintaining them will grow and cause a problematic funding shortage. This report explores the current state of Arizona's roads and bridges as well as the policy and funding sources behind them, using statistics from the ASCE infrastructure report card and the Federal Highway Administration. Additionally, it discusses how regular, preventative maintenance for transportation infrastructure is the economically responsible choice for the state because it decreases delays and fuel expenses, prevents possible catastrophes, and increases human safety. To prioritize preventative transportation infrastructure maintenance, the common mentality that allows it to be sidelined for more newsworthy projects needs to be changed. Along with gaining preventative maintenance revenues through increasing vehicular taxes and fees, encouraging transportation policymakers and politicians to make economic decisions in favor of maintenance rather than waiting until failure is a reliable way to encourage regular, preventative maintenance.
ContributorsBurdett, Courtney (Author) / Hjelmstad, Keith (Thesis director) / Pendyala, Ram (Committee member) / Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05