CALIFORNIA STATE SCIENCE FAIR 2010 PROJECT SUMMARY Name(s) Project Number James D. Arias S0801 Project Title Let's Get Ready to Rumble! A Comparative Study of Three Ground Materials' Stability/Safety During an Earthquake Scenario Abstract Objectives/Goals This experimental procedure demonstrates how 3 common ground materials [sand, soil, and cement] will behave during a simulated earthquake on a fault line. By using a shake table, it is possible to mimic the movements and vibrations of an earthquake. Using this shake table and models of buildings; this project will simulate how a building would react during an earthquake on each ground material. Methods/Materials The main parts of the project included: a shake table, two miniature building models (small A and large B), and ground materials. Important experiment materials included: rope, staples, staple gun, rulers, hot glue, a hot glue gun, wood, racket balls, bungee cord, a scroll saw, a nail gun, nails, a concrete slab, sand, dirt, stones, and a drill. First, the ground material was placed in the shake table. A model was placed over the middle of the space between the quadrants. The legs of the building model dug into the ground material. The starting point of the model was recorded by a ruler that marked on the wooden border. For transverse fault line tests, the quadrants were pulled vertically or back-and-forth 30 times for 4 tests. For the convergent/divergent fault line tests, the quadrants were pulled horizontally apart and back together 30 times for 4 trials. The cement trials were tested 3 times each. The model was measured for movement and was inspected for damage. The greater the damage or movement, the less safe the ground material was deemed. Results The movement model A had on sand averaged 1.47cm; model B moved on sand an average of 2.04cm. On soil, model A moved an average 1.27cm; model B had 1.89cm of average movement. During cement trials, model A had an average movement of .03cm. Model B had no movement at all during the same trials. The trials with cement yielded the most damage of all tests; the transverse tests for model A weakened the right legs the first two trials and pulled both left legs off. Conclusions/Discussion The soil group had the least movement and damage; therefore, it was deemed the safest. But there is no direct way of knowing which material would be safest during an earthquake; the world's geological diversity and the new earthquake prevention systems will affect the safety of the ground material. Needless to say, because of the constant movement of the Earth's crust, testing needs to be carried on to help prevent such devastations witnessed by the world this past year. Summary Statement This project observes the behavior of three different ground materials under two building types during a simulated earthquake to judge which tested ground material is safest. Help Received Father helped construct earthquake simulator table Ap2/10 CALIFORNIA STATE SCIENCE FAIR 2010 PROJECT SUMMARY Name(s) Project Number Frances W. Atkins S0802 Project Title Living Roofs Abstract Objectives/Goals One important factor that leads to the degradation of our environment can be traced to building construction and operation. We are responsible for engineering improved building designs, which can help compensate for compromised environmental stewardship. A "living roof" that uses healthy, live vegetation is a technological advance utilized in building designs. This project tested how a living roof affects the amplitude and rate of temperature change inside a classroom model by studying the effects of heat transfer interacting with the characteristics of a living roof. Based on research, I predicted that temperatures would increase at a higher rate in a classroom model with a conventional roof compared to a classroom model using a living roof design. By taking the average temperature of five trials for both the living roof and the conventional roof, the results affirmed my hypothesis to be partially correct. The rate of temperature change in the living roof model was significantly less, actually decreasing the temperature by 1.13 °F versus an increase of 6.66°F for the conventional model. This experiment suggests that the living roof absorbed energy from a heat lamp rather than re-radiating it into the building below. The decrease in temperature may be a result of evaporation from moisture within the living roof biomass. A smaller amplitude and lesser rate of temperature change means that a fraction of energy normally used by mechanical systems would be required to cool the building using a living roof design. Summary Statement This project tests how a living roof alters the amplitude and rate of temperature increase within a modeled classroom. A decrease in the rate of temperature change would required less energy to cool buildings down. Help Received Father helped with math calculations and by proofreading my report; Jack Smith helped with the collection of moss. Ap2/10 CALIFORNIA STATE SCIENCE FAIR 2010 PROJECT SUMMARY Name(s) Project Number Wardah A. Bari S0803 Project Title Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils Abstract Objectives/Goals The goal of this project is to discover the nature of Bioremediation. Bioremediation is any process that uses microorganisms or their enzymes to return the environment altered by contaminants to its original condition. I wanted to see if natural attenuation or an enhanced treatment of the soil would be more effective in eliminating the contaminants. Methods/Materials I isolated three biocells: the first was a control with only natural soil, the second had soil with contaminants and was allowed to naturally degrade, and the third also had contaminants, but was given an enhanced treatment with the addition of nutrients, water, and oxygen. I measured the rate weekly at which the contaminants were consumed, by the microbes, in each cell. Results CELL 1, a blank cell, contained only soil. It had no contaminants, so therefore no treatment was necessary. There was no abnormal coloration or smell coming from CELL 1 because it was just like ordinary dirt with no additives. The TPH level was 100 mg/kg, which is considered to be non hazardous. CELL 2 contained just as many contaminants as CELL 3; however, it did not receive any treatment. I wanted to see if it would naturally attenuate without any additional help of tilling or moisturizing. The TPH level started at 1900 mg/kg and at the end of fifteen weeks, it lowered to 1086 mg/kg#a reduction of 57%#a result of natural bioremediation. At the end, there was still a lot of contaminant left. In CELL 3, the TPH level was 1750 mg/kg, which was a bit lower than the level in CELL 2; however, the rate at which bacteria consumed the contaminants was much faster. In just 15 weeks, the TPH went from 1750 mg/kg to 173 mg/kg #a reduction of 91%#a much greater difference than found in CELL 2. Conclusions/Discussion The aeration and addition of moisture to the treatment of the bioremediation process was found to be very effective and successful: in CELL 3, the TPH decreased by 1577 mg/kg in just fifteen weeks, about three months, compared to CELL 2#s, where the TPH level was only reduced by 814 mg/kg. This will be an economical and faster process to treat POL spills. My results reinforced the idea that bioremediation is a very effective way to safely remove toxic contaminants from soil. Summary Statement My project is about testing the effectiveness of the process of bioremediation in the environment. Help Received My father acquired the Hanby Test Kit used in the method. Walgreens Pharmacy printed out my title banner. Several environmental engineers answered my questions regarding soil and contaminants. Ap2/10 CALIFORNIA STATE SCIENCE FAIR 2010 PROJECT SUMMARY Name(s) Project Number Joshua S. Belford S0804 Project Title The Effect of the Depth of a Focus on the Magnitude of an Earthquake Abstract Objectives/Goals The purpose of this project was to find out at what depth of a focus of an earthquake would it have the greatest magnitude and area of affect (or destruction). Methods/Materials First had to build the Oscillating Earthquake Device (OED), but that is long and complicated and requires soldering. Testing Get Planting pot fill with 5 cm of soil, place the OED at the center of the pot, cover over with 45 cm of soil. Place iPod over focus and run the iSeismometer application, turn on the OED in 5 second bursts (each 5 second burst is 1 trial) Place iPod 10 cm away repeat the last step then repeat it again at 20 cm away from epicenter. Dig out the OED and rebury at 20 cm repeat the last 2 steps, do the same for the depths of 35 cm and 50 cm. The actual process is much more complicated, but I just wanted to give an overview. Short simple list Oscillating Earthquake Device -Comprised of a motor with an off center weight attached -attached to batteries and on/off switch Planting pot (53 cm height by 60 cm rim diameter by 40 base diameter) Soil to fill the pot Pen and paper Meter stick iPod Touch with application iSeismometer. (optional plastic bag to cover iPod from dirt) Results 50 cm (depth) strongest at the 0 cm away from epicenter 35 cm (depth) strongest at the 10 cm and 20 cm away from epicenter 20 cm (depth) weakest at the 0 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm away from epicenter. (Actual results are more detailed and include magnitude measurements) Conclusions/Discussion The data supports the hypothesis partially in that 2 out of 3 times the 35 cm depth will have the highest magnitude and area of affect, it was not supported in that the 50 cm depth was the strongest magnitude, but not area of affect.