Hypothesis:
The group's hypothesis was that the Friction Pile foundation would best resist
the shock of the earthquakes. We chose this foundation as the best structure to
resist earthquakes because in the foundation there are piles that drive deep
into to the ground to help give the house shock absorbency. If we can determine
which foundation works the best we can make recommendations to our community so
they can be safer and have less damage during an earthquake.
Experiment Steps:
The steps in our group's experimental process included stating the problem which
is trying to reduce the repair cost for foundations ruined by earthquakes. We
did intense research for 13 weeks so we could create our hypothesis. Our
hypothesis was that the friction pile foundation would be the safest. We then
built models of the structures and moved them to the Donald W.Reynolds Science
Center Museum of Discovery. We then tested the prototypes as accurately as we
could using an earthquake simulator that was programmed to replicate a 6.9
magnitude quake. The selected magnitude was chosen to replicate the earthquake
in Japan on March 11, 2011. While testing each prototype we kept track of what
we observed. After we were finished with the testing, we talked over what
happened and organized our messy notes. We also talked about what had happened
and why. We had to answer a few questions based on why we chose our project and
what we learned when we drew over a crowd. Everyone was really excited to
see what we were doing. One of the museum directors even came over to take
pictures of our experiment. After the excitement, we drew our conclusion. Our
conclusion was that the Slab on Grade was the safest foundation and would cost
less to repair. Once everything was finished we created a website to let the
public know our results and what the safest foundation is to resist an
earthquake. We were very careful to follow all the safety guidelines the museum
gave when we used the simulator. We wore safety equipment when we were building
the structures.
Validity of Our Experiment:
Our group measured the validity of our hypothesis based on our research and
testing. Our research showed that the friction piles resisted more force of
earthquake magnitudes than the other three foundations we included in our
experiment. Our hypothesis was determined when we all shared our individual
hypothesis based on what each person knew about the foundations. After we
explained our reasoning for our own hypothesis, we took into consideration each
members thoughts. Once we pieced together our thoughts, we came up with our
hypothesis. We created an experiment to test the hypothesis that we came up with
as a group. We eliminated as many variables as possible to make our tests more
valid. We did the testing multiple times so we had good data because we know
the more times you repeat an experiment the more valid your results are.
Conclusion:
In our experiment, it was decided that the safest foundation in an earthquake
would be the slab on grade foundation because in the earthquake the home is able
to move with the motions rather than against them. For example, in the friction
pile foundation the friction piles tried to act as shock absorbers to the
motions of the earthquake, but instead, the the force of the earthquake was
large enough to throw the home structure off of the friction piles and caused the
walls to fall. Then, the piles were able to move with the motions of the
earthquake. An example of an unstable home after an earthquake would be a home
with a raised foundation. (A trailer home is an example of a raised foundation.)
On the raised foundation the home would be able to either move up off of its
support (which would normally be CMUs or cinder blocks) or the foundation and
home could start to move and spread apart like what happened in our experiment.
The most unstable foundation that we tested was the raft foundation. In the
raft foundation the earthquake easily tore the home structure apart. The raft
foundation wasn't as sturdy to begin with unlike other foundations. The
foundation moved with the earthquake, but as it did this it slid out from
underneath the house. We know now our hypothesis was refuted.
We had the idea that the friction piles would be shock absorbers because
earthquakes come from deep in the earth and therefore would have no effect on the
house structure. We were wrong because the magnitude of the earthquake was such
a shock to the friction piles that it would cause the house to break apart from
them.
If We Could Retest:
If we were to retest our experiment we would build our structures on a much
larger scale. In our experiment, it was decided that there is not a way to
replicate the strength of a model home. There is no way to scale down nails
with our miniature housing we used for experimentation, so our nails were large
and strong compared to our housing; we had a small amount of trouble finding a
good conclusion to our data. If we were to retest and rebuild our prototypes we
would find a better way to replicate the soil on which our structures set upon
and fix the nailing issue. With the help of the museum directors we were able to
determine any flaws that we may have had in our experiment.
The group's hypothesis was that the Friction Pile foundation would best resist
the shock of the earthquakes. We chose this foundation as the best structure to
resist earthquakes because in the foundation there are piles that drive deep
into to the ground to help give the house shock absorbency. If we can determine
which foundation works the best we can make recommendations to our community so
they can be safer and have less damage during an earthquake.
Experiment Steps:
The steps in our group's experimental process included stating the problem which
is trying to reduce the repair cost for foundations ruined by earthquakes. We
did intense research for 13 weeks so we could create our hypothesis. Our
hypothesis was that the friction pile foundation would be the safest. We then
built models of the structures and moved them to the Donald W.Reynolds Science
Center Museum of Discovery. We then tested the prototypes as accurately as we
could using an earthquake simulator that was programmed to replicate a 6.9
magnitude quake. The selected magnitude was chosen to replicate the earthquake
in Japan on March 11, 2011. While testing each prototype we kept track of what
we observed. After we were finished with the testing, we talked over what
happened and organized our messy notes. We also talked about what had happened
and why. We had to answer a few questions based on why we chose our project and
what we learned when we drew over a crowd. Everyone was really excited to
see what we were doing. One of the museum directors even came over to take
pictures of our experiment. After the excitement, we drew our conclusion. Our
conclusion was that the Slab on Grade was the safest foundation and would cost
less to repair. Once everything was finished we created a website to let the
public know our results and what the safest foundation is to resist an
earthquake. We were very careful to follow all the safety guidelines the museum
gave when we used the simulator. We wore safety equipment when we were building
the structures.
Validity of Our Experiment:
Our group measured the validity of our hypothesis based on our research and
testing. Our research showed that the friction piles resisted more force of
earthquake magnitudes than the other three foundations we included in our
experiment. Our hypothesis was determined when we all shared our individual
hypothesis based on what each person knew about the foundations. After we
explained our reasoning for our own hypothesis, we took into consideration each
members thoughts. Once we pieced together our thoughts, we came up with our
hypothesis. We created an experiment to test the hypothesis that we came up with
as a group. We eliminated as many variables as possible to make our tests more
valid. We did the testing multiple times so we had good data because we know
the more times you repeat an experiment the more valid your results are.
Conclusion:
In our experiment, it was decided that the safest foundation in an earthquake
would be the slab on grade foundation because in the earthquake the home is able
to move with the motions rather than against them. For example, in the friction
pile foundation the friction piles tried to act as shock absorbers to the
motions of the earthquake, but instead, the the force of the earthquake was
large enough to throw the home structure off of the friction piles and caused the
walls to fall. Then, the piles were able to move with the motions of the
earthquake. An example of an unstable home after an earthquake would be a home
with a raised foundation. (A trailer home is an example of a raised foundation.)
On the raised foundation the home would be able to either move up off of its
support (which would normally be CMUs or cinder blocks) or the foundation and
home could start to move and spread apart like what happened in our experiment.
The most unstable foundation that we tested was the raft foundation. In the
raft foundation the earthquake easily tore the home structure apart. The raft
foundation wasn't as sturdy to begin with unlike other foundations. The
foundation moved with the earthquake, but as it did this it slid out from
underneath the house. We know now our hypothesis was refuted.
We had the idea that the friction piles would be shock absorbers because
earthquakes come from deep in the earth and therefore would have no effect on the
house structure. We were wrong because the magnitude of the earthquake was such
a shock to the friction piles that it would cause the house to break apart from
them.
If We Could Retest:
If we were to retest our experiment we would build our structures on a much
larger scale. In our experiment, it was decided that there is not a way to
replicate the strength of a model home. There is no way to scale down nails
with our miniature housing we used for experimentation, so our nails were large
and strong compared to our housing; we had a small amount of trouble finding a
good conclusion to our data. If we were to retest and rebuild our prototypes we
would find a better way to replicate the soil on which our structures set upon
and fix the nailing issue. With the help of the museum directors we were able to
determine any flaws that we may have had in our experiment.