Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2018, Civil Engineering

Extreme hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes can significantly affect the performance and serviceability of structures and infrastructure systems during their lifetime. Recent prominent examples include the 2017 earthquake in the vicinity of Iran-Iraq border and the 2017 earthquake in Mexico that led to hundreds of fatalities. Hurricane Matthew (2016), Harvey (2017), Irma (2017), and Jose (2017) caused significant damage to critical infrastructure systems in a number of south-eastern states in the U.S. Such hazards can occur multiple times during the lifetime of infrastructure systems. Each event is accompanied by a set of adverse consequences including, among others, human casualties, physical damage, and downtime due to the repair of damage and restoration of the functionality of the system. In addition, as infrastructure assets are exposed to environmental stressors and service loads, they undergo gradual aging and deterioration over their lifetime. The subsequent degradations in the capacity of the systems increase their vulnerability against hazards over time. These compounding effects, among others, pose a tremendous challenge for evaluating the performance of structures and infrastructure systems, and managing their performance. In the light of such challenges and budget limitations, it is important to evaluate the lifecycle cost of infrastructure systems in order to minimize the potential losses over their service lifetime. For structures or infrastructure systems that are exposed to multiple hazards during their lifetimes, damage accumulation is a critical issue. As supported by historical records, the accumulation of damage from prior events can considerably increase the vulnerability of these systems to future hazards. However, this phenomenon is either disregarded or addressed inadequately in existing risk management frameworks. Additionally, these frameworks do not incorporate effects of gradual deterioration on the reduced capacity of i (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Abdollah Shafieezadeh (Advisor); Rabi Mishalani (Committee Member); Halil Sezen (Committee Member); Can Emre Koksal (Committee Member); Steve Hovick (Committee Member) Subjects: Civil Engineering

Master of Science, University of Toledo, 2014, Civil Engineering

All man-made structures and materials have a design life. Across the United States there is a common theme for our water and wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure. The design life of many of our mid 20th century water and wastewater infrastructures in the United States have reached or are reaching life expectancy limits (ASCE, 2010). To compound the financial crisis of keeping up with the degradation, meeting and exceeding quality standards has never been more important in order to protect local fresh water supplies. This thesis analyzes the energy consumption of a municipal water and wastewater treatment system from a Lake Erie intake through potable treatment and back through wastewater treatment then discharge. The system boundary for this thesis includes onsite energy consumed by the treatment system and distribution/reclamation system as well as the energy consumed by the manufacturing of treatment chemicals applied during the study periods. By analyzing energy consumption, subsequent implications from greenhouse gas emissions and financial expenditures were quantified. Through the segregation of treatment and distribution processes from non-process energy consumption, such as heating, lighting, and air handling, this study identified that the potable water treatment system consumed an annual average of 2.42E+08 kBtu, spent $5,812,144 for treatment and distribution, and emitted 28,793 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions. Likewise, the wastewater treatment system consumed an annual average of 2.45E+08 kBtu, spent $3,331,961 for reclamation and treatment, and emitted 43,780 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions. The area with the highest energy usage, financial expenditure, and greenhouse gas emissions for the potable treatment facility and distribution system was from the manufacturing of the treatment chemicals, 1.10E+08 kBtu, $3.7 million, and 17,844 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, respectively. Of the onsite energy (1.4E-03 kWh (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Defne Apul PhD, PE (Committee Chair); Gruden Cyndee PhD, PE (Committee Member); Moyer Kevin (Committee Member) Subjects: Area Planning and Development; Civil Engineering; Climate Change; Engineering; Environmental Economics; Environmental Engineering; Environmental Management; Environmental Science; Environmental Studies; Land Use Planning; Sustainability; Urban Planning; Water Resource Management