Matching Items (4)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

133958-Thumbnail Image.png
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

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
133728-Thumbnail Image.png
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,

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
134138-Thumbnail Image.png
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

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
133978-Thumbnail Image.png
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.

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