UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING THE SEISMIC ...

UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING THE SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF PILE FOUNDATIONS IN SOFT CLAYS: AN EDUCATIONAL MODULE

Prepared for: NEEScomm Education, Outreach and Training George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Purdue University Discovery Park 207 S. Martin Jischke Drive W. Lafayette, In 47906 Prepared by: Amy B. Cerato Amirata Taghavi Kanthasamy K. Muraleetharan Gerald A. Miller School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science The University of Oklahoma 202 West Boyd Street, Room 334 Norman, OK 73019 JANUARY 2011

Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI-0830328; Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The project team would like to thank Zachary Thompson, Hoda Soltani, Karrthik Kirupakaran, Allison Quiroga and Charbel Khoury for their help implementing this module. We would also like to thank the Whittier Middle School's (Norman, Oklahoma) 8th grade Discovery Science Class and the teacher Mr. Frank Barry and student teacher, Ms. Amy Bogan, as well as Dr. Susan Walden of the University of Oklahoma's Seed Center and the Creating Critical Connections for Math and Science (C3 + S & M) teacher participants for welcoming us into their classroom to present our educational module. This study was conducted with the approval of the University of Oklahoma’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), as well as the Norman Public School System (NPS), under project number 13213.                                        

ii

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... v ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vi 1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

2

MATERIALS ........................................................................................................................ 2

3

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 10 3.1 SET-UP ............................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ............................................................................................ 11

4

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 13 4.1 STUDENTS .......................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 TEACHERS .......................................................................................................................... 18

5

SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 23 5.1 STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 23 5.2 SCIENCE AND MATH TEACHER FEEDBACK. ....................................................................... 29

6

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 32 6.1 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 32 6.2 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 33 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 34

7

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 35

8

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 36

A.

PARENTAL CONSENT .................................................................................................... 37

B.

STUDENT ASSENT ........................................................................................................... 40

C.

PRE-ASSESSMENT SURVEY ......................................................................................... 42

D.

POST-ASSESSMENT SURVEYS..................................................................................... 46

E.

COST LIST FOR MODULE ............................................................................................. 51

F.

STUDENT DESIGN DETAILS ......................................................................................... 52

G. TEACHER DESIGN DETAILS. ....................................................................................... 55 H. STUDENT RESPONSES TO REFLECTION QUESTIONS ......................................... 57 I.

TEACHER RESPONSES TO REFLECTION QUESTIONS ........................................ 64

J.

EXTRA TEACHER EVALUATION: .............................................................................. 72

iii

List of Tables Table 1: Aluminum and Plastic Excavation Mold Dimensions. ..................................................... 5  Table 2: Cost List for Stabilizer Material ..................................................................................... 10  Table 3: Mold Size and Stabilization Materials Chosen by Each Student Team for Final Designs. ............................................................................................................................... 14  Table 4: Results of the Student Competition. ............................................................................... 15  Table 5: Mold Size and Stabilization Materials Chosen by Each Teacher Team for Final Designs.......................................................................................................................................... 19  Table 6: Results of the Teacher Competition. .............................................................................. 19  Table 7: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Module Average, Standard Deviation and Median Student Responses to Section 1 Questions. ..................................................................... 24  Table 8: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Module Average, Standard Deviation and Median Responses to Section 2 Questions................................................................................................. 25  Table 9: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Module Average, Standard Deviation and Median Teacher Responses........................................................................................................... 29  Table 10: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Module Average, Standard Deviation and Median Teacher Responses to Perceptions of Engineers........................................................................... 30  Table 11: Student Responses to Reflection Questions 1a and 1b ................................................. 57  Table 12: Student Responses to Reflection Question – Describe how earthquakes cause bridge displacements and damage....................................................................................... 58  Table 13: Student Responses to Reflection Question – Describe the design process. ................. 59  Table 14: Student Responses to Reflection Question – Describe two potential methods for decreasing bridge displacements................................................................................................... 60  Table 15: Student Responses to Reflection Question – Describe what Geotechnical Engineers do.................................................................................................................................. 61  Table 16: Student Responses to Reflection Question – What is one thing you liked about this experiment?. .................................................................................................................................. 62  Table 17: Student Responses to Reflection Question – What is one thing that can be improved? ................................................................................................................................. 63  Table 18: Teacher Responses to Reflection Questions 1a and 1b ................................................ 64  Table 19: Teacher Responses to Reflection Question - What do Geotechnical Engineers do? ................................................................................................................................ 66  Table 20: Teacher Responses to Reflection Question -What did you like about the experiment? ............................................................................................................................. 68  Table 21: Teacher Responses to Reflection Question -What is one thing you would improve about this experiment? .................................................................................................................. 70 

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1: 15" X 11-1/2" X 6" Plastic Jell-o® tub with 6 Piles; Jell-o® Depth = 3” ...................... 2  Figure 2: Picture of the Cheese, Large Marshmallow, Slim Jim® , and Lollipop Used in the Module. ................................................................................................................................. 5  Figure 3: Excavation Molds: From left to right, G, F, E, D, C, B, A. ............................................ 6  Figure 4: Earthquake Module “Kit” for Each Group. ..................................................................... 7  Figure 5: Manual Shake Table (from Prasad et al. 2004). .............................................................. 8  Figure 6: Low Cost Earthquake Simulator (designed and built by Mr. Michael W. Leary, owner AM Squared Construction Services, LLC). ......................................................................... 8  Figure 7: Placement of Video Recorder Stand and Deflection Measurements. ............................. 9  Figure 8: The Girls’ Design using Mold F.................................................................................... 15  Figure 9: Natural Fury’s Design using Mold F............................................................................. 16  Figure 10: Slim Winners’ Design using Mold F........................................................................... 16  Figure 11: Team Bogan’s Design using Mold F........................................................................... 17  Figure 12: The Surge’s Design using Mold E. ............................................................................. 17  Figure 13: Team Tomawias’ Design using Mold F. ..................................................................... 18  Figure 14: EZ Cheez’s Design using Mold E. .............................................................................. 20  Figure 15: Cheesing the System’s Design with Mold G, with a core of Cheese from Mold E. ... 20  Figure 16: Say Cheese’s Design using Mold D. ........................................................................... 21  Figure 17: The Big Cheese’s Design using Mold F...................................................................... 21  Figure 18: Sticky Cheese’s Design using Mold F, with a core of Cheese from Mold E. ............. 22  Figure 19: Hoodies’ Design with Mold E. .................................................................................... 22  Figure 20: “The Girls” Design and Photo. .................................................................................... 52  Figure 21: The Natural Fury’s Design and Photo. ........................................................................ 52  Figure 22: The Slim Winners Design and Photo. ......................................................................... 53  Figure 23: Team Bogan’s Design and Photo. ............................................................................... 53  Figure 24: Team Surge Design and Photo. ................................................................................... 53  Figure 25: Team Tomawia’s Design and Photo. .......................................................................... 54  Figure 26: EZ Cheez Design and Photo. ....................................................................................... 55  Figure 27: Say Cheese’s Design and Photo. ................................................................................. 55  Figure 28: Cheesing the System Design and Photo. ..................................................................... 55  Figure 29: The Big Cheese’s Design and Photo. .......................................................................... 56  Figure 30: Sticky Cheese’s Design and Photo. ............................................................................. 56  Figure 31: Team Hoodies’ Design and Photo. .............................................................................. 56 

v

Abstract This engineering educational module on the behavior of piles in soft clays during earthquake loading sought to introduce engineering as a viable career to 8th graders as well as teach students how geotechnical engineers design foundations in marginal soils to minimize damage to infrastructure during earthquakes. This module could also be used at various educational levels, from elementary to middle and high school, as well as at the undergraduate level, with appropriate modifications. A five hour module was created to simulate real-world behavior of piles in soft clays during earthquake loading, as well as visually show the improvement in how these same piles behave after being stabilized with deep soil mixing. In this module, soft soil was simulated by using Jell-o®, piles were simulated using Slim Jims® and soil stabilization was simulated using peanut butter, marshmallows or cheese. Each student group had to design a stabilization procedure to strengthen the piles. The students competed to see who could design a pile with the least amount of deflection for the least amount of money. An abbreviated module was also administered to a group of Middle School science and mathematics teachers. The students’ and teachers’ learning and perceptions were assessed by administering pre- and postassessment questions, which were matched.

vi

1

Introduction

Pile foundations are an integral part of many civil engineering structures, such as highway bridges, port wharves and tall buildings. Often for bridges, pile foundations may be the only solution to transfer the large structural loads to competent soils or rock. The behavior of a pile foundation under earthquake loads is very complex. The complexity is further increased when weak soils such as soft clays and liquefiable loose sands surround the foundation. The behavior of pile foundations in liquefiable sands has been studied extensively; however, similar investigations for soft clays and seismic responses of piles in improved soils have been rarely performed. Therefore, the scope of this NEES Research-Small Group (NEESR-SG) project was to study piles in soft clays and determine how improving the soil around those piles affected the behavior during earthquake loads. Improved soils, in this research, are achieved using a stabilization technique called Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM).. We are combining innovative centrifuge and full-scale field tests together with simplified analysis methods, and sophisticated fully coupled simulation techniques to understand and improve the seismic behavior of pile foundations in soft clays. This important soil-structure interaction research comes on the heels of a massive movement to renovate and renew our existing infrastructure in the U.S. The U.S. infrastructure problems have been well-documented in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. The average grade was a D and it was estimated that renewal would cost $1.6 trillion. Recent natural disasters and terrorist acts have added a new dimension: now infrastructure must not only be adequate, it must be robust, it must be resilient and it must minimize risk. However, the renaissance of our infrastructure is threatened by the fact that in the next four to seven years, almost half of all civil engineers in the U.S. will be eligible to retire (ASCE 2009). This problem is worsened by fewer students enrolling in civil engineering programs nationally, in favor of degrees in business and management (White 1990). In response to this shortage of a technical workforce, we must encourage young students to consider careers in civil engineering. We need highly educated civil engineers to combat the aging infrastructure and population expansion. However, we especially need well-educated geotechnical engineers to ensure that infrastructure is adequately anchored, particularly when “good” building material and suitable land become scarce and alternative foundations or complicated soil improvements become the norm rather than the exception. Even after designing and building many successful innovative foundation systems for vital U.S. infrastructure, geotechnical engineering is a field that is not appreciated by society (Marcuson et al. 1991, Home-Douglas 2005, Grose 2006, Poulos 2006); therefore we must all work diligently to bring geotechnical engineering concepts to our K-12 students early and often. Under this premise, we created a 5-hour educational module to bring the concepts of earthquake engineering and geotechnical engineering to Middle School students in a fun and engaging way. Soil-structure interaction is important in geotechnical engineering, but is difficult to “see” because it happens underground. Most of the educational modules available are structural engineering based because above ground structures are easy to build and see, and subsequently fail. We wanted to focus the students’ learning on geotechnical engineering, therefore, concentrated on enhancing the soil-structure interaction concepts. In order for students to fully grasp how a pile foundation in soft soil would be affected by an earthquake and how it 1

would behave after the surrounding soil was improved, it was imperative to use simulated soil allowing students to “see” into the subsurface to observe pile behavior underneath the ground during an earthquake. We chose Jell-o® as our “soft clay” soil because it was translucent, as well as soft enough to show adequate deflections in an unimproved pile. Our learning objectives were to: 1. Introduce geotechnical engineering to the students to broaden their view of career path opportunities, 2. Enhance student knowledge of earthquakes, earthquake damages to structures built on and in soft clays and how engineers can design foundations to minimize earthquake induced damage, 3. Demonstrate the importance of soil-structure interaction by improving a zone of soft soil around piles to reduce movement, therefore, minimizing earthquake induced damage. These learning objectives were assessed by pre- and post- assessment surveys which were matched by an external evaluator. We also had a unique opportunity to obtain the perspective of Middle School science and mathematics teachers by administering the module to 32 teachers. This report documents our experience in administering this module to 8th Grade students and Middle School teachers and the assessment of our learning objectives. 2

Materials

The materials needed for this experiment are shown below, and when appropriate, details on preparing the experiment are given. The quantities of these items will depend on the number of students participating in the module, the size of the Jell-o® container chosen as well as the format of the day. For example, if this module were performed over 5 days, then for each group, only one Jell-o® box would be needed, because it could be refilled and reused each day. However, if the module were performed in one day, then each group would need 2 Jell-o® boxes since all the Jell-o® would need to be made at once. For one group of 5 students, using the same size box as detailed here, with a module performed over 5 class periods on different days, the quantities of the material are: Jell-o® tub: (1) Plastic, Dimensions: 15" X 11-1/2" X 6"

Figure 1: 15" X 11-1/2" X 6" Plastic Jell-o® tub with 6 Piles; Jell-o® Depth = 3” 2

Jell-o®: (117 ounces: Each tub contains 13-3 oz boxes = 39 ounces per tub + 12 cups or 3 liters of boiling water+ 14 cups or 3.5 liters of cold water) • Demonstration – 1 tub (39 ounces) • “Jell-o® play” – 1 tub (39 ounces) • Final Design – 1 tub (39 ounces) This particular recipe in this size tub will produce a Jell-o® depth of 3 inches. Concerns were raised about the size of this plastic tub because of the large amount of Jell-o® needed to create a 3 inch deep Jell-o® “soil” in which to perform the experiment, as well as the time needed to prepare this amount of Jell-o® and the refrigerator space necessary. This size box was chosen to give the students plenty of room to “play” with their design. As shown in Fig. 1, students can experiment with 6 or 7 different stabilized pile scenarios before choosing their final design. However, a smaller box would be appropriate for this module, as long as each group receives the same size box because the deflection of the pile is affected by the proximity to the side walls. It was found that the side walls restricted the pile movement when there was not enough room between the improved zone and the sides of the box (less than 10 times the improved zone in all directions). It should also be noted that the Jell-o® box needs to be appropriately sized to fit on the shaking table as well as be transparent so the students can see the soil-structure interaction. Once we chose Jell-o® to simulate our soft clay situation, we made the decision to create an entirely edible module, therefore, focusing the choices of the other material needed for the experiment. The pile material needed to be rigid, yet flexible and be able to withstand moisture. We experimented with Slim Jims® (beef jerky), which worked extremely well. Slim-Jims (5): diameter=1 cm (0.39 inches), length=9.5 cm (3.74 inches) • Demonstration – 1 • “Jell-o® play” – 4 • Final Design – 1 Slim Jims® were the perfect choice because they were the correct length, correct diameter, had an adequate stiffness, and were relatively resistant to degradation due to the moisture in the Jell-o® and stabilizer. In addition, Slim Jims® were also ideal to insert the Lollipops that represented the structures (see below). Whatever pile material is chosen should be only slightly longer than the Jell-o® is deep because excessive pile bending above the “soil” surface should be avoided. The next materials to be chosen would represent soil stabilization. Cement is the stabilization material used in the field, and therefore, we chose edible materials that had varying degrees of stiffness and cohesiveness in order to simulate how the cement would affect the pile. We used creamy and crunchy peanut butter, small and large marshmallows, as well as sharp cheddar cheese. Many other materials could be used for this simulation, but we intentionally kept the available choices limited in our first implementations. Cheese (1 block): Multiple molds can be cut out of 1 block to suffice for all three aspects of the experiment (Demonstration, Jell-o®-play and Final Design)

3

Extra Sharp Vermont Cheese is expensive. While very stiff, it cracks easily because it is a drier cheese. We recommend that you find a block cheese that is not as aged as sharp cheddar and is slightly softer. This will alleviate the cracking when excavating the pile hole, as well as when cutting the cheese into different sized molds. Since this particular stabilization material is so stiff, a sharp knife is recommended. Creamy and Crunchy Peanut Butter: (8 oz of each – about ½ of a regularly sized peanut butter container) There have been concerns raised about peanut allergies in schools and the need for alternative material. While we appreciate these concerns, we felt that the peanut butter provided the right amount of cohesiveness that some groups used to bond their cheese to the Jell-o® surface. While it is obviously not as stiff as the cheese would be, it does provide a nice media to simulate the consistency of wet cement. It is recommended that if you do not use peanut butter, that you find a similar substitute that would provide a similar cohesive property. Small and Large Marshmallows: (6 of each, depending on final designs) The large Marshmallows are sometimes called “Campfire Giant Roasters” and are about 2 inches in diameter. Marshmallows are less expensive than peanut butter and provide more stiffness. During practice experiments in the lab, it became apparent that an above ground seismic mass was needed, and therefore, Lollipops were inserted into the top of the Slim Jim® piles to simulate structures. Lollipops (6) • Demonstration – 1 • “Jell-o® play” – 4 • Final Design – 1 The lollipops were used as the seismic mass. The stem was cut down until only 1 inch remained, and this was pushed into the top of the Slim Jim®. It is imperative that everyone have a similarly sized lollipop with a similar weight. The lollipop represents a structural mass, and therefore, if the mass differs between groups, the lighter lollipop will produce less deflection, providing an unfair advantage. A picture of some of the material used is shown in Figure 2.

4

Figure 2: Picture of the Cheese, Large Marshmallow, Slim Jim ®, and Lollipop Used in the Module. Excavation molds: 1 of each size We used 7 excavation molds in this module (Table 1). The criteria for the molds were that they had to be lightweight, thin and sharp enough not to crack the Jell-o®. We chose aluminum tubing for all but one of the mold diameters, G, because we could not find an aluminum tube with the thickness desired, and so we used plastic (Figure 3). This tubing was cut to a length by a band saw and then filed to create a beveled excavating edge. The thickness of the aluminum tubing was 0.089 cm (0.035 in) and Mold G had a wall thickness of 0.157 cm (0.062 in). The tubing was bought online at McMaster Carr. Table 1: Aluminum and Plastic Excavation Mold Dimensions. Mold D (cm) L (cm)

A 0.84 8.92

B 3.00 3.02

C 3.00 6.12

D 3.63 4.60

E 4.88 6.02

F 6.15 10.21

G 7.75 10.16

V(cm3)

4.8

21.3

43

47.4

112.7

304.2

479.2

5

Figure 3: Excavation Molds: From left to right, G, F, E, D, C, B, A. The tubing diameter was chosen to simulate different lateral and vertical improved zones around the pile. Since the Slim Jim® pile was around 1 cm in diameter (0.4 inches), we wanted to provide the students several realistic options when designing their pile stabilization. When experimenting with the excavation mold sizes, the students could observe how the size (lateral and vertical) of the improved zone affects pile behavior. However, the larger the improved zone, the more costly the stabilization. Students were charged with optimizing the decreased deflection versus increased cost. The mold sizes, in this case, were very similar to the size of the improved zones that we utilized in centrifuge and field tests. Mold G provides a lateral improved zone of 7.7D (where D is the diameter of the Slim Jim®), F provides 6D, E provides 4.8D, D provides 3.5D, C and B provide 2.9 D and Mold A is approximately the diameter of the pile to assist in creating a pilot hole for the pile and can also be used to test unimproved piles. The vertical stabilized zone can be controlled by how deep the mold is pushed into the Jell-o®. Slim Jims® are approximately 1 cm (0.4 in) in diameter, and the closest prefabricated aluminum thin walled tubing that we could find to this was 0.33 inches, therefore, making the fit very tight. This became a problem when the students chose to stabilize with a cheese block. The cheese was so stiff, that it was difficult to insert the Slim Jim® into the cheese, and therefore, the hole had to be made slightly larger by running Mold A into the cheese several times. It would be more advantageous to find tubing with an outer diameter of around 0.4 inches so that the “pile driving” is easier and the stabilizer does not crack. The Jell-o® depth in the box used in this module was approximately 7.5 cm (2.96 in). The lengths of the mold were sized to give the students options in how deep to stabilize their soil. In other words, would stabilizing the entire length of the pile reduce the deflection enough to justify the cost? Speaking practically, the molds that were longer were easier for the participants to use because it provided them a surface to grab onto and it is easier to excavate the full depth of Jell-o® inside a mold. Out of the 12 groups that performed this module so far, 1 group chose mold D, 3 groups chose mold E, 7 groups chose mold F and one group chose a combination of mold E and G. More detail about these designs will be presented in the results section

6

Earthquake Kit: 1 per group In order to better facilitate this module, it was necessary to create kits that each group could use throughout the experiment. This increased the efficiency of each group’s ability to experiment with the stabilization materials, excavation sizes and design their stabilized pile. It is recommended that the facilitator have extra supplies handy in case there is some loss of material (students eating the Lollipops or Slim Jims®!), however, the kit should provide everything each group needs to complete their assigned task. The earthquake kit should include spatulas (peanut butter placement), excavation tools (measuring spoons), excavation molds, pens, ruler, note cards, rubber gloves, wooden dowels (peanut butter placement and compaction), Slim Jims® , Lollipops and a plastic container for the excavated Jell-o® (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Earthquake Module “Kit” for Each Group. Shaker We used a highly controlled and precise shake table (APS Electro-Seis, Model #113 manufactured by APS Dynamics, Inc.) that would cost approximately $10,000 to purchase, which is obviously cost-prohibitive for most Middle Schools. Therefore, it was necessary to build a low-cost shaker that could be built by teachers for very little money and provide identical shaking regimes for each group during the competition. One simple shaker was built by Prasad et al. 2004 (Figure 5) and works by manually pulling the handle a certain distance and letting go so that the shaker oscillates on its spring steel. One problem with this design is that it dampens the shaking motion over time. An inexpensive, easily constructed shaker able to be run continuously for as long as necessary, providing an identical output for each group, was needed.

7

Figure 5: Manual Shake Table (from Prasad et al. 2004). A simple shaker was designed and built for roughly $26. The shaker was made out of plywood, toilet partition, drawer pulls, a steel rod, a ¾ inch steel washer and some nuts and bolts. There was some welding involved to make the bearing of the shaker, however, this part could be manufactured with simple nuts and bolts, alleviating the need for a machine shop and welder. A variable speed cordless drill can be attached to this bearing and used to shake the system at many different frequencies depending on the speed chosen, or a hand crank could be attached to manually shake the system. The hand crank speed could be controlled by the user similarly to how an Atterberg Limit test is performed. This design could be improved by using a bigger washer and multiple holes in order to give the user amplitude options. In other words, the closer the hole is to the center, the smaller the amplitude, and the farther away the hole is to the center, the larger the amplitude. This is a very economical and efficient shaker to simulate earthquakes in the school setting (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Low Cost Earthquake Simulator (designed and built by Mr. Michael W. Leary, owner AM Squared Construction Services, LLC). 8

Each group’s final design was shaken at 1 Hz for 30 sec, 2 Hz for 10 sec and 3 Hz for 10 sec. The competition deflection was recorded near the end of the cyclic loading at 2 Hz frequency for consistency between the groups; however, all deflections were recorded. Video recorder A method of measuring the deflection was needed, in order to make the module more meaningful and realistic. Several methods were tried, including a seismograph like paper trace on the sides of the Jell-o® tub, but the most efficient and effective method of recording deflections was using a high-speed video recorder and a simple yard stick taped to the box. The video recorder used in this module was a KODAK Playsport. The only way to video the deflections of the pile clearly, was to video from above, and therefore a video camera stand was fabricated out of perforated square steel and plywood in order to position the video camera directly above the Lollipop (Figure 7). Then a yard stick, cut in half, was taped to the Jell-o® tub, with the measuring marks placed just on top of the center of the Lollipop. The initial position of the right side of the Lollipop was recorded and then the shaking sequence was recorded. The video was then played back in slow motion, frame by frame, in order to see exactly where the lollipop moved along the ruler, and this distance was recorded. As you can see, by playing the video back frame by frame, the pile deflection can be quantified. The same reference point on the Lollipop must be used, and in this case, we chose the right side of the lollipop. It can be seen that this pile moved approximately 7/8”. More precision can be gained by using a yard stick with finer divisions.

Figure 7: Placement of Video Recorder Stand and Deflection Measurements. 9

3

Methodology

This section details how the module was performed in the Middle School classroom, including all of the Institutional Research Board permissions and survey instruments used. If this module is to be used in classrooms or in an extracurricular setting without implementing the survey instruments or taking photos, however, no permissions would be needed. 3.1

Set-up

After all of the material was decided on and experimented with, several other aspects of the module had to be determined, including cost of the stabilization material and an optimization equation to detail the winner of the competition. After running several experiments on the different stabilizers, it became apparent that some of the stabilizers worked better than others, and so the behavior of the pile dictated the cost of the stabilizer, as it does in the real-world. This cost list can be modified to encompass more stabilizer material or a greater difference between existing stabilizer material (Table 2). Table 2: Cost List for Stabilizer Material Cheese:

$600/50 grams

Crunchy Peanut Butter:

$300/50 grams

Creamy Peanut Butter:

$200/50 grams

1 Small Marshmallow:

$150

1 Large Marshmallow:

$450

We chose to “sell” the cheese and peanut butter in 50 gram portions because it made it easier from an administration standpoint to have these portions made before the module started. We had a “bank” of cheese, peanut butter and marshmallows that the students approached to “buy” their material. We did not have a budget per student, as we did not want to constrain them, however, it may be advantageous to set a budget so that the students do not “buy” an exorbitant amount of material and then just eat it! As a reference, Molds C and D could hold about 50 grams of peanut butter, while Mold E was the perfect size for a large marshmallow. Mold F held about 170 grams of cheese after the hole for the pile was drilled. We gave the students a cost-sheet when they were experimenting with their design and that can be found in Appendix E. The following equation was used to determine the winner of the module with displacements in inches and cost in dollars. As can be seen, the displacement is the most important parameter since it is cubed, while the cost does not influence the results nearly as much. This somewhat mimics what we would see in the real-world, as minimizing displacements, therefore damages, would be the most important parameter, while cost would be secondary. The group with the largest “x” score wins.

10

Eq. 1 The equation to determine the winner can be altered to encompass the objectives of the module. If it is determined that cost should play a bigger factor in the final score, then the second term could be optimized to produce a larger number. In addition, the students can be asked to plot this equation and understand the effects of displacement and cost. This exercise will naturally bring some of the mathematics concepts into this module. We wanted a way to assess whether the students knew more about geotechnical engineering, earthquakes, soil-structure interaction and soil-stabilization after the module, so we created both pre- and post-module surveys to administer. The assessment surveys followed the learning objectives of the module and quantitatively assessed whether or not the student had increased his/her knowledge on the subjects of interest or whether or not the students’ perceptions had changed in any way about engineering in general. Once we had created the survey to test student learning, we created a Powerpoint presentation complete with pictures and videos in order to explain what geotechnical engineering, earthquake engineering and soilstructure interaction are and how engineers can design foundations to mitigate damage during an earthquake. As described below, the presentation was only given after the students had completed the pre-module survey. 3.2

Implementation Schedule

This module, including pre- and post-module surveys, is well-suited to be experienced in a continuous five-hour time span. However, since most Middle Schools operated on 50 minute class periods every day, we adapted our module to fit within the time constraints of most schools. It should be noted, however, that this adds a significant amount of set-up and tear-down time, as well as transportation time to and from the university to the Middle Schools. About two weeks before the module begins, the teacher should distribute the informed parental consent and student assent and collect the responses before the researchers enter the classroom (Appendix A and B). The teacher should distribute the pre-module survey the class period before the module is to begin and keep track of the participant codes to be able to match pre- and post-module surveys (Appendix C and D). If the class is not familiar with earthquakes and the engineering design process, the teacher can do a brief lesson, or if not, then the researchers can discuss this throughout the module. Once the module begins, the timeline and content can follow the outline shown below. Please remember that this can be adapted to whatever timeframe is available, however, the “Jello® play” timeframe should not be shortened, because it is important for the students to experiment with varying stabilization materials and experience the performance of their piles. It is through this interactive experience that the students optimize their design and begin to understand the significance of soil-structure interaction while stabilizing foundations subject to earthquake loads.

11

Day one of the classroom visits (Duration: 50 min-1 class period) 1Introduction a. Question students about general earthquake knowledge - cause, mechanism, and effects. b. Show pictures of earthquake damage i. Ask for ideas of what causes damage ii. What factors contribute to the magnitude of damage? iii. Discuss soil-structure interaction and relate real life to model testing. e.g., soft clay is Jell-o®, etc. 2Demonstration of the Equipment a. Define the model i. We are going to look at bridges 1. Have pictures of different kinds of bridges. - maybe some with earthquake damage 2. What kinds of bridges do you see around where you live? 3. What if you have a bridge on piles in an area prone to earthquakes? ii. Jell-o® (in a transparent plastic container), Slim Jim® , will be used to represent soft clay, piles b. Earthquakes will be simulated using a small shaker. Demonstrate an earthquake effect on pile foundations of bridges with just the Slim Jims® in the Jell-o® excited by the shaker (shaking table). c. What could we do to reduce the bridge displacements and consequently damages caused by the earthquake? - they might suggest different kind of bridge, different material for piles, larger size of piles, d. But what if there are already 1000's of bridges built and it is too expensive to rebuild them all? e. Another option is to improve the soil around the piles (retrofitting). This can also be done before a new bridge is built. i. Have a moderately successful ground modification material on hand to demonstrate (e.g. peanut butter). You don’t want the students to be influenced by the material you chose for the demonstration. ii. Demonstrate the excavation techniques, pile driving, and ground improvement techniques as well. f. The parameters for their experiment will be defined. i. Next class you will be going through the engineering design process to test different materials that could be used in our model for the soil improvement. You will have time to try different materials as you develop a final design to be tested on the last day of our session. 3-

The teacher will divide the students into groups.

Day two of the classroom visits (Duration: 50 min-1 class period) 4Practicing in Groups. a. Explain design under constraints i. simulating improvements to the soil using different improvement materials, different dimensions of improvement, different ways to place it (existing bridge or before piles), 12

ii.

economic constraints 1. Students must use cost list to determine their design 2. Points will be awarded for economy b. The student groups will practice excavation, pile driving, and different ground improvement techniques and choose their final design. Day three of the classroom visits (Duration: 50 min-1 class period) 5Testing the final designs The student groups will be asked to recreate their final designs for testing. Each group's model will be tested in the shaking table and prizes will be given under various categories (best performance, best construction, most economical, etc. try to come up with one prize for each group). If the time is limited prizes can be given in Day Four. Day four of the classroom visits (Duration: 50 min-1 class period) a. Concept development -- relate the model and the students' designs to the research; b. Learn about geotechnical engineering, foundation engineering, piles and pile groups, earthquake engineering, soil-structure interaction, and ground improvement. c. followed by questions and answers Day five 6Post-module survey The timeline we used at the Whittier Middle School 8th Grade Discovery Science class as described below is slightly different than the one shown above. We combined the presentations on the general earthquake knowledge and earthquake damage (Day One) with the topics mentioned in Day Four and gave a single presentation on Days One and Two. In our module, the pre-module survey was also administered on Day One. We, however, believe it will be better to talk about advance concepts (Day Four) after the hands-on part of the module (Day Two and Day Three). In addition, time can be saved by administering the pre-module survey before the beginning of the module. 4

Results

This section will be divided into two sections encompassing the results of the final designs. The first section details the 8th grade student designs and the second session details the teacher designs. 4.1

Students

The student module was administered over five, 50-minute period classes. There were thirty-two students, consisting of 27 boys and 5 girls. The first day, we administered a preassessment survey and gave a PowerPoint introduction to civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, earthquakes and earthquake damages and soil improvement. The second day included videos of deep soil mixing and full-scale pile testing and an introduction to the design task along with a demonstration of an unimproved pile behavior during shaking and an improved pile during shaking. The videos of deep soil mixing and full-scale pile testing came from field testing activities of our NEESR-SG project completed just before the educational module. The 13

third day encompassed students playing with the Jell-o® and designing their ultimate pile stabilization plan. The fourth day, the students chose their best performing design, constructed and tested that design and the fifth day, we watched the high-speed video of every group’s pile deflections and announced the winners. We also administered the post-assessment surveys on the fifth day. The results of the surveys will be discussed in Section 6. The improved zone (mold size) and stabilization material choices for the six teams are shown in Table 3. As can be seen, five of the six teams chose Mold size F and the stabilizer, cheese, for their final designs. Choosing a Mold F gave the students a lateral improved zone of 6D, while the lone E Mold, provided a stabilized zone of 4.8D, where D is the diameter of the Slim Jim® . Every student stabilized the entire length of their pile. Design details can be seen in Figure 8 through Figure 13. Table 3: Mold Size and Stabilization Materials Chosen by Each Student Team for Final Designs.

Team Name The Girls Natural Fury Team Bogan The Surge Slim Winners Tomawas

Mold Size F F F E

Big Creamy Crunchy M. X X X X X X

F F

X X

X X

Small M.

Cheese X X X

X X

Table 4 presents the deflection and cost results of the student competition, along with the final score and placement. As can be seen, deflections were taken at a frequency of 1, 2 and 3 Hz, although only the deflection recorded near the end of the cyclic loading at 2 Hz counted toward the competition. The deflections could be recorded to the nearest 1/8 inch, which was a function of the yard stick available. The different design choices of the teams resulted in deflections ranging from .25 inches to 1.375 inches and costs ranging from $3,134 to $778. The most expensive design was not the best performing design, and so the students did see that construction methods did play a role in how the pile performed.

14

Table 4: Results of the Student Competition.

Team Name The Girls Natural Fury Team Bogan The Surge Slim Winners Tomawias

Displacement (inches) 1Hz 3Hz 2Hz 0.125 0.375 0.250 0.125 0.875 0.375 0.25 1.25 0.625 0.5 3.5 1.000 0.625 0.625

1.250 1.375

3.5 3.5

Cost

Score

Placement

$2,283 $2,086 $3,134 $778

64.4 19.4 4.42 2.29

1 2 3 4

$1,425 $1,419

1.21 1.09

5 6

It took approximately 30 minutes to set-up and shake all the group’s designs, and it should be noted that in 30 minutes, Jell-o® can soften, creating somewhat higher deflections. In this case, however, the team that shook fifth, actually had the best performing pile, and so it can be noted that in this classroom, the time between shaking the first and the last Jell-o® mold did not cause the Jell-o® to soften enough to provide an unfair advantage to the first team on the shake table. The following figures detail the design of each group’s improved pile. The original note cards and group photos are presented in the Appendix F. Some of the note cards were detailed by the students themselves, but most were detailed by the NEES-pilEs team member assigned to the group.

Figure 8: The Girls’ Design using Mold F.

15

Figure 9: Natural Fury’s Design using Mold F.

Figure 10: Slim Winners’ Design using Mold F.

16

Figure 11: Team Bogan’s Design using Mold F.

Figure 12: The Surge’s Design using Mold E.

17

Figure 13: Team Tomawias’ Design using Mold F. 4.2

Teachers

This module was given to 32 Middle School math and science teachers on a Saturday from 8:30-noon as a part of a continuing education program to enrich Science and Math education at the Middle School level called Creating Critical Connections for Math and Science (C3 + S & M). The session was a follow-up professional development session to a two-week research experience and pedagogy instruction professional development program run in Summer 2010. The program is a partnership of six public school districts, OU Colleges of Education and Engineering, and the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History funded through a MathScience Partnership grant from the Oklahoma State Department of Education. Of the 32 Middle School math and science teachers, 28 were women and 4 were men and the split between math and science was approximately 50-50% according to the administrators. The module presented to the teachers was given in a 3.5 hour time slot on a Saturday morning. Therefore, the introduction lecture was cut from 50 to 15 minutes. Other than that, however, the original timeline stood and we seemed to move through the transitions more quickly because of the continuity of the time slot. As can be seen in Table 5, the teacher designs were more diverse than the student designs. In particular, two groups used a combination of two molds for their final design, mostly due to the cost of the cheese. The teachers were more outwardly concerned with cost than the students were. No teacher group chose to use a Big Marshmallow and all groups chose to use cheese. Design details are given in Figure 14 through Figure 19 and in Appendix G.

18

Table 5: Mold Size and Stabilization Materials Chosen by Each Teacher Team for Final Designs. Team Name Big Cheese The Hoodies Sticky Cheese Say Cheese EZ Cheez Cheesing the System

Mold Size F E F&E D E G-E

Creamy Crunchy Big M. X X X

Small M. X

X X

Cheese X X X X X X

On this particular day, the Jell-o® seemed to be slightly stronger because the deflections seen at a frequency of 2 Hz were much lower than those seen with the student module. This could be because of the short time the Jell-o® was out of the refrigerator and the fact that it did not have to be transported by car to the site. In fact, three of the six groups had a deflection of 1/8” at the competition frequency of 2Hz, which was less deflection than any of the six student groups achieved at the same frequency. Therefore, the team with the lowest cost at this deflection won. The importance of the deflection term in the competition equation can be seen in the score of the first three teams. Even with a cost difference of $1,000, the score only decreased 0.3 points. Table 6: Results of the Teacher Competition. Displacement (inches) Cost Score Team Name 1Hz 3Hz 2Hz Sticky Cheese 0.125 0.375 $1,531 512.7 0.125 Cheesing the System 0.125 0.375 $1,781 512.6 0.125 Big Cheese 0.125 0.25 $2,558 512.4 0.125 Say Cheese 0.125 0.875 $707 65.4 0.250 The Hoodies 0.125 0.875 $1,604 19.6 0.375 EZ Cheez 0.25 1.00 $1,165 8.8 0.500

Placement 1 2 3 4 5 6

The following figures detail the design of each teacher group’s improved pile. The original note cards were detailed by the teachers and are presented in the Appendix G and along with the team photos.

19

Figure 14: EZ Cheez’s Design using Mold E.

Figure 15: Cheesing the System’s Design with Mold G, with a core of Cheese from Mold E.

20

Figure 16: Say Cheese’s Design using Mold D.

Figure 17: The Big Cheese’s Design using Mold F.

21

Figure 18: Sticky Cheese’s Design using Mold F, with a core of Cheese from Mold E.

Figure 19: Hoodies’ Design with Mold E.

22

5 5.1

Survey Results Student Learning Objectives

In order to determine if the students had learned what we hoped they would learn, we gave preand post- assessment surveys. Our learning objectives were to 1. Introduce civil engineering and specifically, geotechnical engineering, to the students to broaden their view of career path opportunities, 2. Enhance student knowledge of earthquakes, earthquake damages to structures built on and in soft clays and how engineers can design foundations to minimize earthquake induced damage, 3. Demonstrate the importance of soil-structure interaction by improving a zone of soft soil around piles to reduce movement, therefore, minimizing earthquake induced damage. Assessing these objectives was achieved through a series of questions divided into four sections. In the first section, the students were asked what they knew about civil engineering, geotechnical engineering and earthquakes before and after our module. They were also asked about their interest in math, science and engineering. We collected 27 matched pre- and postmodule surveys. Five students were either absent the first or the last day, and therefore, we could not match their responses. The first seven questions prompted the students to answer “Not at all,” “Not sure,” or “Yes,” while the final three questions prompted the student to answer “Low,” “Medium,” or “High.” Numerical values were assigned to each answer. Not at all = 1, Not sure = 2 and Yes = 3, while Low = 1, Medium = 2 and High = 3. Therefore, if the value increased from pre- to post-module, the students indicated that their knowledge improved due to the module. The results are encouraging. While each response showed an increase from pre- to post-module, the response garnering the most improvement was “I know what kind of work Geotechnical Engineers do,” from an average class response of 1.38 to 2.62, or a 90% increase in familiarity with a Geotechnical Engineer’s job description (Table 7). Students seemed to be fairly comfortable with the concept of earthquakes both before and after the module and there was not a significant increase in response value for “I’d like to be an engineer someday.” While the module was designed to excite students about engineering as a career, they would have to have many more encounters with engineering for them to be entirely sure to indicate that they would like to pursue engineering as a career.

23

Table 7: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Module Average, Standard Deviation and Median Student Responses to Section 1 Questions. Standard Median Deviation Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- PostAverage

In general, I know what kind of work engineers do 2.04 2.74

0.71 0.59

2

3

I know what kind of work Civil Engineers do 1.48 2.30

0.51 0.72

1

2

I know what kind of work Geotechnical Engineers do 1.38 2.62 I'd like to be an engineer some day 1.78 1.96

0.57 0.70 0.70 0.66

1 2

3 2

I understand earthquakes

2.67 2.85

0.55 0.46

3

3

2.52 2.81

0.58 0.48

3

3

2.11 2.07 1.81 1.92

0.85 0.68 0.75 0.69

2 2 2 2

3 2 2 2

I understand earthquakes

what the

causes

effects

of

I understand what the magnitude of an earthquake means My interest in science is… My interest in math is…. My interest in engineering is….

2.59 2.11 2.00 2.04

0.64 0.75 0.73 0.76

Students’ interest in science, math and engineering all improved somewhat from pre- to postmodule, although the average response values hovered around “medium.” In the second section of the assessment surveys, we wanted to learn about the students’ perception of engineers or the field of engineering. The students were asked to indicate how well the categories described engineers or the field of engineering as “Very well,” “Somewhat well,” “Not very well,” and “Not well at all.” These descriptors were given numerical values of Very well = 4, Somewhat well = 3, Not very well = 2 and Not well at all = 1. Average, median and standard deviation numerical responses from the pre- and the post-module surveys are compared in Table 8. While most of the positive attributes of engineers seemed to elicit a slightly higher response in post-module results, the attribute that improved the most was leadership, with a 25% increase in perception after the module. Another large improvement in perception was seen in the categories “fun,” and “positive effect,” both with a 13% increase. We are happy to report that the perception that engineers “sit at their desk all day” and “are boring” decreased, seemingly due to the module.

24

Table 8: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Module Average, Standard Deviation and Median Responses to Section 2 Questions. Standard Median Deviation Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post3.04 3.52 0.76 0.65 3 4 3.12 3.27 0.71 0.78 3 3 2.96 3.35 1.00 0.85 3 4 3.42 3.77 0.72 0.43 4 4 3.69 3.85 0.47 0.37 4 4 3.31 3.65 0.93 0.75 4 4 3.15 3.27 0.88 0.87 3 3.5 2.88 3.58 0.71 0.76 3 4 2.27 2.42 0.96 1.14 2 2 Average

Creative Rewarding Fun Get results Hard working Positive effect Inventor Leaders Nerdy Critical thinkers Problem solvers Well-paid Smart Good at math Builds, constructs Designs Sits at desk Mostly Men Mostly White Well-respected Requires years Entrepreneurial Boring Works Outdoors

3.42

3.65

0.76

0.56

4

4

3.38 3.42 3.62 3.77

3.81 3.54 3.46 3.58

0.85 0.58 0.57 0.51

0.49 0.51 0.65 0.58

4 3 4 4

4 4 4 4

3.36 3.60 2.08 2.12 1.68 3.19 2.68 2.65 2.42

3.73 3.62 1.88 2.00 1.81 3.54 2.96 2.73 2.00

0.91 0.76 0.93 0.99 0.63 0.75 0.85 1.09 0.95

0.72 0.75 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.71 1.04 1.00 0.89

4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 2

4 4 2 2 2 4 3 3 2

2.88

3.35

0.95

0.80

3

3.5

Section 3 of the survey asked the students if anyone had discussed engineering with the students, and if so, who? We also asked the students if they wanted to be an engineer and to describe the design process. Of the twenty seven students who completed the survey, only 13 students had discussed engineering with someone. Most of the 13 students noted they had discussed engineering with a family member or family friend. Only one student wrote that he/she had heard about engineering from a teacher (science). The conclusion to be drawn from this survey question is that we need to bring engineering into the K-12 curriculum earlier than 8th grade if we wish to fill the future pipeline with engineers. If students do not know about 25

engineering and its possible careers, then when it comes down to college choices, engineering will not be an option, especially if they don’t have any family members who are engineers. We asked the students if they wanted to be an engineer. Most of the students indicated that they “didn’t know,” and that answer stayed the same at the post-module (11 students). However, three students’ responses increased from “I don’t know” to “Yes,” while three students’ responses stayed at “Yes,” from pre- to post. When asked to describe the design process, most students missed the mark in both preand post-module surveys. We spent only one PowerPoint slide discussing the design process and we think with all the other information being taught, that this particular piece of information simply slipped through the cracks. However, it does show that the 8th grade science curriculum could use some improvement in teaching the design process since not one student answered this completely accurately. Section 4 was a multiple choice section attempting to determine if the students knew what geotechnical engineering entailed, what caused earthquakes, what liquefaction was and what soil-structure interaction described. Nine students knew what Geotechnical Engineering described pre-assessment, while 13 knew what it described post-assessment. This number probably was not higher because the answer was “all of the above” and each of the correct answer phrases were “Examines how to design materials from geologic materials,” “Examines the engineering behavior of earth materials (soil and rock)” and “Determines the strength of soil and rock in various applications.” The most popular choice (other than the correct answer) was “Examines the engineering behavior of earth materials (soil and rock).” It can be concluded, therefore, that the students knew in concept that geotechnical engineers work with soil and rock to build foundations, however, they failed to make the connection that we also design from geologic material and determine the strength of soil and rock. The question about what caused earthquakes showed an improvement in correct answers from 6 to 13, pre- and post-module. Although earthquakes are a part of the 8th grade curriculum, the students had not covered that material by the time we entered their classroom. If this earthquake module had occurred after the students had learned about earthquakes in their classroom, then it is anticipated that more students would have known the correct answer in the pre-module survey. Even though the students had not covered earthquakes in their curriculum by the time we entered their classroom, the student response in Section 2 to “I understand what causes earthquakes,” (2.85 out of 3) does not match what the students responded in Section 4. It is possible that they missed the question because, again, the correct response was “All of the above,” and the choices were “Release of energy from the earth’s crust,” “Shifts in tectonic plates,” and “Volcanoes.” The most popular response (beside the correct answer) in the postassessment surveys was “Shifts in tectonic plates.” The concept of liquefaction was completely foreign to the students prior to the module and only 5 students answered this question correctly, while post-module, eleven students answered correctly. The correct response was “Stress causes soil particles to lose contact with each other making it behave like a liquid.” Since liquefaction occurs in saturated sandy soils due to an earthquake, not soft clayey soils, if this survey were to be given again, this question would be taken out. It was too much to cover in the first introductory lesson and, while an important concept, can easily be left out to make more time to cover the design process and other more relevant topics. Eight students responded correctly pre-module, while only 7 students responded correctly post-module, when asked about soil-structure interaction. The correct answer was “How a 26

foundation is affected by the surrounding subsurface material during external loading.” The remainder of the responses encompassed the other four choices equally. It was thought that the concept of soil-structure interaction was covered adequately and students did understand this concept by observing soil-structure interaction with their Jell-o® and Slim-Jim design, but somehow, this concept did not get remembered adequately. It is possible that we should have split the introductory lecture into two parts as mentioned before. The first part would be simply setting up the problem, and then after the students designed and constructed their stabilized pile, we would stop and talk again about what they were actually doing. This ‘just in time learning,” might be more effective when teaching 8th graders about this topic. They may have felt a little overwhelmed in the beginning with the amount of information being taught. Responses to Reflection Questions As part of the post-module survey, students were asked a series of reflection questions to answer in their own words what they observed and learned during the module. The questions and a summary of the student responses are given here with the full responses detailed in Appendix H. 1. When we began our module, the Slim Jim® pile foundation was built in a Jell-o® mold with no improvements. a. Describe what happened to the pile foundation when the Jell-o® was subjected to dynamic loading (earthquake simulation). b. Describe how modifying the soil (Jell-o®) changed the behavior of the pile foundation when it was subjected to dynamic loading (earthquake simulation). Almost all the students responded in a way that showed they understood the difference between unimproved pile movement and improved pile movement. The most common answer for describing an unimproved pile was that the pile “wiggled a lot.” The recurring description of how modifying the pile changed the behavior was that the pile “wiggled less.” The students’ responses indicate that they understood the difference in behavior between an unimproved pile and an improved foundation and that deflections are lessened when the soil is strengthened around the pile. 2. Describe how earthquakes create bridge displacements and potentially cause damage to bridges. There was not an overall trend in response to this question. In fact, we think that the students did not fully understand the question in reading over their responses. We were trying to elicit responses like “earthquakes shake the soil and push the bridge foundations over,” or “earthquakes shake the soil, which shake the bridges on the soil, causing cracking.” We wanted to see if the students had made the connection between soil shaking and subsequent structure shaking, but either they did not make that connection, or they did not take the time to answer the question correctly. There were some responses to this question which did show that the students understood the relationship between the soil and the bridges, in that the earthquakes “move the soil and break apart the steel,” and “shake everything” and “break up the soil.”

27

3. Describe the engineering design process. This question was asked twice: once in Section 3 and again in the reflection questions. The responses indicate that the students are not comfortable with explaining the design process. Many students kept going back to the term “blueprint” and we are not sure where that came from. In subsequent modules, we would discuss this in greater detail to help the students understand this concept. 4. Describe two potential methods for decreasing bridge displacements “at risk” from a potential earthquake. Although we asked for two methods of decreasing bridge displacements, most students only provided one answer: “fix the ground.” This is understandable as the entire module was based around soil stabilization and deep cement soil mixing in the context of edible material. We were happy that the students understood that by making the “ground” stronger, pile displacements would be smaller. Not much time was spent discussing other options, although several students said to provide a “better foundation.” 5. Describe what geotechnical engineers do, in general. This question was to qualify one of our learning objectives, which was to introduce geotechnical engineering to the 8th graders to broaden their view of career path opportunities. The responses to this question matched the post-module responses to the question in Section 1 “I know what Geotechnical Engineers do,” which was encouraging. Almost all the students seem to understand that geotechnical engineers work with soil and “make soil better.” 6. What is the one thing you liked about this experiment? The students overwhelmingly responded that they loved working with the Jell-o® and that this experiment “was fun.” Some noted that they liked it because “it was like a real simulation,” and “it was cool to simulate a real world application with food.” It seems that the students learned a great deal about earthquakes and geotechnical engineering while having a great time playing with Jell-o®; which was the entire point of the module. We also think that making all the materials used in the experiment edible was appreciated by the students. Although some students did taste the materials, this was not a big problem. The students, in general, took the assignment seriously. 7. What is the one thing that can be improved in this experiment? Most students responded “nothing” when asked what could be improved, although some students did offer some interesting suggestions. A few responded that we should have an actual building instead of a seismic mass (lollipop). We intentionally stayed away from any structure above ground so that the focus would be on the soil-pile interaction and the behavior change when soil stabilization was introduced. Although the failure would be much more dramatic if a structure were to be added above the pile, the focus of the experiment would have been lost.

28

5.2

Science and Math Teacher Feedback.

We modified the student survey slightly and gave the teachers both pre- and post-module surveys and the results are summarized below. The first three questions prompted the teachers to answer “Not at all,” “Not sure,” or “Yes.” Numerical values were assigned to each answer. Not at all = 1, Not sure = 2 and Yes = 3. Therefore, if the value increased from pre- to post-module, the teachers indicated that their knowledge improved due to the module. The results are encouraging. While each question showed an increase from pre- to post-module responses, the response garnering the most improvement was “I know what kind of work Geotechnical Engineers do,” from an average response of 1.93 to 3, or a 55% increase in familiarity with a Geotechnical Engineer’s job description. In fact, the post-module response was a unanimous “Yes,” as can be seen by the standard deviation value of “0.” This was the same results as garnered from the student responses. Both times that we presented this module, the participants’ knowledge of what Geotechnical Engineers do or what Geotechnical Engineering is, improved. Table 9: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Module Average, Standard Deviation and Median Teacher Responses. Standard Median Deviation Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- PostAverage

In general, I know what kind of work 2.93 engineers do I know what kind of work Civil Engineers 2.52 do I know what kind of work Geotechnical Engineers do

1.93

3

0.26

0

3

3

3

0.57

0

3

3

3

0.59

0

2

3

In the second section of the assessment surveys, we wanted to learn about the teachers’ perception of engineers or the field of engineering. The teachers were asked to indicate how well the categories described engineers or the field of engineering as “Very well,” “Somewhat well,” “Not very well,” and “Not well at all.” These descriptors were given numerical values of Very well = 4, Somewhat well = 3, Not very well = 2 and Not well at all = 1. Average numerical responses from the pre- and the post-module surveys are compared in Table 10. While most of the positive attributes of engineers seemed to elicit a slightly higher response in post-module results, the attribute that improved the most was entrepreneurship, with a 15% increase in perception after the module. Another large improvement in perception was seen in the categories “leadership,” “fun,” and “rewarding,” with 12%, 11% and 10% increases, respectively. We are happy to report that the negative perceptions that engineers “are nerdy” and “are boring,” decreased substantially (11% and 14%, respectively), seemingly due to the module.

29

Table 10: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Module Average, Standard Deviation and Median Teacher Responses to Perceptions of Engineers. Standard Median Deviation Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post3.72 3.97 4.00 4.00 0.5 0.2 3.50 3.86 0.58 0.35 4.0 4.0 3.38 3.76 0.49 0.44 3.0 4.0 3.62 3.93 0.49 0.26 4.0 4.0 3.89 3.93 0.31 0.26 4.0 4.0 3.83 3.97 0.38 0.19 4.0 4.0 3.79 3.93 0.41 0.26 4.0 4.0 3.38 3.79 0.62 0.41 3.0 4.0 2.72 2.43 0.88 0.84 3.0 2.5 Average

Creative Rewarding Fun Get results Hard working Positive effect Inventor Leaders Nerdy Critical thinkers Problem solvers Well-paid Smart Good at math Builds, constructs Designs Sits at desk Mostly Men Mostly White Well-respected Requires years Entrepreneurial Boring Works Outdoors

3.93

3.97

0.27

0.19

4.0

4.0

3.97 3.59 3.45 3.79

3.97 3.59 3.55 3.71

0.19 0.50 0.63 0.42

0.19 0.57 0.51 0.46

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

3.82 3.83 1.97 2.66 2.43 3.52 2.10 2.72 1.90

3.96 3.96 1.90 2.43 2.11 3.79 2.21 3.14 1.62

0.39 0.38 0.68 0.86 0.74 0.51 0.82 0.53 0.72

0.19 0.19 0.62 1.00 0.85 0.42 0.82 0.65 0.78

4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0

4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.0

2.97

3.10

0.78

0.49

3.0

3.0

When asked to describe the design process, almost all the teachers answered this correctly. This makes us believe that these teachers are capable of teaching engineering design process in their science and math classes if proper curriculum material can be provided to them. Section 4 was a multiple choice section attempting to determine if the teachers knew what geotechnical engineering entailed, what caused earthquakes, and what soil-structure interaction described. All but one teacher correctly answered the question about what Geotechnical Engineering described pre-module, which was exactly the same number who answered it 30

correctly post-module. The answer was “all of the above” and each of the correct answer phrases were “Examines how to design materials from geologic materials,” “Examines the engineering behavior of earth materials (soil and rock)” and “Determines the strength of soil and rock in various applications.” Twenty-four of the thirty-two teachers answered the question about what caused earthquakes correctly pre-module and that remained the same from pre- to post- module. All 8 teachers who did not answer correctly chose “shifts in tectonic plates.” This was a similar result to the students’ response. The correct response was “All of the above,” and the choices were “Release of energy from the earth’s crust,” “Shifts in tectonic plates,” and “Volcanoes.” The question on soil structure interaction also gave the teachers some problems. The correct answer was “How a foundation is affected by the surrounding subsurface material during external loading.” The majority of the teachers chose “all of the above (30 of the 32 respondents post-module). The other two choices were “How a structure is affected during external loading,” “How a foundation interacts with the superstructure.” We did not have time to go back and discuss what the teachers had learned through the module due to the time constraints, and this probably contributed to the confusion on what exactly soil-structure interaction was. The teachers seemed slightly overwhelmed at the introductory information, which should have been spread out throughout the morning, but due to timing, had to be condensed to the beginning of their module. A shortened version of the reflection questions were given to the teachers. As can be seen in Appendix I, the teachers were much more verbose than the students, which was great. The questions and a summary of the responses are given below. 1. When we began our experiment, the Slim Jim® pile foundation was built in a Jell-o® mold with no improvements. a. Describe what happened to the pile foundation when the Jell-o® was subject to dynamic loading (earthquake simulation). b. Describe how modifying the soil (Jell-o®) changed the behavior of the pile foundation when it was subject to dynamic loading (earthquake simulation). Similarly to the student responses, the teachers noted a marked difference between the unimproved pile behavior and the improved pile behavior. They described the unimproved pile as moving “a lot,” while after modifying the Jell-o®, they noted that the pile moved much less. 2. Describe what geotechnical engineers do, in general. Each teacher who answered this question had a good idea of what geotechnical engineers do and what geotechnical engineering is, in general. The response to this question was very similar to the response we received from the students, which is encouraging. Spreading the word about geotechnical engineering was the main objective in this fun module, and by all accounts, we were extremely successful. 3. What is the one thing you liked about this experiment? The teachers were overwhelmingly positive in their responses to this question and repeatedly listed “hands on” and “real-world simulations,” as the most favorable aspect of this experiment. They also mentioned “team-driven,” “edible materials,” and “adaptable to the classroom,” as 31

some of the other positive facets of this experiment. It seems that, just like the students, the teachers learned a great deal about earthquakes and geotechnical engineering while having a great time playing with the Jell-o® and other edible materials 4. What is the one thing that can be improved in this experiment? The teachers were most concerned with preparation time, cost and clean-up. This is understandable, since they would be the people administering this experiment in the classroom. The preparation time is somewhat lengthy, and the start up costs can be slightly elevated, however, once the initial supplies are purchased (e.g., Jell-o® tubs, spatulas, excavation molds and tools, etc.) the edible materials are relatively inexpensive. Another way to cut costs would be to have each student bring in a Tupperware container and several boxes of Jell-o®. By spreading the cost out over a 20 person classroom, the out-of-pocket school expense would be next to nothing. In addition to our pre- and post- survey, the University liaisons to this C3 + S & M program administered their own survey at the end of the day and asked the teachers to tell them what they “were surprised by…”, “an idea they wanted to hold onto,” and “a question I still have is…,” as well as provide any additional comments. The earthquake module was presented in the morning and the teachers had another activity in the afternoon. The unedited, compiled responses are detailed in Appendix J, and summarized below. As you can see, the overall experience was very positive. The teachers were most surprised by how many facets of engineering there are and how interesting geotechnical engineering can be. The most popular idea that they wanted to hold onto was students need to be introduced to engineering early, engineering will be an ‘in demand” vocation and that it is imperative that they find active ways to engage students. The overwhelming question the teachers still had, revolved around the cost of the experiment. They were very concerned with the budget as well as the time needed to do this sort of activity. We feel that this module is economical and will fit easily into the classroom setting, however, it does take some resources that either the parents and students need to provide, or the school needs to provide. 6

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1

Summary The purpose of this engineering educational module on the behavior of piles in soft clays during earthquake loading was to: 1. Introduce civil engineering and specifically, geotechnical engineering, to the students to broaden their view of career path opportunities, 2. Enhance student knowledge of earthquakes, earthquake damages to structures built on and in soft clays and how engineers can design foundations to minimize earthquake induced damage, 3. Demonstrate the importance of soil-structure interaction by improving a zone of soft soil around piles to reduce movement, therefore, minimizing earthquake induced damage. We presented our learning module to both 8th grade students and Middle School science and math teachers on two separate occasions. Our module simulated soil-structure interaction 32

between a pile foundation and soft soil by using completely edible material including Jell-o® as soil, Slim Jims® as piles and peanut butter, marshmallows and cheese as stabilizing agents. Each participant had the chance to design a stabilization procedure to strengthen the piles and visually understand how to lessen deflections of bridges by stabilizing the soil surrounding foundations. After the participants designed and constructed their stabilized pile, the entire model was shaken under a realistic earthquake motion to show what happens to foundations in soft soils during an earthquake. The participants competed to see who designed a pile with the least amount of deflection for the least amount of money using a pre-determined cost-list and an optimization equation. We assessed the participants’ learning by administering pre- and postmodule surveys, which were matched, then de-identified by external evaluators. 6.2

Conclusions

The conclusions to be drawn from this study are that in student and teacher cases, knowledge of what geotechnical engineers do and what geotechnical engineering is was greatly enhanced after the module was complete. This was achieved by creating a fun, hands-on, completely edible, well-organized educational module based solely on principles of geotechnical engineering. We intentionally targeted the soil-structure interaction of soft clay and piles, and did not include any above-ground structures beside the small seismic mass. We wanted to focus the participants’ attention to what occurred below the ground surface during an earthquake load and including a structure above the pile would have distracted from that mission. While there have been only 64 participants thus far, some promising preliminary conclusions on engineering perceptions can be made. In general, both the students and teachers perceptions of engineers improved from before to after the module. Specifically, entrepreneurship, leadership, fun and positive effect elicited higher marks after the module, while negative stereotypes of engineers, such as boring and nerdy significantly decreased. From all of this survey data, we believe that our first learning objective was met. Both students and teachers understood that stabilizing a soft soil decreased the deflections of the pile and listed this as one of the answers for how engineers can improve bridge foundations. We believe that our second learning objective was successfully met in that most of the responses listed “make the soil stronger” as a way to minimize earthquake damages. Students and teachers both had problems answering the specific question about soil-structure interaction on the pre- and post-module surveys, and therefore, the connection between what the participants built and tested and the term “soil-structure interaction” should be more clearly made. While almost all participants made the observations that the unimproved pile moved a great deal and the improved pile moved much less, they did not seem to make the connection that what they were observing was the definition of soil-structure interaction. Therefore, while we think that we were successful in creating a module allowing participants to visually experience soil-structure interaction first hand and understand the real-world implications, we do not believe that we adequately made the connection between the experiment and the term soil-structure interaction in enough detail to allow the majority of the participants to answer this survey question correctly. This should be a relatively easy fix when implementing this module to additional participants. All 64 participants were overwhelmingly positive in their remarks about this module and repeatedly listed “hands on” and “real-world simulations,” as the most favorable aspect of this experiment. Both the students and the teachers enjoyed the edible facet of our module. In 33

conclusion, the overall feedback from this module is that it was great fun and that the participants learned much about geotechnical engineering, earthquake engineering and ways to make foundations stronger to withstand earthquake damage. 6.3

Recommendations

The recommendations for this module have been discussed throughout this report in the appropriate sections, however, will be summarized here. The main recommendation is to split up the introductory lecture into smaller sections throughout the 4-5 hour module so as to not overwhelm the participants. The other recommendations have to do with materials chosen and survey questions asked, and can be found throughout the text. The introductory lecture should mainly show pictures of what geotechnical engineers do, how earthquakes affect our foundations and how we can strengthen those foundations to minimize damages. The participants would then be given the demonstration and asked to design and construct a stabilized pile. Once they had gotten the chance to play with the Jell-o® and stabilizing materials, more information could be given to them about cement-deep soil mixing and the design process. After this short information session, the students should be asked to determine their final design. The competition should be held, and then a wrap-up information session should occur, along with announcing the winners and completing the post-module surveys. The term soil-structure interaction can be expanded in the wrap-up information session. Breaking up the introductory lecture into “just-in-time-learning” would make it easier for the students to digest the new material, but also make the material more relevant after they had a chance to experience how a pile’s behavior changed after stabilization. The timing and order of this module are crucial to enhance learning and careful thought should be given as to the delivery of the content. We hypothesize that we would have gotten more correct responses to our questions in Section 3 had we presented several mini-lectures, rather than give all the information up front. It should be noted, however, that we were strapped for time in both module delivery situations; the first because the module was split into 5- 50 minute segments and the second because the module was condensed to a 3.5 hour time slot.

34

7

References

ASCE 2009. American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/) Grose, T.K. (2006). Fertile New Ground. American Society for Engineering Education, PRISM. Vol. 15, No. 9. pp. 46-50. Home-Douglas, P. (2006). Shaky Ground. ASEE, PRISM. Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 30-33. Marcuson, W.F., Dobry, R., Nelson, J.D., Woods, R.D. and Youd, T.L. (1991). Issues in geotechnical engineering education. ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 1-9. Poulos, H.G. (2006). Commentary: The Invisibility of the Geotechnical Engineer. GeoStrata, ASCE GeoInstitute. Vol. 6, No. 3, May/June 2006. pp. 10-11. Prasad, S.K., Towhata, I., Chandradhara, G.P. and Nanjundaswamy, P. 2004. Shaking table tests in earthquake geotechnical engineering. Current Science. Vol. 87, No. 10, pp. 1398-1404. White, J.A. (1990). TQM: It’s Time Academia. Unpublished paper, Georgia Institute of Technology. (referenced in Besterfield-Sacre et al. 1997)

35

8

Appendices

A.

PARENTAL CONSENT .................................................................................................... 37

B.

STUDENT ASSENT ........................................................................................................... 40

C.

PRE-ASSESSMENT SURVEY ......................................................................................... 42

D.

POST-ASSESSMENT SURVEYS..................................................................................... 46

E.

COST LIST FOR MODULE ............................................................................................. 51

F.

STUDENT DESIGN DETAILS ......................................................................................... 52

G. TEACHER DESIGN DETAILS. ....................................................................................... 55 H. STUDENT RESPONSES TO REFLECTION QUESTIONS ......................................... 57 I.

TEACHER RESPONSES TO REFLECTION QUESTIONS ........................................ 64

J.

EXTRA TEACHER EVALUATION: .............................................................................. 72

36

A. Parental Consent University of Oklahoma Institutional Review Board Informed Parental Consent to Participate in a Research Study Project Title: Principal Investigator: Department:

Understanding and Improving the Seismic Behavior of Pile Foundations in Soft Clays: An Educational Module Dr. Amy B. Cerato Civil Engineering and Environmental Science

Hello Parents! You child is being asked to volunteer for this research study. This study is being conducted at Norman Public School’s Discovery Science Class. Your child was selected as a possible participant because he/she is taking the Discovery Science Class. Please read this form and ask any questions that you may have before agreeing to let your child take part in this study. Purpose of the Research Study The University of Oklahoma Geotechnical Engineering Group (www.geotech.ou.edu) has prepared an exciting four hour educational module for your child to learn about how earthquakes affect our buildings and foundations. The students will have a chance to not only learn about how earthquakes destroy our buildings and foundations, but how geotechnical engineers design and build foundations in earthquake prone areas to minimize damage through a really fun, handson experience. Number of Participants About 200 Middle School students will take part in this study. Procedures If you agree to allow your child to be in this study, your child will be asked to do the following: 1. Complete pre- and post- assessment surveys about engineering. We will not ask any personal information and individual names will not be linked to the survey results, therefore, there will be no information included that will make it possible to identify your child. These surveys will use “Participant ID numbers” so that we can match what a student knows before they complete the module and how that knowledge changes after they complete the module. We are simply interested in how much the module improved understanding about earthquakes and engineering in general. 2. Construct a pile foundation (Slim Jims® ) used to hold up a bridge, in soil (Jell-o®) and learn how to strengthen that foundation in the event of an earthquake, by using a cement like mixture (peanut butter, marshmallows and cheese). After we have given 37

a background lecture and demonstration, we will have your child construct several strengthened piles to learn about how the different “cement-like material” will minimize displacements. Then, on the last day, we will ask your child to choose an optimal design, which provides the least pile displacement for the least amount of money. We will place your child’s construction on a shaker table to simulate an earthquake and measure the displacements of their strengthened pile and the team who has the least amount of displacement for the least cost wins! We are measuring the displacement of the pile using high-speed, high-definition video cameras so that the students can watch the pile displacement in slow motion up on a projector screen and see the damage that earthquakes cause! We feel that this adds to the excitement of learning! Length of Participation The earthquake module will take four hours of classroom time, in 4, 1 hour consecutive class periods. This study has the following risks: None Benefits of being in the study are Students will be exposed to geotechnical engineering early in their education and when thinking about potential careers, will know that engineering is a viable option. Students will also have the chance to see for themselves what earthquakes actually do to foundations and structures and how engineers can design foundations to lessen the damage. Experiential learning often helps students retain knowledge longer and excites students about the world in which we live. Confidentiality In published reports, there will be no information included that will make it possible to identify your child. Research records will be stored securely and only approved researchers will have access to the records. Compensation Your child will not be reimbursed for their participation in this study. Voluntary Nature of the Study Participation in this study is voluntary. If you withdraw or decline your child’s participation, your child will not be penalized or lose benefits or services unrelated to the study. If you decide to allow your child to participate, your child may decline to answer any question and may choose to withdraw at any time.

38

Audio Recording of Study Activities To assist with our educational objectives, which are to introduce students to geotechnical engineering while reinforcing earthquake topics, we may record students’ thoughts and reactions to the module. You have the right to refuse to allow such recording without penalty. Please select one of the following options. I consent to audio recording.

___

Yes

___

No.

Video Recording of Study Activities To assist with our educational objectives, students may be recorded on a video recording device. You have the right to refuse to allow such recording. Please select one of the following options: I consent to video recording.

___

Yes

___

No.

Photographing of Study Participants/Activities In order to preserve an image related to the research, photographs may be taken of participants. You have the right to refuse to allow photographs to be taken without penalty. Please select one of the following options. I consent to photographs.

___

Yes

___

No.

Contacts and Questions If you have concerns or complaints about the research, the researcher(s) conducting this study can be contacted at Dr. Amy B. Cerato, Ph.D., P.E.; [email protected] or 405-325-5625 Contact the researcher(s) if you have questions or if you have experienced a research related injury. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, concerns, or complaints about the research and wish to talk to someone other than individuals on the research team or if you cannot reach the research team, you may contact the University of Oklahoma – Norman Campus Institutional Review Board (OU-NC IRB) at 405-325-8110 or [email protected]. You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records. If you are not given a copy of this consent form, please request one. Statement of Consent I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received satisfactory answers. I consent to participate in the study. Signature

Date

39

B. Student Assent University of Oklahoma Institutional Review Board Student Assent to Participate in a Research Study Project Title: Principal Investigator: Department:

Understanding and Improving the Seismic Behavior of Pile Foundations in Soft Clays: An Educational Module Dr. Amy B. Cerato Civil Engineering and Environmental Science

For children 12-14 years old Why are we meeting with you? We want to tell you about something we are doing called a research study. A research study is when researchers collect information to learn more about something. Researchers will ask you a lot of questions. After we tell you more about it, we will ask if you’d like to be in this study or not. Why are we doing this study? This educational earthquake module is being taught to help you understand more about earthquakes and the damage they cause. We also want to tell you about geotechnical engineering. We will ask you many questions to try and learn what you know about earthquakes and engineering before you participate in the module and then will ask you more questions after you build your bridge foundation about what you learned and what you think about engineering. We would also like to know what you think about simulating earthquakes on a shaker table with a real soil-structure model made out of Jell-o® and Slim Jims® . In the whole study, there will be about 200 children who have taken part in this earthquake module and learned about soil-structure interaction. What will happen to you if you are in this study? If you agree to be in this study, three things will happen: 1. You will answer a lot of questions. These questions will ask about what you know about earthquakes and engineering in general both before and after you participate. 2. We will ask you to listen to a talk about earthquakes, and then design and build a bridge foundation to withstand earthquake loads.

40

3. You will know more about earthquakes and engineering by the end of the week. How long will you be in the study? You will be in the study for about 1 week (5 class periods). What bad things might happen to you if you are in the study? No bad things will happen to you. The questions might take a long time to answer. What good things might happen to you if you are in the study? You will learn about engineering as a profession and how engineers can help to keep people safe by building stronger bridge foundations. Do you have any questions? You can ask questions any time. You can ask now. You can ask later. You can talk to me or you can talk to someone else. Do you have to be in this study? No, you don’t. No one will be mad at you if you don’t want to do this. If you don’t want to be in this study, just tell us. Or if you do want to be in the study, tell us that. And, remember, you can say yes now and change your mind later. It’s up to you. Your Mom or Dad will also have to give permission for you to be in this study. If you don’t want to be in this study, just tell us. If you want to be in this study, just tell us. The person who talks to you will give you a copy of this form to keep. SIGNATURE OF PERSON CONDUCTING ASSENT DISCUSSION I have explained the study to ______________________(print name of child here) in language he/she can understand, and the child has agreed to be in the study. __________________________________ Signature of Child

_______________ Date

__________________________________ Signature of Person Conducting Assent Discussion

_______________ Date

_______________________________ Name of Person Conducting Assent Discussion (print)

41

C. Pre-Assessment Survey

Welcome to the Geotechnical Engineering Earthquake Module. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey, which will take about 10 minutes to complete. If you have questions about the survey, please ask any of the people administering it.

Name:

__________________________________________________________ (please PRINT your first and last name)

Participant ID #: ___________________________________________________ (provided by activity organizer)

42

Pre- Assessment We’d like to gather some information on your understanding of and interest in engineering. Please complete all the questions. This will help us make the learning experience more useful and more fun for you. Participant ID #: __________________________________________________________ Tell us about you 1. Gender (circle one) Female Male 2. Ethnicity (you may circle more than one as appropriate) African/Black American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian and Pacific American Latina/Latino/Hispanic American White American Other:_____________________________

Section 1: Please check the box that best describes your opinion or feeling. Question Not at all Not sure In general, I know what kind of works engineers do. I know what kind of work Civil Engineers do. I know what kind of work Geotechnical Engineers do. I’d like to be an engineer someday I understand what causes earthquakes I understand the effects of earthquakes I understand what the magnitude of an earthquake means Question My interest in science is My interest in math is My interest in engineering is

Low

43

Medium

Yes

High

Section 2: For each of the following, please indicate how well you think it describes engineers or the field of engineering Describes engineers or the engineering profession…. Very well Somewhat Not very Not well at well well all Creative The work is rewarding Fun Get results Hard working Have a positive effect on people’s everyday lives Inventor Leaders Nerdy Critical thinkers Problem solvers Well-paid Must be smart to get into this field Must be good at math and science Builds, constructs and makes things Designs, draws and plans things Sits at a desk all day Mostly men Mostly white Well-respected Requires too many years of school to get a degree Entrepreneurial Boring Often work outdoors

44

Section 3: In your future, do you think you may want to be an engineer? (circle one) Yes No Don’t know Has anyone talked to you about becoming an engineer? (circle one) Yes No If yes, please circle everyone who has talked to you about this. People in after school programs Math Teacher Engineering or technology teacher Science Teacher Family Members Computer Teacher Family Friends Other (provide kind of person or teacher, not name) Guidance Counselor

Describe the engineering design process.

Section 4: Please circle those statements that you think describe the numbered phrase. i. Geotechnical engineering o Examines how to design materials from geologic materials o Examines the engineering behavior of earth materials (soil and rock) o Determines the strength of soil and rock in various applications o All of the above o None of the above ii. Earthquakes are caused by o Release of energy from the earth’s crust o Shifts in tectonic plates o Volcanoes o All of the above o None of the above iii. Liquefaction occurs when o Water mixes with sand causing it to become a liquid o Stress causes soil particles to lose contact with each other making it behave like a liquid o Water puddles on top of the soil saturating it to a point where it becomes too soft to support weight o All of the above o None of the above iv. Soil-structure interaction describes….. o How a structure is affected during external loading o How a foundation interacts with the superstructure o How a foundation is affected by the surrounding subsurface material during external loading o All of the above o None of the above 45

D. Post-Assessment Surveys Now that we’re done with the Geotechnical Engineering Earthquake Module, we’d like to ask you a few questions about your experiences and what you’ve learned this week. Your answers will help us make this module better for next year’s class, so please answer as many as possible. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey, which will take about 10 minutes to complete. If you have questions about the survey, please ask any of the people administering it.

Name:

__________________________________________________________ (please PRINT your first and last name)

Participant ID #: ___________________________________________________ (provided by activity organizer)

46

Post-Assessment Participant ID #:____________________________________________________ Section 1: Please check the box that best describes your opinion or feeling. Question Not at all Not sure In general, I know what kind of works engineers do. I know what kind of work Civil Engineers do. I know what kind of work Geotechnical Engineers do. I’d like to be an engineer someday I understand what causes earthquakes I understand the effects of earthquakes I understand what the magnitude of an earthquake means Question My interest in science is My interest in math is My interest in engineering is

Low

47

Medium

Yes

High

Section 2: For each of the following, please indicate how well you think it describes engineers or the field of engineering Describes engineers or the engineering profession…. Very well Somewhat Not very Not well at well well all Creative The work is rewarding Fun Get results Hard working Have a positive effect on people’s everyday lives Inventor Leaders Nerdy Critical thinkers Problem solvers Well-paid Must be smart to get into this field Must be good at math and science Builds, constructs and makes things Designs, draws and plans things Sits at a desk all day Mostly men Mostly white Well-respected Requires too many years of school to get a degree Entrepreneurial Boring Often work outdoors

48

Section 3: In your future, do you think you may want to be an engineer? (circle one) Yes No Don’t know

Describe the engineering design process.

Section 4: Please circle those statements that you think describe the numbered phrase. i. Geotechnical engineering o Examines how to design materials from geologic materials o Examines the engineering behavior of earth materials (soil and rock) o Determines the strength of soil and rock in various applications o All of the above o None of the above ii. Earthquakes are caused by o Release of energy from the earth’s crust o Shifts in tectonic plates o Volcanoes o All of the above o None of the above iii. Liquefaction occurs when o Water mixes with sand causing it to become a liquid o Stress causes soil particles to lose contact with each other making it behave like a liquid o Water puddles on top of the soil saturating it to a point where it becomes too soft to support weight o All of the above o None of the above iv. Soil-structure interaction describes….. o How a structure is affected during external loading o How a foundation interacts with the superstructure o How a foundation is affected by the surrounding subsurface material during external loading o All of the above o None of the above

49

Reflection Questions i. When we began our experiment, the Slim Jim® pile foundation was built in a Jell-o® mold with no improvements. c. Describe what happened to the pile foundation when the Jell-o® was subject to dynamic loading (earthquake simulation).

d. Describe how modifying the soil (Jell-o®) changed the behavior of the pile foundation when it was subject to dynamic loading (earthquake simulation).

3. Describe how earthquakes create bridge displacements and potentially cause damage to bridges.

4. Describe two potential methods for decreasing bridge displacements “at risk” from a potential earthquake.

5. Describe what geotechnical engineers do, in general.

6.

What is the one thing you liked about this experiment?

7. What is the one thing that can be improved in this experiment?

50

E. Cost List for Module

Cost List for Pile Stabilization Cheese: Crunchy Peanut Butter: Creamy Peanut Butter: 1 Small Marshmallow: 1 Big Marshmallow: Mold Diameters: B & C* D* 1.2” 1.4”

$600/50 grams $300/50 grams $200/50 grams $150 $450

E** 1.9”

*~50 grams of peanut butter **1 Big Marshmallow ***~170 grams of cheese

Equation: (Largest “x” wins)

51

F*** 2.4”

G 3.1”

F. Student Design Details

Figure 20: “The Girls” Design and Photo.

Figure 21: The Natural Fury’s Design and Photo.

52

Figure 22: The Slim Winners Design and Photo.

Figure 23: Team Bogan’s Design and Photo.

Figure 24: Team Surge Design and Photo.

53

Figure 25: Team Tomawia’s Design and Photo.

54

G. Teacher Design Details.

Figure 26: EZ Cheez Design and Photo.

Figure 27: Say Cheese’s Design and Photo.

Figure 28: Cheesing the System Design and Photo.

55

Figure 29: The Big Cheese’s Design and Photo.

Figure 30: Sticky Cheese’s Design and Photo.

Figure 31: Team Hoodies’ Design and Photo.

56

H. Student Responses to Reflection Questions Table 11: Student Responses to Reflection Questions 1a and 1b Q1a It wiggled and moved.

Q1b It would make it move less.

Started to break down or give way.

Improved the ground.

Moves a lot.

Doesn't move as much.

It moved back and forth

The structure didn't move side to side very far

I moved and wiggled

It wiggled less

It broke

didn't shake as much

The Jell-o® cracked

It made it less wiggly and more compacted

it wiggled and shook

it didn't move as much

it jiggled

Because guess the earthquake was strong?

it moved

it moved less

moved a lot

makes it not move as much shook violently

Jell-o® cracked

less wiggly and more compact

shook back and forth

became stable and not shake

shook furiously

made it shake less

It moved and the Jell-o® broke off in edge

It made the lollipop more stable

The pile was very unstable and moved a lot

It made the pile stable

It shook back and forth

It stables it more

Either the pile falls or stays standing

The pile would stand or fall over

The Slim Jim® moved a lot The sucker moved and eventually broke the Jell-o® The pile would shake back and forth like crazy The pile foundation shook with the earthquake

IT helped the building not move

It moved a lot It broke It moved with the earth but did not break the foundation moved.

The sucker moved much less and stay intact The pile didn’t shake as much the pile foundation was secure by making it stable inside the earthquake It improved the soil making the pile not move a lot. It moved a little bit making a hole and adding cheese and crunchy peanut butter It could have made everything stronger and harder to move.

57

Table 12: Student Responses to Reflection Question – Describe how earthquakes cause bridge displacements and damage. They break up the soil beneath the bridge and it falls apart. Because they are on bad soil. The bridges crack, because they move too much. It moves the soil and break apart the steel The bridge may fall over It shakes everything Because they split in half bridges don't have a strong foundation Because just about all around the world the earth is moving and shaking so there is bound to be some destruction. it breaks up the soil they shake a lot and we need to make it better shook less because they are so high up you would need to make the part is the ground very compacted it destroys piles and cause the to collapse it cracks or moves supports The bridge lose stability and fall They can crack piles causing the bridge to fall It shakes causing them to brake Earthquakes can tear bridges apart The earth move on the land the bridge is on since the bridge isn't completely in soil, the resonance can break them The earthquake causes the piles to shake and possibly sink farther into the ground causing the bridge to crack and break It shakes the ground which makes cracks in the earth They move the bridge It put it off line they move the bridges and if not stable then it will fall The earthquakes can destroy the bridges.

58

Table 13: Student Responses to Reflection Question – Describe the design process. You draw a blue-print. Building things. On the computer blank talk, make plans, change soil i don't have a clue blueprints, powerpoints They pretty much design buildings and such. going through steps I don’t no don’t know you research your soil and according to your results you adjust it don’t know They test things out and if it works they test the soil, then test the building Engineers design materials to make piles to keep buildings stable during an earthquake Design things Plan, test, apply IDK Blank You think of an idea, run a program that ??????? on the computer, then do a test in real life the engineers draw out the product, gather materials and then design it you design engineering stuff Don't know unreadable I think they record data then they do an experiment.

59

Table 14: Student Responses to Reflection Question – Describe two potential methods for decreasing bridge displacements. Making the soil harder. Ground Improvement. Better foundation. Slim Jims® , Concrete fix the ground blank using hard soil better soil, gravel I don’t know. I guess just to have People: START RECYCLING MORE and SAVE OUR PLANET! clay and ??? + soil? make it steady making the bottom thick and the poll strong Put support to the piles changing soil More steel rods holding it in better soil Mix the soil with concrete or drive the piles until they reach hard soil To stable more Strengthen it with a stronger material or replace it with a newer, stronger bridge fix the soil, and put metal poles to hold it up Deeper pile foundations, improved connect the soil and concrete ground improvement, better foundations improve soil, make bridge lower use cheese or use crunchy peanut butter better soil Making the soil stronger, make a stronger base.

60

Table 15: Student Responses to Reflection Question – Describe what Geotechnical Engineers do. They make buildings and try to make sure an earthquake wouldn't destroy it. Trying to make the soil better. Work the soil, or work to improve the soil. Work on the computer fix soil for buildings make buildings safe in an earthquake Build building safe so they won't collapse in earthquakes blank I don’t know what a geotechnical engineer is. They measure the strength of earthquakes make stuff safer build foundation make building safe using dirt and things study soils and the effects of earthquakes help buildings hold up They test things like buildings Build strong foundations to keep withstand an earthquake Design buildings to last earthquake determine the strength of soils and rocks in applications IDK Study how geological factors interact They ??frame?? out the strength of the soil. they examine soil behavior improve soil for stuff they help with everything we have blank They study the soil.

61

Table 16: Student Responses to Reflection Question – What is one thing you liked about this experiment? Being able to play with Jell-o®. It was like a real simulation. Making the simulations. Surging the Jell-o® It was fun Eating the peanut butter I thought the experiment was really fun, and educational. Now i get the understanding how earthquakes occur and how you can make buildings stronger. it was fun I liked when we put stuff in the hole thingie of the Jell-o®. trying to win iTunes building and Jell-o® it was fun making the structure Destroying the Jell-o® got to work with Jell-o® The food and Jell-o® The competition and getting to work together It was fun The simulation allowed us to design a stronger structure so that when a larger earthquake hits lives would not lost Eating the food It was cool to simulate real world application with food destroy the Jell-o® building the structure Jell-o® the peanut butter we messed with food All the things are shaking.

62

Table 17: Student Responses to Reflection Question – What is one thing that can be improved? The Jell-o® Have an actual building. Making a price limit. The foundation Jell-o® do it with real soil I don't think anything can be improved in this experiment, maybe a little longer than a week. nothing Not taking as much pictures. nothing? spend more time on it don’t know nothing nothing nothing More variety of things Nothing Nothing having us design other structures like bridges, mines Not so much talking blank Bigger groups make the soft soil harder more Jell-o® blank tried creamy than crunchy Make the Jell-o® stronger.

63

I. Teacher Responses to Reflection Questions Table 18: Teacher Responses to Reflection Questions 1a and 1b Q1a Q1b It shifted a lot

It reduced the shaking of the pile foundation

There was a lot of movement

There was considerably less movement

The pile foundation moved

The pile foundation movements was greatly reduced

It moved laterally quite a bit

The lateral movement was significantly less

Wobbled back and forth a lot

Wobbled less

moved a lot

moved less

it swayed back and forth

the Jell-o® still moved back and forth

large displacement

displacement was minimized

it shook back and forth from the it was a little more stable force of the movement the Slim Jim® shook a lot

stiffened it up so the Slim Jim® didn't move as much

Slim Jim® shaked a lot

stabilized the Slim Jim®

The modification created protection from the the Jell-o® was shaking the Slim shaking Jell-o®, I created support for the Slim Jim® and blow pop Jim® pile moved

decreased movement

pile moved

modified soil absorbed more energy so pile moved less

pile moved with Jell-o®

provided a less moveable foundation

It shifted, was very volatile

The foundation did not move as much. Increased the stability.

64

pile moved much less it shifted back and forth a lot

it did not move as much

it shifted back and forth

it was stabilized more. Shaking still occurred but was better

it moved very drastically, very it stabilized the pile unstable it was shifted back and forth

it gave the pile more stability to withstand the force of the loading

There was a lot of movement

modifying reduced movement

The pile foundation moved from side to side a great distance The Jell-o® shook a lot and therefore allowed for lots of displacement

modifying the Jell-o® reduced the movement of the pile foundation

It caused the pile to move

lessened the movement

it moved back and forth

it moved less

it moved a great distance.

it still moved but not as much.

moved a lot

it had more of a foundation to help stabilize it. The improvements helped absorb the impact.

it swayed back and forth

less swaying

we were able to combine materials to allow for shock absorption and lower the displacement

65

Table 19: Teacher Responses to Reflection Question - What do Geotechnical Engineers do? Research soil qualities and characteristics, to improve foundation performance of different structures make sure structures are built on firm foundations Geotechnical engineers look at the soil/ground & determine how much weight it can hold. Then, they determine what modifications can be made to soil/ground to accommodate the load of the building Design substructures that will support buildings by manipulating soil materials and etc., Design structures for below earth's surface based on the site's soil type + intended structure build foundations, reinforce foundations testing different materials and comparing effectiveness to cost they study how the soil and structures interact. Then they use the information to bettr our structures test how depend what materials need to be used to give a structure a firm foundation study how the soil interacts with structures find a way to stabilize buildings or structures through different types of soil in case of natural disaster or soil giving way look at soil to decide best foundations for buildings test the soil and look for ways to stabilize it analyze soil to create the right foundation for a building test soil, learn strengths of material, design structures to be modified/ react with geologic conditions Design systems to protect people and structures from the effect of geological activity. problem solve

66

they test soils and build a sturdy foundation they work with materials that are below ground design safe foundations by testing soils to decide which type of pile the come up with ways to stabilize a foundation given different soil types that would give the most support and strength to the structure to withstand what may happen with the earth research the soil to test and see what kind of foundation is needed to have secure buildings, bridges, etc during earthquakes they design and build underground structures

they test the soil and ground components to see how to construct buildings, houses and other things to withstand and hold up against disasters or wear tear

Design to make things move less for safety. Study how earth moves and how to make structures on earth be safer and more effective test. Evaluate and design improvements that the stability of foundations for building above the ground they come up with ways to make foundation sturdy for buildings and other structures. they formulate a plan, test it, retest it if needed, then create a structure. They must observe or take samples of the soil and perform simulations. Cost plays a factor. examine how to design material, examine behavior of soil and rock, determine behavior of soil and rock

67

Table 20: Teacher Responses to Reflection Question -What did you like about the experiment? It was interesting and the creativity factor was excellent It was fun It was very hands on and concrete The hands on commitment (messy). Kids would be fully involved. Decision process. 2nd Bonus things Playing with food stuffs, someone else cleaned up hands on, kids can see what engineers do hands on, models the process, interesting and fun fun while making you use critical thinking skills how students can use everyday items to do an experiment. Many think they have to have a lab and big equipment to do an experiment. doing hands on interaction, requiring us to study the different possibilities. Also being able to test different options. see how it relates in real life allowed to be creative and participant driven, not told what to do everything loved it made us design and think about properties and come up with ideas It was very hands-on and easily adaptable to the classroom. I liked how it brought a real life event so that kids could simulate the experiment.

68

hands on application that can be utilized in the classroom. it uses edible materials that kids would like. The kids would be familiar with these materials. it was very informative about the way the soil reacts to the loading it was interesting to see the different recordings from the different size holes and variables that were used it was fun and interactive (kids like working in groups)

it used everyday products to simulate real world problems and issues that scientist study and work on to improve daily life

it is a good simulation and provides critical thinking drill for kids. Plus provides interest in engineering testing out various materials I really like the hands -on aspect it was hand-on and fun, kids will love it, have a firsthand experience that is as closely as can be related to a real deal. it seemed very applicable to the real word.

69

Table 21: Teacher Responses to Reflection Question -What is one thing you would improve about this experiment? Peanut butter in baggies to improve the placement (squeeze bag) and reduce clean up. Smaller tubs to reduce cost. Smaller groups so that everyone stays busy To cut the cost-is there a way to do individual dixie cups of Jell-o®? It would be less Jell-o® so, it would require less of the other materials as well. Time: This would require more than 1 class period. Cost is little prohibitive , make the box smaller, alternative for cheese? Firm budget (esp. w/ middle schoolers). Prep seems like it would be costly+ time consuming put Jell-o® in Styrofoam cups, cheap things - rice, beans the materials are pretty expensive - I might limit the test to individual materials some how. 1 cp of pb, 2 test limit? a slightly larger sized corer than the smallest would be beneficial. The Slim Jim® didn't always fit. be creative in materials used, baggies, etc. maybe use smaller Jell-o® containers for being able to store them for day to day experiments concerned with time and cost cost limit materials give ppt at end and limit beg inning knowledge more math, less supplies Make it more cost effective. Have somekind of worksheet for students to calculate and record data on. use something other than peanut butter due to allergies

70

materials would be costly, especially the cheese, set up is time consuming, having to make the Jell-o® and pre cutting the cheese. I really thought that this activity was very well organized. I cannot think of any charges Maybe have more variables to choose from for the packing around the Slim Jim® Reduce the overhead cost of the materials. Teachers have a low budget. 1- use smaller tubes. 2-use baggies for peanut butter maybe look at smaller holes so you aren't having so much Jell-o®. Also use baggies to put peanut butter in and then squeeze it out as opposed to having to clean plastic containers & lower that cost variety of other materials to be used make sure the materials (cheese) is all the same, even though they told the white and yellow were the same. The results were not the same as our test. it is very expensive for the middle and high school teachers to implement, could it be modified to a Jell-o® cup to save money? needs more varieties to test, cheese and peanut butter is not enough

71

J. Extra Teacher Evaluation: I was surprised by… • The information about civil engineering and all of its components • How easily we can make a shake table • How well we did in the lab activity • How well our simulation went • Had a lot of fun creating the piles in the Jell-o® to demonstrate the effect of earthquakes • The various ways of implementing the earthquake activity • The materials that were used in the experiment • The initial activity was great and very applicable • The engineers took a very simple concept (i.e. earthquake damage) and made it into a very difficult project. • All the different areas of civil engineering. Every time we meet I learn more about engineering. • Wide variety of engineering fields • The presenters qualifications • The varying methods to stabilize the pile (cheese, peanut butter, etc.) • How interesting geotechnical engineering can be. It was a fun lab. • How fast the morning went. The existence of geotechnical engineering • The presenter’s qualifications and awards at her age. • Nothing • I didn’t realize that building foundations can be 30-50 feet below ground. • How this project was done today…educational and entertaining. • My lack of knowledge of geotechnical engineer’s job and responsibility • My group’s results being so similar to another group’s score • How many types of civil engineering fields there are • The opportunity to have the lesson presented by the geo-technical engineers • The interaction of such strange materials (Slim Jims® , cheese, and peanut butter). What a wonderful lesson. An idea I want to hold on to is … • The earthquake table • Doing the shaker table activity • Soil types and impact on structure design • Using earthquake activity with my 8th graders • That I can really pull this off with my students with my teams help • I enjoyed being able to take some ideas into the classroom • Find active ways to engage students • Jell-o® activity-would love to implement if cost effective • Students need to be introduced to engineering early • Using the activity about earthquakes in class • The amount of math that can be incorporated into a lab. 72

• • • • • • • • •

How soil types relate to how foundations are designed The Jell-o® project from today Using the earthquake simulation with Jell-o® The jell- earthquake project Make sure that the student understand how the project relates to their lives before beginning How design activities relate to earthquakes Using a narrow tub for the Jell-o® to reduce time for preparation Inviting engineers to my classroom to tell my kids about their jobs Engineering will be an “in demand” vocation.

A question I still have is … • How to build the $26 table? • How to implement the activity in a cheap way? • I still don’t completely understand the reason for the influx of earthquakes in Oklahoma this year. • Where to get the budget and make sure I am organized and ready to go? • Why we did the Jell-o® thing? • How can I change the morning activity into a less expensive activity/ • Where do we come up with the money to do the Jell-o® activity? • How would I relate math to the activity other than just measuring? • What can we use instead of peanut butter due to allergies? • How can I substitute another substance for the peanut butter? • How could today’s project be shortened to fit into 55 minutes? • Cheap alternatives for the cheese? • How to make the activity more cost effective and how to incorporate more math? • What is a good substitute for the peanut butter? Comments • First part was great. • I don’t see how I can take any of today back to my math class. • I wish the activities were more math related. • Thanks for the day! It was enjoyable! • I enjoyed the flow of the day. • I loved the morning presentation and activities. I think it will be too expensive for me to do with my students. • Earthquake presentation was interesting. • I enjoyed the morning session. • I liked the morning activity and interaction. • I enjoyed the activity and it relates to my classroom in a very helpful way. • Fun Day! • Good Day • Awesome • Earthquake lesson is a great idea. Especially that it is edible. 73

• •

Excellent time today. Enjoyed the activities and presenters. Great Day

74