National Academies Press: OpenBook

Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation (2006)

Chapter: 2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?

« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

CHAPTER TWO
Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?

In 1989, the role of geoengineering in addressing societal needs was documented by the Geotechnical Board of the National Research Council in Geotechnology: Its Impacts on Economic Growth, the Environment, and National Security (NRC, 1989), referred to hereinafter as “the 1989 report.” Societal needs addressed by geotechnology were grouped into seven broad national issues:

  1. waste management;

  2. infrastructure development and rehabilitation;

  3. construction efficiency and innovation;

  4. national security;

  5. resource discovery and recovery;

  6. mitigation of natural hazards; and

  7. frontier exploration and development.

For each of these seven issues, the 1989 report identified national needs and critical issues and recommended actions for advancing the role of geoengineering (see Table 2.1).

Table 2.2 summarizes the committee’s perspective on the current status and critical issues in geoengineering with respect to the seven broad areas where geoengineering contributes to societal needs, as identified in the 1989 report. Included in this table is a list of unresolved issues and opportunities to advance the contributions of geoengineering in

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

TABLE 2.1 Societal Needs Addressed by Geotechnology

NATIONAL NEED AND CRITICAL ISSUE (NRC, 1989)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (NRC, 1989)

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH 2004

Waste Management

 

 

Current processes used to initiate remediation of toxic and hazardous waste problems and permit new disposal facilities are slow, complex, costly, and adversarial. There is an urgent need for rapid, effective, and economical cleanup of waste-contaminated sites.

Develop more technically attainable regulatory standards.

New standards and regulations are more realistic: EPA’s EMS concept developed.

Introduce new waste containment and treatment technologies.

Significant advances have been made in waste containment and in situ remediation technologies.

Allow technical considerations higher priority than enforcement considerations.

Risk-based corrective action has allowed for more realistic site-specific requirements.

Change the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study process to the observational approach.

Monitored natural attenuation represents an application of the observational approach to remediation.

Improve instrumentation needed for performance assessment.

Automated and remote measuring and monitoring systems have been developed.

Improve site characterization.

Some advances, but better site characterization is still a critical need.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

NATIONAL NEED AND CRITICAL ISSUE (NRC, 1989)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (NRC, 1989)

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH 2004

Infrastructure Development and Rehabilitation

 

 

Meeting the backlogged rehabilitation needs of existing facilities and development of new infrastructure systems requires a coordinated interdisciplinary approach, with geotechnology playing a prominent role.

Develop new materials.

Geosynthetic materials have been developed for many applications.

Develop remote sensing techniques to both locate and characterize existing facilities.

Significant advances in GPR, LIDAR, InSAR, and airborne methods.

Develop nondisruptive designs for repair and replacement of infrastructure.

Trenchless technologies, minimally invasive ground improvement, directional drilling, advanced ground reinforcement technologies now available.

Develop geotechnical instrumentation for site characterization and performance assessment.

Some advances in instrumentation, but continuing research and development is needed. Better means of communicating the value of instrumentation to project owners are also needed.

Develop new and better soil and rock modification techniques.

Remains one of the most studied areas, especially grouting methods, deep densification, reinforcement. Renewed interest in admixture stabilization.

Provide a technical basis for life-cycle analysis and design.

Advances have been made on materials flows and a better understanding of inventory analysis for construction materials. Technologies are well established for life-cycle analysis for metals and other building materials, many completed by groups interested in understanding their own materials as well as for comparative reasons.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

NATIONAL NEED AND CRITICAL ISSUE (NRC, 1989)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (NRC, 1989)

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH 2004

Construction Efficiency and Innovation

 

 

There is a continuing need for development of innovative construction equipment and techniques to efficiently attack the geotechnical aspects of construction.

Improve our capabilities in site characterization.

Little change in practice. Remains a critical need.

Develop new contractual procedures for quantification and distribution of project subsurface risks.

Probabilistic methods for developing cost estimates and presenting them to public authorities have been adopted by some jurisdictions.

Support research on equipment and technology to assist construction managers.

New equipment and methods continually introduced, but improvements tend to be incremental.

Initiate a system of accountability and rewards to drive investment in research and innovation for new equipment and methods.

New project delivery methods, including design-build and build-operate-transfer, provide rewards for innovation, but geoengineers not fully engaged.

National Security

 

 

We must help meet the national security needs of the United States.

Develop a more systematic approach to ground shock predictions.

Significant progress has been achieved since 2001 in the estimates of nuclear ground shock and of effects on underground structure, through several new efforts involving joint teams of DOD and DOE experts.

Provide a pool of trained professionals for the weapons effect community.

DOD and DOE teams include both senior and junior investigators and results are being thoroughly documented.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

NATIONAL NEED AND CRITICAL ISSUE (NRC, 1989)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (NRC, 1989)

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH 2004

Resource Discovery and Recovery

 

 

Cost-effective approaches to the discovery and recovery of U.S. natural resources are needed.

Improve our ability to “see through” Earth.

Research continues; incremental advances have been made.

Improve our ability to drill through rock.

Substantial advances in directional drilling, measuring while drilling, and measurement of drilling parameters have been made in the petroleum industry.

Develop rock excavation methods that are faster and less damaging.

Adaptation of drilling technology from the petroleum industry to the geotechnical and construction communities is needed.

Mitigation of Natural Hazards

 

 

Technology must be used to more effectively reduce losses, both in lives and in monetary costs, resulting from natural hazards.

Promote better land use planning.

National and regional hazard maps (liquefaction, flood, landslide) developed; enhancements to zoning laws in some areas.

Encourage the use of state-of-the-art technology for design and construction for hazard mitigation.

State-of-the-art technologies are being applied, but continuing effort and emphasis is warranted.

Incorporate risk assessment in design and mitigation strategies.

Reliability analysis becoming an integral part of many projects. Formal risk assessment still rare.

Participate in large-scale field research.

Seven National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites, NEES initiative are breaking new ground.

Promote international exchange of technology and cooperation in research.

Numerous international technology exchanges, scanning tours, conferences.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

NATIONAL NEED AND CRITICAL ISSUE (NRC, 1989)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (NRC, 1989)

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS THROUGH 2004

Frontier Exploration and Development

 

 

We must continue to explore and expand polar, deep undersea, lunar, and planetary frontiers.

Conduct basic research on seafloor sediments, arctic regions, and extraterrestrial materials.

NSF, NASA, USGS, and oil companies are pursuing research in these areas; geoengineers most active in seafloor and arctic regions.

Educate the public on technical capabilities and possibilities in these areas.

Little progress.

Develop courses that address the unique needs of frontier research.

Occasional special courses and conferences.

NOTE: DOD = Department of Defense; DOE = Department of Energy; EMS = Environmental Management Systems; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; GPR = ground penetrating radar; InSAR = Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar; LIDAR = light detection and ranging; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NEES = Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation; NSF = National Science Foundation; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

TABLE 2.2 Unresolved Issues and New Opportunities for Geoengineering

NATIONAL NEEDa

2004 STATUS AND CRITICAL ISSUES

UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Waste Management and Environmental Protection

Status: Many new technologies have been implemented and more are under development. Risk-based corrective action and monitored natural attenuation have provided significant savings in many cases.

 

  • Significant global environmental problems

  • Formal adoption of the observational method (adaptive management) for site remediation projects

  • Bioengineering methods for in situ remediation and containment barriers

  • Long-term stewardship of waste landfills and contaminated sites

  • Consideration of wastes as “resources out of place”

  • “Cradle to cradle” management of wastes

  • Strategies and technologies for alternatives to landfilling

  • Carbon sequestration

  • Remediation of contaminated sediments

  • Regional databases and data models for environmental data

  • Advanced sensors and remote sensing

  • Urban surface water management; erosion and sediment control

Critical Issues: Many challenging sites still need to be remediated. Additional technological development is still needed, including development of appropriate waste containment and remediation technology for developing countries and technology for reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste materials. Cleanup, restoration, and protection of wetlands, rivers, harbors, and other waterways has become an important consideration.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

NATIONAL NEEDa

2004 STATUS ANDCRITICAL ISSUES

UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Infrastructure Development and Rehabilitation

Status: New materials and technologies have made significant inroads in practice. However, little progress has been made in clearing the backlog of infrastructure needs. Life-cycle cost analyses are more refined and sophisticated, but still not widely embraced for selection of preferred alternatives. Sustainability considerations are becoming more important.

 

  • More discriminating, penetrating, and cost-effective methods for seeing through the ground

  • Better coordination between planners, designers, constructors, and users

  • Passive methods for ground improvement, including biostabilization

  • Regional databases and data models

  • Smart geosystems and adaptive management methods (using the observational method)

  • Biofilms for corrosion protection

  • Long-term durability of geosynthetic materials

  • Use of formal reliability and life-cycle cost analysis

  • Quantification and reduction of uncertainties

Critical Issues: Wider use of life-cycle cost analyses, including incorporation of sustainable development and other social values, improved modeling of environmental impacts of infrastructure development, rehabilitation of existing geofacilities, and enhanced durability of geoconstruction.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

NATIONAL NEEDa

2004 STATUS AND CRITICAL ISSUES

UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Construction Efficiency and Innovation

Status: New project delivery methods (e.g., design, build) have had an impact on innovation and efficiency. Significant advances have been made with respect to new equipment and techniques for geotechnical construction, particularly with respect to ground improvement. More efficient means of underground construction remains a critical need and improved remains one of the greatest needs in geoengineering.

 

  • Improved site characterization

  • Remotely controlled, automated earthwork construction

  • Better matching of soil and rock conditions with equipment and methods

  • Use of adaptive management systems for application of the observational method

  • Many aspects of tunneling and underground construction methods, including materials handling, directional methods for site characterization control, excavation, safety, ground support

  • Trenchless technologies

  • More energy- and cost-efficient ground improvement, including biotechnologies

  • Easier handling and better improvement of wet and weak soils

Critical Issues: More efficient and economical and less disruptive underground construction and ground improvement, minimizing environmental impacts of construction activities.

National Security

Status: Homeland security has become a critical national need, and focus has shifted from national to global.

 

  • New and better methods for hardening sensitive and critical structures and infrastructure

  • Improved methods for threat detection, including detecting and locating underground intrusion and surface traffic

  • Appropriate energy, sanitation, and water technologies for developing countries

  • Development of secure reserves of strategic resources

Critical Issues: Providing adequate, appropriate, and reliable civil infrastructure; securing civil infrastructure against internal and external threats; reducing dependence on foreign oil; providing secure sources for strategic natural resources.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

NATIONAL NEEDa

2004 STATUS AND CRITICAL ISSUES

UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Resource Discovery and Recovery

Status: Sustainability concerns have moved to the forefront for energy and water resources development.

 

  • More reliable, discriminating, and penetrating methods for seeing into Earth

  • Optimization of energy resources

  • More sustainable resource recovery methods

  • Improved waste and tailings handling and disposal methods

  • Carbon sequestration

  • Groundwater recovery, protection, and recharge

Critical Issues: Providing necessary resources for sustainable development and national security and minimizing environmental impacts of resource recovery and use.

Mitigation of Natural Hazards

Status: National and regional hazard maps (earthquake, flood, and landslide) have been incorporated into zoning laws and land use planning in some areas. Formal geohazards risk assessment is becoming an integral part of some projects. However, many communities are still at risk and continued research is needed.

 

  • Less complicated and more easily understood risk and reliability assessment methods

  • Remote sensing for hazard forecasting and monitoring

  • Nonintrusive and passive methods for mitigation of geohazard risks to existing structures and facilities, including biotechnologies

  • Land use planning and zoning to account for geohazards and their potential consequences

  • Appropriate technology to mitigate major losses of life and property in the developing world

Critical Issues: Improved regional hazard monitoring, forecasting, communication, and land use planning; appropriate hazard mitigation technology for developing countries.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

NATIONAL NEEDa

2004 STATUS AND CRITICAL ISSUES

UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Frontier Exploration and Development

Status: NSF, NASA, USGS, and oil companies are pursuing research in these areas. However, geoengineers are often not involved in these ventures.

 

  • Fundamental knowledge and understanding

  • New sources of natural resources (long term)

  • New habitats (very long term)

Critical Issues: Exploration at the frontiers of the natural universe ultimately leading to new frontiers for natural resource recovery and human habitation.

aAs defined by the Geotechnical Board (NRC, 1989).

these areas. The unresolved issues and the opportunities to address them are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this chapter. The chapter concludes with the committee’s perspective on the major knowledge gaps that need to be closed for geoengineering to realize its potential in addressing these issues and opportunities.

2.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT

As one of the least mature areas of geotechnical practice in 1989, it is not surprising that waste management is one of the areas in which substantial progress has been made since that time. The 1989 report identified an urgent need for rapid, effective, and economical cleanup of waste-contaminated sites. While progress has been made, many sites remain to be remediated, particularly large complex sites such as Pit 9 at

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

Idaho National Laboratory and the radioactive tank leakage sites at Hanford. There are also numerous military bases abandoned under base realignment initiatives and large industrial sites that involve multiple contaminants and large volumes of waste that await final action (NACEPT, 2004). The pace of remediation has slowed somewhat because of funding constraints and technology gaps. However, the cost and time required to remediate less complicated sites has decreased significantly. New regulations and interpretations of existing regulations have become more realistic with respect to what is technically achievable and what is necessary to protect human health and the environment without being overly burdensome. The transition from waste treatment and stabilization to waste containment and monitoring as the presumptive remedy for many contaminated sites is but one manifestation of this trend toward less burdensome remedies. Another manifestation of this trend is the increasing use of risk-based corrective action, as it not only provides relief from burdensome zero-discharge standards but also facilitates beneficial reuse of impacted brownfield sites. Significant advancements have also been made in instrumentation and monitoring systems for environmental management with the implementation of automated and remote systems for groundwater and vadose zone monitoring.

Monitored natural attenuation is a prime example of the evolution toward less burdensome, more economical approaches to environmental remediation. Monitored natural attenuation applies the traditional geotechnical philosophy of the observational method (Peck, 1969) (see Sidebar 4.4) to achieve an economical but protective remedy for soil or groundwater pollution.

There has also been considerable progress in development of new and improved technologies for waste containment. Geosynthetic composite caps and liners, wherein a geomembrane liner is combined with either a compacted low permeability soil layer or a geosynthetic clay liner (see Figure 2.1), are widely used for waste containment and have become the prescriptive remedy for many waste containment applications. Performance-based standards may allow for even more economical

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

FIGURE 2.1 McColl Superfund site geosynthetic composite final cover. SOURCE: P. Collins et al. (1998).

containment systems when warranted by site-specific considerations (e.g., the use of evapotranspirative soil covers in arid and semiarid climates) (Kavazanjian, 2001).

Geoengineering has made substantial progress in waste management since 1989, but significant challenges remain. As the simpler sites move toward remediation, the more recalcitrant sites remain unabated. In addition to these persistent problems, there is a continuous stream of emerging environmental remediation issues (e.g., methyl tertiary butyl ether, perchlorate, and pharmaceutical contamination of groundwater). Fortunately, treatment technologies for remediation of impacted soil and groundwater have continued to be developed at a rapid pace. Conventional pump-and-treat and excavate-and-dispose remedies are being replaced with increasing frequency by a variety of in situ technologies, including permeable reactive barriers, vapor extraction, and air sparging. Ex situ treatment technologies, such as thermal desorption, are also being developed and applied. A host of other innovative technologies are under development, including various biotechnologies (bioaugmentation,

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

biostimulation), aerobic remediation, and electrokinetic remediation. While the development of bioengineering methods to address soil and groundwater contamination shows great promise in reducing the cost of remediation for many of these issues, development of delivery methods for nutrients and organisms for bioengineering remediation strategies remains a significant challenge for the geoengineer.

The payoff from advances in waste management technology has been significant. Between 1980 and 2000, cleanup and construction was completed at 757 Superfund sites. More than three times as many Superfund sites were cleaned up between 1993 and 2000 than in all the prior years of the program combined (see http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/action/20years/index.htm). Tools such as presumptive remedies and response strategies are being used to speed up the response process at Superfund sites. These tools and other technologies have also helped drive down costs associated with remediation of many Superfund sites. Although the cleanup pace has slowed somewhat because Congress has not reached a compromise on reauthorization of Superfund legislation, it is clear that even fewer sites would have been closed or in corrective action today without the technical advances of the past 20 years. Ultimately, site remediation and waste containment technology may no longer be required and may become artifacts of an earlier, less environmentally aware age. However, this time is far in the future, and numerous sites remain to be remediated and large volumes of waste still must be disposed in landfills every year.

Development of new and enhanced methods for geoenvironmental site characterization has lagged behind the rapid rate of advance in waste containment and remediation technologies. There have been some incremental advances in site characterization (e.g., fiber optic cone sensors for cone penetrometers to assess the presence of organic constituents in soil and groundwater and geophysical tracking of contaminant plumes); however, these advances have been slow to be adopted in practice. In most cases, site investigation for environmental remediation

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

and protection is conducted today using the same techniques that were used in 1989 (i.e., a limited number of intrusive probes and testing of recovered samples are employed, with both the probe and testing programs developed by engineers based upon their professional judgment). This situation is not unique to waste management, but rather reflects the general state of geotechnical practice with respect to site characterization.

Besides soil and groundwater remediation, critical issues in waste management and environmental protection include mitigation of other environmental “insults” from human activities on local, regional, and global scales, appropriate waste containment and remediation technology for developing countries, and reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste materials. For instance, remediation of contaminated sediments is an emerging issue in waste management and remediation. Geotechnical considerations play an important role in selecting the appropriate remedy for contaminated sediments from available options, including dredging, capping in situ, and monitored natural attenuation. With respect to environmental impact mitigation activities, advanced sensing technologies, including remote sensing systems, will be required to collect the required data for regional and global impact modeling. Model development and monitoring data collection and interpretation will also require the development of large regional databases and data models for environmental (and geoenvironmental) data. Emerging environmental and waste management issues in which geoengineering should play a significant role include carbon sequestration (NRC, 2003e) for mitigating the potential for global climate impacts from fossil energy use and other industrial activities, advanced technologies for beneficial reuse of solid wastes, remediation of contaminated sediments, and redevelopment of brownfield sites. Waste issues associated with the resource extraction industries are discussed in section 2.5, Resource Discovery and Recovery.

In addition to development of new remediation technologies, development of advanced techniques for source control (e.g., waste containment, erosion control, and surface water and groundwater

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

protection) are important geoenvironmental geoengineering considerations. The development of safe and economical waste containment systems, including the development of appropriate technologies for developing countries, remains an important task for geoengineers, as do surface water and groundwater management. Geosynthetic erosion control materials have not only significantly reduced the amount of sediment transported from newly graded sites, they have also provided for more aesthetic and sustainable surface water management systems. Replacing concrete drainage swales with vegetated channels stabilized by rolled erosion control products (see Figure 2.2) not only improves the aesthetics of the system but also reduces the time of concentration and peak flow for surface water runoff, enhances infiltration of surface water

FIGURE 2.2 Geosynthetically stabilized vegetated drainage channel. Sunshine Canyon Landfill, Sylmar, California (photo courtesy of SI Geosolutions).

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

and replenishment of groundwater resources, and can provide treatment of surface water impacted by organic constituents (see Figure 2.2).

Biotechnology should also play an increasingly important role in geoengineering for waste management in the coming decades. Biotechnology for remediation and for source control offers the promise of effective, energy-efficient technologies. Furthermore, application of biotechnology may be relatively low cost, facilitating its use in developing countries.

2.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION

Recognizing the existing backlog of infrastructure development and rehabilitation needs, the 1989 report called for a coordinated interdisciplinary approach to address this issue. Specific recommendations in the 1989 report included development of new materials for geoconstruction, improved noninvasive (e.g., geophysical) subsurface exploration techniques, nondisruptive construction and rehabilitation techniques, new and improved ground modification techniques, and life-cycle analysis and design. Geotechnology has made significant progress since 1989 in developing less disruptive, cheaper, faster, and less intrusive methods for infrastructure construction and rehabilitation. Geosynthetic materials and ground improvement techniques are routinely applied on major infrastructure development projects. In many states mechanically stabilized earth walls have become the de facto standard for bridge abutments and retaining walls for earthfill, and soil nailing and ground anchors are used with increasing frequency to retain cut slopes. Prefabricated geosynthetic drainage systems have reduced both the cost and installation time for drainage systems behind walls and beneath and adjacent to pavements.

Significant advances in other ground improvement technologies have occurred in parallel with developments in geosynthetic materials. Grouting technologies, including jet grouting and compaction grouting,

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

continue to be developed and refined as a means of stabilizing problem soils while minimizing disruption to adjacent facilities. Deep soil mixing, wherein cementitious material is mixed in situ to strengthen and stiffen soil, has made great inroads in infrastructure development over the past 15 years, progressing from an innovative new technology offered in the United States by only one vendor to a standard technology, including both wet mix and dry mix methods (see Figure 2.3). This mixing has played an important role in numerous major projects, including Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel Project.

Advances in trenchless technologies since 1989 have provided new, cost-effective methods for rehabilitating aging sewer systems, river crossings for pipelines, and utility installations in dense urban corridors. Slip lining, both with resin-impregnated socks and high-density polyethylene pipe, and pipe bursting, wherein an “inflatable” tool is inserted into an existing buried pipe and expanded to increase the diameter of the

FIGURE 2.3 Installation of deep soil mixed walls. SOURCE: O’Rourke and McGinn (2003).

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

hole (and capacity of the pipe) prior to slip lining, have become standard techniques for sewer system rehabilitation. Horizontal directional drilling technology has seen significant improvements in accuracy (guidance) and reach (distance). Significant advancements have also been made in pipe jacking (i.e., jacking of large-diameter pipes and conduits from excavated pits and conduits through the ground without open excavation) (see Sidebar 2.1) and the use of micromole tunneling technology or small-diameter “robotic” tunneling machines (see Sidebar 2.1). Improvements in larger-diameter driven tunneling systems (e.g., transit tunnels) have been less dramatic. Nonetheless, there have been improvements in earth pressure balance tunneling machine technology, in ground reinforcement and stabilization techniques. Moreover, improved, automated monitoring systems have facilitated adaptive management approaches (the use of the observational method) to tunneling adjacent to sensitive structures and utilities.

Improvements in site characterization technologies have been slow and mostly incremental. However, significant improvements have been made in the application of ground penetrating radar for identifying subsurface utilities and shallow obstructions above the water table, and in the use of airborne survey methods for evaluating site conditions (e.g., near-surface soil type, geomorphology, shallow groundwater bodies). Despite these advances, our ability to see into the Earth, both invasively and noninvasively, is still limited and represents one of the areas of geoengineering with the greatest need for advancements (NRC, 2000).

Despite advances in methods for infrastructure development and rehabilitation, a large backlog of necessary infrastructure projects still exists (ASCE, 2005). In part, this backlog is due to insufficient financial resources to address all infrastructure needs, including maintenance and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. Maintenance and rehabilitation costs are exacerbated by the failure to predict the need for, and to perform, timely maintenance as well as the failure to include life-cycle costs during initial project development. The American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2005 update of its 2003 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (ASCE, 2005; Table 2.3) showed no improvement and some

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

SIDEBAR 2.1
Tunnel Jacking and Ground Freezing on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts

The Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project, now nearing completion and the largest infrastructure project in the United States, has replaced the aging and under-capacity elevated Central Artery (I-93) in the center of Boston, Massachusetts, with a modern underground expressway to improve traffic flow through the center of the city. The CA/T Project includes a new South Bay Interchange between I-93 and the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90), and the extension of I-90 from its previous terminus at the edge of downtown Boston to the city’s Logan International Airport. The I-90 extension passes under the network of rail tracks leading into South Station, one of two major rail stations in Boston. Maintaining normal train operations at this regional transportation hub was the critical requirement to be addressed in developing construction methods for the new sections of highway. Staged cut-and-cover construction could not be used because the depth of the excavations (up to 60 feet)

FIGURE: A view of the rear end of the tunnel box being jacked into place for the eastbound lanes of I-90 below the railroad tracks in Boston. A train is visible, passing over top of the tunnel. This jacked tunnel box was 36 feet high, 79 feet wide, and 379 feet long, and weighed approximately 32,000 tons. Used with the permission of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

FIGURE: An aerial shot of the worksite in Boston where the tunnel jacking was done, showing the two large pits from which the I-90 westbound tunnel box (left side, with a series of steel struts across the top of the pit to brace it) and the I-90 eastbound tunnel box (pit to right) were jacked. At the time this photo was taken, the westbound tunnel box had been completely jacked into place, while the eastbound tunnel box jacking operation was still in progress. Used with the permission of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

would require taking tracks out or service for weeks or months at a time, causing unacceptable disruption of train schedules. Conventional tunneling techniques would also have been difficult at this site because of the width of the underground openings needed to accommodate the required roadway width and side plenums for ventilation, the shallow depth of cover (7 to 20 feet) dictated by the roadway profile, and the soft ground conditions below the water table.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

The technique used for constructing the three underground crossings below the South Station track network was tunnel jacking. The method is generally applied in soft ground where the underground crossing is relatively short and the ground is weak enough to allow the tunnel to be pushed through the ground without excavation. The technique has evolved from pipe jacking (i.e., jacking of relatively small diameter pipes through embankments and from pits beneath roadways, rail lines, and utility corridors). The technological development of the tunnel jacking method has involved scaling up pipe jacking methods to place progressively larger concrete sections, reaching the size required to carry a multilane highway. The use of tunnel jacking on the CA/T Project was the first such application in the United States and one of the largest applications of the method to date. Tunnel jacking for the CA/T Project also involved the innovative use of ground freezing to stabilize the soft ground around the portal (entrance point) for the jacked tunnel.

Three tunnel box sections were built in large thrust pits constructed adjacent to each alignment for the new interchange. The typical cross-section of the jacked tunnel was 38–78 feet, with respective lengths of 167, 258, and 379 feet and approximate weights ranging from 17,000 to 31,000 tons. The jacking systems consisted of rear and intermediate jacking stations, employing in the case of the longest tunnel a total of 87 individual jacks that delivered a combined maximum thrust capacity of 46,500 tons.

The tunnels were excavated through a geologic profile consisting of historic fill containing the remnants of waterfront, industrial, and railroad structures built in the area in the past 150 years, underlain by organic sediments and marine clay. Groundwater was 5 to 10 feet below surface grade. Stabilization of these weak, saturated soils to control the loss of ground into the face during installation of each jacked tunnel was critical to the success of the project, both to limit ground movements in the track area above and to assist directional control of tunnel boxes as they were advanced into the ground. To address these concerns, an innovative ground-freezing approach that provided a stable, essentially dry excavation face over the full height and width of the tunnel was implemented by the contractor. Freezing of the ground was accomplished through the installation of a series of vertical freeze pipes through which brine chilled in an on-site refrigeration plant was circulated. More than 1,700 freeze pipes were used with this system to freeze a total ground mass volume of approximately 140,000 cubic yards.

SOURCE: Phil Rice, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc., New York.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

TABLE 2.3

ASCE Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (Estimated Five-Year Need)

AREA

GRADE

TREND (SINCE 2001)

NOTE

Roads

D

Poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $54 billion a year in repairs and operating costs ($275 per motorist). Americans spend 3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic, at a cost of $63.2 billion a year to the economy. Total spending of $59.4 billion annually is well below the $94 billion needed annually to improve transportation infrastructure conditions nationally. While long-term federal transportation programs remain unauthorized since expiring on Sept. 30, 2003, the nation continues to shortchange funding for needed transportation improvements.

Bridges

C

Between 2000 and 2003, the percentage of the nation’s 590,750 bridges rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete decreased slightly from 28.5 percent to 27.1 percent. It will cost $9.4 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies. Long-term under-investment is compounded by the lack of a federal transportation program.

Transit

D+

Transit use increased faster than any other mode of transportation—up 21percent—between 1993 and 2002. Federal investment during this period stemmed the decline in the condition of existing transit infrastructure. The reduction in federal investment in real dollars since 2001 threatens this turnaround. In 2002, total capital outlays for transit were $12.3 billion. The Federal Transit Administration estimates $14.8 billion is needed annually to maintain conditions, and $20.6 billion is needed to improve to “good” conditions. Meanwhile, many major transit properties are borrowing funds to maintain operations, even as they are significantly raising fares and cutting back service.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

AREA

GRADE

TREND (SINCE 2001)

NOTE

Aviation

D+

Gridlock on America’s runways eased from crisis levels earlier in the decade because of reduced demand and recent modest funding increases. Air travel and traffic have reportedly surpassed pre-9/11 levels and are projected to grow 4.3 percent annually through 2015. Airports will face the challenge of accommodating increasing numbers of regional jets and new superjumbo jets.

Schools

D

The federal government has not assessed the condition of America’s schools since 1999, when it estimated that $127 billion was needed to bring facilities to good condition. Other sources have since reported a need as high as $268 billion. Despite public support of bond initiatives to provide funding for school facilities, without a clear understanding of the need, it is uncertain whether schools can meet increasing enrollment demands and the smaller class sizes mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act.

Drinking

D−

America faces a shortfall of $11 billion annually to replace water aging facilities and comply with safe drinking water regulations. Federal funding for drinking water in 2005 remained level at $850 million, less than 10 percent of the total national requirement. The Bush administration has proposed the same level of funding for FY06.

Wastewater

D−

Aging wastewater management systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each year. The EPA estimates that the nation must invest $390 billion over the next 20 years to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demands. Yet, in 2005, Congress cut funding for wastewater management for the first time in eight years. The Bush administration has proposed a further 33 percent reduction, to $730 million, for FY06.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

AREA

GRADE

TREND (SINCE 2001)

NOTE

Energy

D

The U.S. power transmission system is in urgent need of modernization. Growth in electricity demand and investment in new power plants has not been matched by investment in new transmission facilities. Maintenance expenditures have decreased 1 percent per year since 1992. Existing transmission facilities were not designed for the current level of demand, resulting in an increased number of bottlenecks which increase costs to consumers and elevate the risk of blackouts.

Hazardous

D

Federal funding for Superfund cleanup of the nation’s worst waste toxic waste sites has steadily declined since 1998, reaching its lowest level since 1986 in FY05. There are 1,237 contaminated sites on the National Priorities List, with possible listing of an additional 10,154. In 2003, there were 205 U.S. cities with brownfield sites awaiting cleanup and redevelopment. It is estimated that redevelopment of those sites would generate 576,373 new jobs and $1.9 billion annually for the economy.

Dams

D

The number of unsafe dams has risen 33 percent since 1998. $10.1 billion is needed over 12 years to address all critical, nonfederal dams—dams whose failure would pose a direct risk to human life.

Solid waste

C+

In 2002, the United States produced 369 million tons of solid waste of all types, only a quarter of which was recycled or recovered.

Navigable waterways

D−

Nearly 50 percent of the 257 locks operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are functionally obsolete. By 2020, that number will rise to 80 percent.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

AREA

GRADE

TREND (SINCE 2001)

NOTE

America’s infrastructure GPA

D

 

 

 

• Total investment

$1.6 Trillion (estimated five-year need)

 

SOURCE: Adapted from the 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, courtesy of the American Society of Civil Engineers (2005).

continued degradation over 2003, when it assigned grades between C and D to its 12 categories of infrastructure systems, with an aggregate grade of D and an estimated required investment of $1.6 trillion over the next five years to bring conditions to acceptable levels. Essentially these grades reflect no improvement since ASCE issued its first infrastructure report card in 1998 (ASCE, 1998) and a significant degradation in infrastructure quality from the 1988 National Council on Public Works Improvements report card (NCPWI, 1988).

In addressing this backlog of infrastructure needs, sustainable development considerations, including design for durability and longevity and for efficient use of construction materials, have taken on increased importance. An important manifestation of the growing emphasis on sustainable development is the trend toward locating or relocating more of our civil infrastructure underground to minimize the impact of our activities on the environment. This trend is one of the primary factors contributing to the explosive growth in the cost of some civil infrastructure development projects.

Important geoengineering issues for infrastructure systems include construction and reconstruction of urban centers to minimize use of resources and impact on the environment, improved modeling of environmental impacts of infrastructure development and improved

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

approaches for mitigating these impacts, rehabilitation of existing geofacilities, and enhanced durability of civil construction. The challenges that must be addressed by the geoengineer in dealing with these issues encompass many of the same challenges facing the geoengineer in waste management, environmental protection, and other geoengineering problems. These challenges include seeing beneath Earth, both for subsurface investigation and for locating underground utilities and obstructions, management and remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater, the development of enhanced ground improvement and remediation methods, including passive and biostabilization techniques, and enhancing the durability of geostructures, including those that employ geosynthetic materials.

Sustainable development and improved environmental impact modeling will require large regional databases and data models, development of adaptive management techniques (i.e., application of the observational method), and associated developments in monitoring technologies. Infrastructure databases should include comprehensive inventories of underground facilities, reflecting the recognition of underground space as an important infrastructure resource. With respect to enhanced durability of underground facilities and components, biofilm technologies offer the promise of below-ground corrosion protection for steel and concrete components.

In addition to the traditional geomechanical and geoenvironmental issues discussed above, both life-cycle cost analysis and reliability analysis (see Sidebar 2.2) are playing an increasingly important role in infrastructure development and rehabilitation. The effective functioning of society—even the safety of its citizens—requires that roads, railroads, bridges, electric distribution networks, dams, power plants, harbors, buildings, and myriad other facilities operate reliably. Every sort of human activity is affected when civil structures fail. Civil engineering and related industries have done such a good job in providing reliable infrastructure that most people take for granted the civil systems on which they depend. An unintended consequence of the success of our profession in providing reliable infrastructure is that the public—and its political

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

SIDEBAR 2.2
Reliability

Engineers working on problems that involve geology and other earth processes (geoengineers) have always known that they deal with an uncertain environment and one in which the engineer cannot know everything needed to make firm, final decisions. Accounting for this uncertainty by employing large factors of safety is often not possible or would make the project prohibitively expensive. Geoengineers have traditionally used several stratagems to mitigate the effects of uncertainty on the cost and reliability of civil construction, most prominently the observational method (see Sidebar 4.4). In recent years formal reliability or risk methods have become increasingly applied to manage these uncertainties.

The application of reliability and risk analysis is well established in many fields, including management, engineering, and manufacturing. The essential idea is that the uncertainties that enter into the process in question are expressed in probabilistic form and the resulting distributions carried through an analysis of the process to arrive at a probabilistic description of expected outcomes. This then makes it possible to make decisions rationally on the basis of the probabilistic results. In civil engineering most of the applications of reliability analysis have been in hydraulic and structural engineering. In both these fields the major uncertainties lie in the loads (e.g., building occupancy loads, traffic loads, earthquakes, and floods). On the other hand, in geoengineering, major sources of uncertainty also arise in the response (resistance) of the system to these loads (e.g., in the properties of soils and rocks, their location, and their distribution). To apply reliability analyses to geoengineering problems, procedures developed to deal with uncertain loads must be modified to account for uncertain response of the systems themselves. Furthermore, each geological setting is unique, and it is often difficult to translate a description of the uncertainty at one site to the study of a project at another location.

Recent years have seen considerable progress in the application of reliability methods to geoengineering. Among the most notable are its widespread use in design and construction of offshore structures and the development of load and resistance factor design methods for transportation projects, especially for design of pile foundations. Reliability methods are particularly powerful when combined with observational methods to facilitate rational updating of designs and construction procedures. However, a great deal of practical research and teaching is needed before geoengineering practitioners are fully comfortable with the technology. For a recent description of the issues involved in probabilistic descriptions of geoengineering problems and the method involved in reliability approaches, see Baecher and Christian (2003).

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

representatives—often fail to provide adequately for maintenance, improvement, and expansion of these necessary facilities. This is especially true in times of financial constraint. The cost of replacing or repairing infrastructure in an urban environment while the city life goes on around it can be enormous. The pressures associated with increased financial constraints, including increased concerns over homeland security, have made formal reliability and life-cycle cost analysis of civil systems of increasing importance. Formal reliability and life-cycle cost analyses provide decision makers with a rational means of setting priorities and allocating resources.

The large uncertainties associated with the geotechnical components of a system often make geotechnical considerations a driving force in reliability analyses for many infrastructure systems. Increased attention to the sources of uncertainty in geoengineering (see Sidebar 2.3) and to methods for quantifying and reducing these uncertainties reflects a significant change in perspective since the 1989 report.

2.3 CONSTRUCTION EFFICIENCY AND INNOVATION

Cost-effective and sustainable construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of civil structures remain vital to the economic and environmental health of society. Even a 10 percent reduction in the direct and indirect costs associated with foundation engineering, earthworks, and underground construction activities would provide billions of dollars annually in financial resources that could be dedicated to other purposes. A 10 percent reduction in costs on even one megaproject like the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston (NRC, 2003a) would have provided over $1 billion in funds for other badly needed infrastructure projects. Such cost savings are well within the realm of possibility within the next decade, with sufficient investment in research and development in geoengineering.

The actions identified in the 1989 report to improve construction efficiency and stimulate innovation are just as important today as they were then. Improved site characterization methods and development of

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

SIDEBAR 2.3
Uncertainty in Geoengineering

Uncertainty is an essential and unavoidable part of geoengineering, but when we say that something is uncertain, what do we mean? One answer is that an uncertain event or condition is one that occurs at random with little or no external control, much like the throw of a pair of dice. If the dice are honest, no amount of additional information, such as the initial velocities of the dice, influences the probability of the outcome. It is truly a “throw of the dice.” Many names been applied to this type of uncertainty, but use of the term aleatory, from the Latin for “dice thrower” or gambler, is especially widespread. An example of aleatory uncertainty in geoengineering is uncertainty with respect to the occurrence of a specific earthquake. On the other hand, an uncertain event may be one whose outcome is actually already determined but not known to the observer. For example, in a game of bridge the arrangement of cards in a deck is fixed once the deck has been shuffled and cut, but the players do not know what the arrangement is. Good play consists of applying various techniques to acquire knowledge and to deduce the arrangement of the cards. This type of uncertainty is often called epistemic, after the Greek for “knowledge.” Our uncertainty about the location, extent, and properties of geologic strata is essentially epistemic. The configuration and properties of the strata are fixed but are uncertain to us; our uncertainty reflects our lack of knowledge.

It is clear that one deals differently with the two types of uncertainty. Additional information may reduce the epistemic uncertainty but not the aleatory uncertainty, for which additional information will only improve our understanding of the governing parameters. In actual applications there is a trade-off between the two types of uncertainty. Research can move some uncertainty from one category to another. For example, flood stages were once treated essentially as aleatory occurrences, but today they are often regarded as the results of models of storms and runoff patterns, whose uncertainty can be reduced by better knowledge. It is clear that the distinction between the two types of uncertainty is an important underlying issue in geoengineering and one that needs to be addressed when dealing with uncertainty.

A second important issue with respect to uncertainty in geoengineering concerns the meaning of probability. What does it mean to say that there is a certain probability of an event or condition? One position is that probability is an underlying property of the phenomenon and that statistical studies are aimed at identifying it. Thus, the

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

results of tossing an honest coin or of repeated application of a certain drug reflect the underlying probabilities. The idea is that probability has to do with the frequency of occurrence, so this point of view is called the frequentist position. Alternatively, we could observe that many real situations do not involve frequency of occurrence. There is one geological profile. It is meaningless to talk about the frequency of occurrence of a liquefiable layer; it is either there or not there. However, we do often talk about the probability of finding a liquefiable layer. In these cases we are talking about our confidence in the existence of the layer; this position is called the degree-of-belief point of view. Probabilistic questions in most practical engineering contexts are best stated as issues of degree of belief; this school of thought has found greater acceptance in recent years.

A third important question regarding uncertainty in geoengineering concerns the appropriate statistical tools. Conventional statistical tools taught in most courses in statistics, including geostatistics, are basically concerned with determining the probability of observing the data if the model is true. Thus, a 20 percent probability from a statistical method such as discriminant analysis or logistic regression of liquefaction data means that there is a 20 percent probability of observing the data, given that the soil is liquefiable. What the engineer wants is a 20 percent probability of liquefaction if the data are observed. The latter type of output requires a Bayesian approach, in which probabilities are updated on the basis of new information. This is becoming a popular approach in many fields, such as industrial management, process control, and even drug testing. It is, of course, completely consistent with the ideas behind the observational approach in geoengineering.

In any particular situation the approaches to the above three issues can be combined in many ways. One can apply Bayesian approaches with a frequentist view of probability and so forth and so on. It is becoming increasingly clear that much of geoengineering involves a large component of epistemic uncertainty, addresses the engineer’s degree of belief, and requires Bayesian updating. This suggests that research and education regarding uncertainty in geoengineering should be concerned with improving the techniques for employing these approaches and with educating engineers in their practical implications.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

innovative equipment and technology remain critical needs for improving construction efficiency. More energy- and cost-efficient means of ground improvement, particularly with respect to wet and weak soils, and development and implementation of remotely controlled, automated construction equipment are also areas where significant improvement is needed. Adaptive management of urban construction (e.g., using automated monitoring systems to facilitate application of the observational method) also offers the promise of significant savings in geotechnical construction. New equipment and methods are continually introduced by contractors and suppliers (e.g., laser-guided earthmovers and graders and handheld global positioning system devices for survey control) (see Figure 2.4), although most improvements in equipment and methods have been incremental.

Advances in site characterization technology since 1989 have also been limited; most site characterization programs are conducted in the

FIGURE 2.4 Laser-guided earthmover (photo courtesy Lecia Geosystems, http://www.leica-geosystems.com).

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

same manner today as they were in 1989, or in 1974 (NRC, 1974). However, use of geographic information systems has improved our ability to store, retrieve, and display large quantities of diverse types of information on projects covering large areas (see Sidebar 2.5).

One of the most significant recent changes in the construction industry has been the development of new project delivery systems. Design-build and build-operate-transfer projects have become established means for delivery of public works projects. These methods have provided incentives for innovation and have reduced delivery time for major projects (see Sidebar 2.4). However, much of the geoengineering on a project occurs during the preliminary pre-tender phase, and geoengineering during the design phase is often still performed on a fee-for-service basis, even when design-build and build-operate-transfer project delivery systems are used. Therefore, incentives for innovative geoengineering are often lacking on these projects. Because the rewards for construction innovation tend to go to the contractor and project financier, as they are the team members who take the financial risk, the geoengineer often will not get a proportional reward for any risk taken or for innovation. To provide incentives for geotechnical innovation, mechanisms are required that will allow geoengineers to benefit proportionally from the risks they take.

Geoengineering issues related to construction efficiency and innovation include development of more efficient and economical underground construction techniques, minimizing environmental impacts of construction activities, and development of more efficient and less disruptive ground improvement techniques. Underground construction is the area that often incurs the greatest capital costs and thus has great potential for savings in infrastructure development. The direct costs of underground construction, including costs for excavation and support of the underground openings and foundation construction for aboveground structures, can be equaled and exceeded by the indirect costs associated with location and relocation of underground utilities and repair of underground and aboveground facilities damaged by construction activities, whether or not their location was known prior to the start of construction. The potential

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

SIDEBAR 2.4
The Alameda Corridor

The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile freight rail expressway between the neighboring ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the transcontinental rail yards and railroad mainlines near downtown Los Angeles. The centerpiece is the Mid-Corridor Trench, a below-ground railway that is 10 miles long, 30 feet deep, and 50 feet wide. By consolidating 90 miles of branch rail lines into a high-speed expressway, the Alameda Corridor produced the following benefits:

  1. Reduced traffic congestion on surface streets by eliminating conflicts at 200 street-level railroad crossings, where cars and trucks previously had to wait for long freight trains to slowly pass;

  2. Cut by more than half, to approximately 45 minutes, the time it takes to transport cargo containers by train between the ports and downtown Los Angeles;

  3. Slashed emissions from idling cars and trucks by 54 percent;

  4. Cut emissions from locomotives by 28 percent; and

  5. Increased efficiency of the cargo distribution network to accommodate growing international trade.

The project was constructed at a cost of $2.4 billion by the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, a joint powers agency known as ACTA and governed by the cities and ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The ACTA employed design-build contracting for the construction of the mid-corridor segment of the project. The mid-corridor encompasses 10 miles of depressed

FIGURE: Mid-corridor track construction (image courtesy of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority).

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

rail through Alameda Street in the cities of Compton, Lynwood, South Gate, Huntington Park, and Vernon. The use of design-build required special enabling legislation by some of the ACTA member cities. Design-build shortened construction time by more than one year. The Alameda Corridor opened on time and on budget on April 15, 2002.

FIGURE: Map of the Alameda Corridor (image courtesy of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority).

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

for large indirect costs associated with damage to adjacent facilities often leads to construction schemes that are excessively conservative and costly, at least with respect to the vast majority of their applications.

The high capital cost of underground construction not withstanding, many communities are demanding that new infrastructure facilities be placed underground in order to mitigate their adverse impacts on urban and suburban areas (e.g., visual impacts, noise, dust, vehicle exhaust, and other traffic impacts, such as grade crossings). A good example of these community demands is the $2.4 billion Alameda Corridor Project, a dedicated rail corridor designed to facilitate the transfer of goods from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to inland distribution points, not only reducing shipping costs and improving the flow of commerce but also removing a significant traffic load from congested freeways (see Sidebar 2.4). During project planning, several of the small local communities along the route threatened to block the project unless it was put below ground through their communities (at significant additional expense). The proposed CenterLine Light Rail system in Orange County, California, provides another example of a project whose segments are being forced below ground at significant additional capital cost owing to community demands (Harper, 2003).

Perhaps the most significant contribution geoengineering can make to construction efficiency is through improved site characterization, as unanticipated site conditions still represent the most common and most significant cause of problems and disputes that occur during construction. Regional infrastructure databases and data models, discussed in the previous section of this chapter, offer the potential for reduced cost, increased coverage, and reduced uncertainty in subsurface characterization if extended to include geotechnical and geological subsurface information. Although some private-sector owners will likely be reluctant to share subsurface information that has traditionally been treated as proprietary, participation in development of these databases could be made mandatory anytime a permit or public agency approval is required for a project. Compilation of comprehensive geological and geotechnical databases and data models can lead to development of advanced algorithms

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

for planning and interpretation of geological and geotechnical investigations and for evaluation of the reliability of the constructed system, taking into account the geological context of the site and the specific sensitivities of a particular project to geological and geotechnical conditions.

Even with development of comprehensive databases and advanced algorithms for data interpretation, uncertainty over underground conditions and material response will remain a significant issue for the foreseeable future. The logical response to this uncertainty is the use of adaptive management and observational approaches to construction activities to minimize the impact of uncertainty, maximize efficiency, and enhance reliability. Trenchless technologies for minimizing construction impacts in urban areas and biotechniques for ground improvement are areas where geoengineering can also make significant contributions to construction efficiency through innovation, minimizing the social and economic disruption associated with infrastructure construction, and rehabilitation in urban areas.

2.4 NATIONAL SECURITY

The national defense-related imperatives identified in the 1989 report (e.g., hardening, hiding, and limiting access to facilities by placing them underground; detecting underground facilities, activities, and caches; and monitoring for underground and surface activities) remain an important component of geoengineering’s roles in today’s society. The beginning of the twenty-first century has been marked by increased concern over threats to U.S. facilities at home and abroad from both foreign and domestic terrorism. In this context the focus on security issues has shifted in recent years from national defense to homeland security. Geotechnology can play a major role in ensuring the safety of civil structures under attack, particularly with respect to underground construction. More cost-efficient underground construction techniques will allow certain critical facilities to be placed underground, where they may be easier to protect against terrorist threats. Geotechnology can also play a role in detecting unwarranted intrusions (e.g., seismic devices for

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

listening through the ground), in hardening both underground and aboveground facilities against ground shock and other blast or weapons effects, in developing means for penetrating underground facilities, for vehicle mobility, for expedited construction of airfields, harbors, and other base facilities during rapid deployment, for protection of aboveground facilities (e.g., with earthen berms), and for detection and removal of unexploded ordinance, both during hostilities (e.g., clearing mine fields) and after hostilities (e.g., spent ordinance).

In 1989, critical geoengineering contributions to national security included weapons effects and ground shock predictions. Progress with weapons effects has been made (e.g., the development of bunker buster bombs that can penetrate soil cover to attack buried targets) but advances in this technology may simply drive the intended targets deeper underground, negating any strategic advantage. Increases in computational power and constitutive modeling for soil and rock have improved our ability to predict ground shock effects. Continued improvement in predicting weapons effects and ground shock effects is to be expected as computation schemes become more efficient and the necessary intensive computation become faster and more economical.

One major change in national security priorities since the 1989 report has been the focus on homeland security. As this focus on homeland security evolves from response to prevention, geotechnical engineering and, in particular, underground construction can play an important role in reducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure systems from attack. The benefits of underground construction with respect to securing critical facilities have long been recognized by the military. From rudimentary fortified caves to modern underground command centers like Cheyenne Mountain, the military has placed structures underground to harden them. Similar benefits with respect to homeland security can be realized by placing civil works underground. For instance, the seemingly intractable task of protecting thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of kilometers of aboveground oil and natural gas pipeline against an attack that could come anywhere along its route becomes significantly more tractable if the pipeline is buried. Burying a

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

pipeline or any other linear system, such as a utility corridor or highway, reduces both vulnerability and fragility, as the ground limits access and buffers the line against impacts and explosions. Although aboveground “point” facilities, such as power stations, switching yards, and pump stations, are somewhat easier to control with respect to access, there is little doubt that placing them, or any other potential target, underground hardens the facility.

In many cases, appropriate geoengineering solutions for sensitive facilities, such as underground placement, will augment efforts to create more secure and more resilient infrastructure. It must be kept in mind though that security and resilience are the desired systems characteristics, and geoengineering will only be a part of the relevant system. The primary barrier to placing critical facilities underground in order to harden them against terrorist attack is cost, which can be a very significant barrier. Costs associated with underground construction include not only the actual excavation and construction costs but also investigation costs, costs associated with utility location and relocation (and the failure to do so), and costs associated with the protection of adjacent facilities from the effects of excavation. Thus, important to the increased use of underground space for securing civil facilities are improvements in excavation and support system technology, including geologic and geotechnical characterization and in situ ground stabilization and improvement; improved capabilities for detection of underground objects and obstructions; and a more comprehensive system of cataloging and archiving the locations of known underground conditions and facilities.

Improved detection of underground obstructions and underground activities may also play an important role in enhancing homeland security. Although access to underground facilities is limited, they are not impenetrable. Along with providing protection and limiting access, the subsurface can also shield terrorist activities and objects from detection. So, monitoring for and detection of underground intrusions and caches is important to homeland security. In particular, monitoring along the route of linear facilities (e.g., tunnels, pipelines, and power lines) for intrusive activities from fixed listening points and monitoring from

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

moving vehicles, aircraft, and space for buried caches and underground activities can provide important contributions to homeland security. Fixed listening posts may also be able to detect certain types of threats to aboveground facilities (e.g., approaching vehicles and attempts to undermine foundations).

From a global perspective, geoengineering can provide a means for proactively addressing some of the root causes of terrorism and international conflict. Providing adequate, appropriate, and reliable civil infrastructure for everyone everywhere can help reduce these threats to national and global security. Furthermore, global climate change represents a significant threat to both national and international security. It could disrupt food resources and affect international trade. Through the development of technologies for minimizing global climate impacts, such as underground carbon sequestration, geoengineering can make perhaps its most significant contribution to our national security. Until the threats are eliminated, geoengineering must also be concerned with securing civil infrastructure against external threats. Improved threat detection and protection (e.g., hardening of civil infrastructure and other facilities against threats from terrorism and international conflicts) will remain an important element of geoengineering for the foreseeable future.

2.5 RESOURCE DISCOVERY AND RECOVERY

The 1989 report identified continued discovery and recovery of natural resources as a critical national need. Demand for most natural resources has increased steadily with population growth, industrialization, and urbanization. Furthermore, resource recovery becomes more challenging as the readily accessible supplies of raw material are recovered. An improved ability to see into the Earth was identified in the 1989 report as crucial to development of cost-effective approaches to resource discovery and recovery in the United States. Resource exploration relies more on geophysical methods, including downhole, airborne, and satellite systems, than most other geoengineering endeavors. The mineral resource industry also makes greater use of statistical techniques for data

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

evaluation and for planning invasive exploration programs (NRC, 2002c). This may be attributed to the significantly larger rewards to risk ratio for resource discovery compared to other geotechnical endeavors. The reward for successful investigation generally means discovery of a new, economically viable resource deposit that has a tangible economic value, while failure during natural resource exploration generally results solely in a direct expended cost with no return rather than in both direct and indirect costs associated with loss of life or disruption of services.

The biggest change in our perspectives on resource discovery and recovery since the 1989 report is the growing focus on sustainable development (see Sidebar 4.2). Although the 1989 recommendations focused on more efficient engineering and construction techniques to locate and extract resources from Earth, sustainable development requires that we develop the resources required to support our population (energy, water, and minerals) in an environmentally responsible manner, with a minimum of disruption and waste. Sustainable development also dictates that renewable substitutes be developed to replace nonrenewable resources and practices that are employed currently.

Energy may be foremost among sustainable resource development considerations. Richard Smalley stated that of the various resources used to sustain our population, energy is the most important (Smalley, 2003). If enough energy can be provided without harmful emissions or other negative environmental impacts, then most other problems, such as the provision of adequate supplies of potable water or mineral resources, can be solved. Geotechnical inputs are a critical part of locating, developing, and extracting fossil fuels. Offshore methane hydrate deposits are a major potential source of energy for the years ahead. At low temperature and under high pressure (e.g., water depths greater than 300 meters) methane hydrate is a crystalline solid consisting of a methane molecule surrounded by a cage of water molecules. At higher temperature and lower pressure, the crystalline form of methane hydrate becomes unstable, greatly complicating recovery. Approximately 60 percent of the world’s fossil fuel resources (including coal and petroleum) is known to be contained in methane hydrate form. Safely and economically recovering methane

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

hydrates from the relatively deep and unstable underwater environment in which they are found is a major geoengineering challenge (NRC, 2004a).

The recent focus on hydrogen as a fuel is based on the fact that burning hydrogen emits no carbon dioxide. The problems to be solved to develop hydrogen as a viable energy alternative include finding sources for hydrogen, storing the hydrogen, and developing low-cost reliable hydrogen fuel cells. Of these problems, finding sources for hydrogen will involve geoengineers. Possible hydrogen sources include mining of clathrates,1 conversion of natural gas or coal with CO2 sequestration, and conversion of seawater using geothermal, wind, solar, or nuclear power. Each of these solutions will require geotechnical problem solving (NRC, 2004b). Increasing attention is also being focused on sources of energy that are renewable and generate no emissions. Geothermal energy taps the heat sources of Earth, either directly for heating and cooling, or to make electricity. Vast amounts of energy are stored in Earth, as 99 percent of Earth is at a temperature greater than 1,000 degrees Celsius. Geothermal reservoirs can be characterized and managed using geoengineering.

In addition to its role in developing new energy sources, geoengineering plays a critical role in efforts to minimize and mitigate the environmental effects of current energy production technologies, including fossil and nuclear energy production and energy resource extraction. Safe and environmentally protective coal waste impoundments (NRC, 2002b) and tertiary recovery methods for oil, drilling, and extraction of gas from complex three-phase reservoirs are just two examples of the many energy resource problems needing geotechnical input for their solution. Approximately 20 percent of our electric power still comes from nuclear power plants (EIA, 2004), and there appears to be a resurgence in interest in nuclear power plant development. The mining of uranium, management of mine wastes, and storage of the resulting nuclear waste are all geotechnical problems.

1  

A clathrate is a chemical substance in which one molecule forms a lattice around a “guest” molecule without chemical bonding. Methane hydrate is a natural form of clathrate hydrate where the guest molecule is methane and the lattice is formed by water (NRC, 2004a).

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

Given the dramatic increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuel burning, there is increasing interest in enhanced sequestration of carbon (CCSP, 2003). Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham focused the Department of Energy on an energy future that uses abundant coal as a source of energy, using clean coal technology coupled with CO2 sequestration (DOE, 2003b). Schemes for CO2 sequestration such as deep injection or engineering large-scale formation of CaCO3 will require geotechnical solutions (NRC, 2003b). There is also renewed interest in nuclear power as a means of meeting our energy needs. Resumption of construction of nuclear power plants will mandate a solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal, discussed elsewhere in this report.

In addition to energy development, resource recovery concerns involving geoengineering include providing safe water supply, developing mineral resources, and improving the energy efficiency of both the development of urban infrastructure and the infrastructure itself. Provision of abundant and safe water is among the most critical needs in many parts of the world. Of Earth’s some 6 billion people, at least 1 billion do not have access to adequate supplies of healthful water and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation (Gleick, 2003, p. 1525). Water tables are dropping on every continent while 60 percent of water use is for agricultural irrigation. Regions of the world with the highest populations seem to have the most water shortages. In Asia, which has the most population and two-thirds of the irrigated lands, 85 percent of the water is used for irrigation. Food shortages due to lack of irrigation water are becoming a major recurring problem that has affected the stability of societies (Diamond, 2004). Several of our major rivers are totally used before they reach the sea, notably the Colorado River, which is a source of interstate conflict, as well as international conflict between the United States and Mexico. Egypt is planning to use approximately 85 percent of the flow of the Nile, but has no agreement to that effect with upstream countries. Turkey has dammed the Euphrates without agreements with the downstream countries of Iraq and Syria. Rising sea levels due to climate change will exacerbate these problems because of increases in

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

seawater intrusion into important aquifers along coastal regions. Important aquifers are also increasingly contaminated with sewage, nitrates from fertilizers, heavy metals, and other industrial wastes. Climate change is causing glaciers to melt and threaten water supplies. In the western United States, climate change may reduce or eliminate the winter snowpack that serves as an important storage mechanism for the water supply.

Water managers need better data and understanding of our water cycles and systems. Better ways are needed to provide water services that meet the needs of society with less water. For example, geoengineers can play a role in developing efficient irrigation schemes that do not salinate the soil. Remediation and prevention of water pollution are critical. Mitigation of saltwater intrusion and recharge of groundwater aquifers are important problems. Water engineers will have to manage the storing of water underground when it is plentiful so that it can be withdrawn when needed. Geoengineering can play an important role in each of these tasks through development of new and improved methods for water collection, storage, and irrigation and better understanding of water infiltration, groundwater flow, and evapotranspiration processes.

Mineral resources, including various metals and industrial minerals, are essential to sustaining our current standards of living. In addition to the “conventional” geomechanical issues associated with economic extraction of mineral resources, geoengineering is squarely in the middle of environmental issues related to mining that range from developing new methods of mining that do not cause pollution or visible changes to the landscape to remediation and closure issues. To the extent that these environmental issues affect the social license to mine, geoengineers must participate in a dialogue with the public and regulators about management and mitigation of these impacts of resource recovery, including mine waste piles, subsidence, water pollution, large mine pits that may fill with toxic water, and tailings ponds (NRC, 2002b).

Equally important is the location and development of gravel pits and rock quarries, as large quantities of these common construction materials

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

are essential for virtually all transportation systems and other constructed facilities. Opening and operating these “local mines” can be among the most difficult projects to permit, owing to the many regulatory constraints and the NIMBY (not in my back yard) societal mind-set.

An important problem related to many important mineral resources is that this country is strongly dependent on foreign sources. The U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) effectively supported and managed domestic and foreign policy relative to these resources until the bureau was disbanded in 1998. In the absence of coordinated policy for finding and developing new mines, and owing to complex environmental regulations, private developers are often discouraged from developing domestic reserves. There is no governmental agency or funding for developing more innovative technology for resource recovery from domestic sources. If U.S. policy is to move in the direction of less foreign dependence, some federal direction is called for. The National Science Foundation could serve as a catalyst for this by stimulating and funding research on better, more efficient, and environmentally protective mineral recovery.

In summary, geoengineering inputs are an essential element of locating, developing, and recovering the natural resources necessary to sustain our standard of living. They are also part of the critical efforts to prevent and mitigate the environmental effects of resource extraction. Energy and water are perhaps the two most important classes of natural resources for sustaining our civilization. Abundant energy supplies can be used to mitigate many of the other resource recovery issues, including mitigating the environmental impacts of resource recovery and providing abundant supplies of natural resources. Providing adequate supplies of water for human consumption, agriculture, and industrial uses is of paramount importance to maintaining our standard of living, and improving the standard of living in developing countries.

2.6 MITIGATION OF NATURAL HAZARDS

Much of the work of the geoengineering community is directed at characterizing, evaluating, mitigating the risks from, and recovering from

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

the effects of natural hazards and disasters. Geoengineering plays essential roles in identifying and describing the destructive forces and effects of extreme events, such as landslides and debris flows, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, expansive and collapsing soils, volcanoes, and even wildfires. The world saw a direct example of the need for geoengineering to play these roles in the December 26, 2004, tsunami disaster. Geoengineering is important in evaluating the resistance of the natural ground; assessing the risks of loss of life and property; evaluating and choosing among acceptable risk mitigation, emergency response, and disaster recovery alternatives; and the development of hazard and disaster-resistant designs. On average, natural hazards (landslides, avalanches, erosion, subsidence, swelling soils, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, high winds, and tsunamis) cause numerous casualties (deaths and injuries) and billions of dollars a year in damage (USGS, 1995). Related to these, although not natural hazards per se, are a variety of dam, embankment, and surface impoundment geohazard issues, including seepage, piping, erosion, settlement, and slope stability. These hazards demand greatly improved prediction, prevention, mitigation, and post-event recovery strategies and methods.

The 1989 report called for more effective application of technology to reduce losses, both in lives and monetary costs, resulting from natural hazards. Geotechnology has been effectively applied over the past 15 years for natural hazard reduction. An excellent example of such an application is the Hong Kong Slope Stability Warning System, wherein state-of-the-art geographic information system technology is integrated with automated data acquisition and geoengineering information of landslide triggering to issue a “landslide warning” and facilitate emergency response (see Sidebar 2.5).

Adoption of statewide landslide and liquefaction hazard maps for California and their incorporation into local building codes and the widespread use of ground-shaking maps developed under the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), with the incorporation of its methodology for developing site-specific earthquake response spectra into the International Building Code are other examples of

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

SIDEBAR 2.5
Hong Kong Slope Stability Warning System

A substantial portion of the dense urban development area of Hong Kong is built on steep hillsides. Heavy rainfall triggers, on the average, approximately 300 to 400 landslides each year in these areas. To mitigate the substantial risk to life and property these landslides create among the 7 million residents of Hong Kong, the Geotechnical Engineering Office of the Civil Engineering and Development Department of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has employed state-of-the-art technology to develop a sophisticated geographic information system (GIS) database to identify, register, and collect information on the approximately 57,000 slopes in the area. The GIS integrates photographs, text, and graphical information into a Slope Information System (SIS). An important component of the SIS is a sophisticated landslide warning system. The SIS is also used to facilitate maintenance planning and to coordinate emergency response.

The landslide warning system is based on studies that correlate locally heavy rainfall with the occurrence of landsliding in the region. Both observed and forecasted rainfall is employed. Initially, a Landslip Warning was issued when the 24-hour rainfall was expected to exceed 175 mm or the one-hour rainfall was expected to exceed 70 mm. In 1999, enhanced criteria that take into account the size of the area receiving heavy rainfall were implemented. A total of 110 rain gauges are automatically monitored throughout the region as part of the system. In addition to data from rain gauges, radar monitoring and high-resolution meteorological satellite images are used to provide input to the landslide warning system.

Three to four Landslip Warnings are issued each year. When a Landslip Warning is issued, local radio and television stations are notified and are requested to broadcast the warning to the public at regular intervals. Information is also available to local residents online and by telephone. A Landslip Warning also triggers an emergency system in various government departments that mobilizes staff and resources to deal with landslide incidents.

In an emergency, the SIS provides real-time information to government agencies through an intranet. The system can be used to generate maps to show the location and seriousness of the landslides and assist an emergency controller in monitoring the situation and allocating emergency resources. The SIS also allows users to run spatial query functions and to extract slope-relevant information for planning and maintenance activities. Information in the SIS is also available to owners.

The Geotechnical Engineering Office has recently implemented a mobile mapping application system (MMAS) in conjunction with the SIS. The MMAS integrates state-of-the-art mobile computing, wireless telecommunication, a global positioning system, and mobile GIS technologies into a handheld package to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of geotechnical fieldwork by integrating positioning, surveying, geotechnical mapping, and data processing capabilities and to facilitate decision making under emergency situations (e.g., a serious landslide).

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

advanced geotechnology applied to hazard mitigation. While regional hazard maps have been incorporated into codes, zoning laws, and land use planning in some areas, many communities are still at risk and continued research and development is needed. Furthermore, there is an increasing susceptibility to natural hazards owing to increased urban growth. There is also a need for development of hazard assessments and mitigation measures for developing countries that are less complicated and more easily understood and applied than those used in the United States (e.g., the NEHRP methodology).

There has also been increasing interest in applying formal risk assessment (see Sidebar 2.2) to geohazard mitigation, though it is not yet general practice. The adoption of reliability-based load and resistance factor design by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials for its standard specifications for highway bridge construction (AASHTO, 2003) represents an attempt to move in this direction. However, most of these codes, standards and land use measures address new construction. Application of these hazard mitigation technologies to existing facilities remains a major issue that involves public policy as much as geoengineering.

There have been several important initiatives for major field and laboratory experimentation relevant to geohazard assessment and mitigation since 1989, as called for in the 1989 report. These initiatives have included the establishment of seven National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites (http://www.unh.edu/nges/desc.html), the $88 million National Science Foundation-funded Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (http://www.nees.org), and the Federal Highway Administration-funded Interstate 15 test bed for highway research projects in Utah (Utah Department of Transportation, 2003). Geoengineers have continued to develop new technologies and enhance existing technologies for hazard mitigation. GIS are being used with increasing frequency for regional hazard assessments (Rosinski et al., 2004; Hilton and Elioff, 2004). Sophisticated numerical analyses for hazard evaluation (e.g., nonlinear earthquake site response analyses and stress deformation stability assessments) are being applied with increasing

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

frequency. Among more recent developments, automated landslide warning systems that employ time domain reflectometry and in-place inclinometers combined with automated data acquisition and interpretation and cellular or satellite communications systems are now being deployed to protect lives and property (http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/publications/tdr/1994_papers.html; Serafini and Fiegel, 2004; Kane et al., 2004). In addition to ground-based systems, airborne and satellite remote sensing systems are starting to be developed for both hazard identification and postdisaster response and recovery, though much work remains to be done in this area (Anderson et al., 2004).

While there have been significant advances in geohazard assessment and mitigation technologies, global climate change threatens to dramatically increase the severity of storms and extremes of hydrologic processes (NRC, 2002a). These extremes will have larger and more serious consequences, which in some cases may lie outside of previous experience. The potential consequences of these climate extremes, including landslides, floods, and erosion, is exacerbated by growing concentrations of population in cities that are home to more than 50 percent of the world’s population (Cohen, 2003). Geoengineers will be involved in predicting these hazards and in developing mitigation plans through appropriate engineering and land use planning. However, mitigation is often linked to issues of sustainability, political and social policy, and economics. Even when the existence of a natural hazard and appropriate mitigation measures are known, political, social, and economic considerations may prevent appropriate mitigation measures from being applied. Witness over 30,000 dead in the Bam, Iran, earthquake of December 2003 with a 6.6 magnitude earthquake (USGS, 2003). Similar-size earthquakes in the United States have resulted in much less damage and loss of life (e.g., the Nisqually, Washington earthquake in February 2001, which resulted in only one death, a heart attack victim who was reported in the Seattle area [SCEC, 2001]). As with environmental protection and waste management, a major challenge for geoengineering is to develop appropriate methods for geohazard mitigation in the developing world.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

As in other geoengineering endeavors, new and improved characterization tools are perhaps the most important need in improving our ability to identify and manage geohazards.

  • Sensing, imaging, and geophysical techniques should ultimately enable reliable monitoring of ground movements;

  • Identification of both old landslides and new landslides that are poised to occur;

  • Identification of expansive and collapsing soils;

  • Location of wet, weak, potentially unstable zones in embankment dams and other critical earth structures;

  • Identification of potentially liquefiable or otherwise unstable ground during earthquakes;

  • Rapid reconnaissance of ground failures following an earthquake; and

  • Identification and mitigation of other conditions and situations leading to breakdown and loss of strength in earth materials that could result in loss of stability.

Regional databases and data models for geoinformation will facilitate the collection, interpretation, and dissemination of the information and algorithms required to accomplish these tasks.

Landslides and earthquake-related hazards are perhaps the most dramatic geohazards, but other more subtle geohazards, such as expansive and collapsible soils, also exact a large toll on our society. The annual cost of damage to constructed facilities in the United States attributed to expansive soils was estimated to be $9 billion in 1987 (Jones and Jones, 1987), more than the annualized cost of any other geohazard in that year. Furthermore, population growth and urban growth exacerbate the impact of these natural hazards.

In summary, critical issues in geoengineering for natural hazard mitigation include improved hazard monitoring and forecasting, implementation of land use planning, and development of appropriate hazard mitigation technology for developing countries. While geoengineers have

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

become fairly adept at identifying geohazards, other societal imperatives make it unlikely that hazard avoidance is a viable strategy in many land use planning situations. Therefore, hazard mitigation, including ground improvement, hazard monitoring and warning systems, and facilitation of disaster response and recovery, will remain significant geoengineering activities. Remote sensing technologies and the development of regional databases and data models will play an increasingly important role in natural hazard mitigation in the future.

2.7 FRONTIER EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Humanity has continued to stretch its reach into the deep oceans, polar regions, and outer space. Geoengineering inputs are essential for success in these endeavors. These geoengineering inputs include sampling, testing, and interpreting the results of soil and rock tests; developing advanced technologies for subsurface drilling; helping to solve trafficability and mobility problems in extreme environments; providing foundation support and developing below-surface storage; and the use of in situ materials in construction. The Apollo lunar landings from 1969 to 1972 provide a good example of how geotechnical inputs contribute significantly to the success of scientific investigations conducted in extreme environments. These lunar landings three decades ago, as well as the recent NASA landings on Mars, required consideration of vehicle mobility issues (see Figure 2.5).

Any attempt to build permanent bases on the Moon or Mars, or on the seafloor, will have to address geotechnical issues as seemingly mundane as foundation-bearing capacity. Remote sensing technologies developed for interplanetary exploration may have invaluable terrestrial applications for natural hazard mitigation and subsurface exploration. The need for basic research on seafloor sediments and extraterrestrial materials identified in the 1989 report continues unabated.

Exploration at the frontiers of the natural universe is considered by many a fundamental drive in human society. Frontier exploration is also often accompanied by the hope that it will lead to new frontiers for

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

FIGURE 2.5 The Lunar Rover (NASA).

natural resource recovery and human habitation. Depletion of readily accessible natural resources has pushed us further and further into the frontiers of development in search of these resources (e.g., into the subarctic areas and deeper waters for mineral and hydrocarbon recovery). Inevitably, certain essential natural resources will become scarce on Earth (e.g., precious metals). Geoengineering issues are involved in both frontier exploration (e.g., vehicle mobility studies for lunar exploration and the Mars Rover) and ultimately in extraction of resources from these frontiers. Geoengineers should remain engaged in these activities as we stretch the limits of human experience and activities into these new frontiers.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

2.8 REMAINING KNOWLEDGE GAPS

Considerable progress has been made in addressing geoengineering contributions to the societal needs identified in the 1989 report in the 15 years since the report was issued. However, much remains to be done to achieve the report’s recommendations. In reviewing what needs to be accomplished, the committee identified specific geoengineering knowledge and technology gaps that must be closed. These knowledge and technology gaps include:

  • Improved ability to “see into Earth.” Faster, more rapid, more cost-effective, more accurate, and less invasive techniques for characterizing the subsurface is perhaps the most important need in geoengineering, irrespective of the specific problem to be solved.

  • Improved sensing and monitoring methods, including improved geophysical and remote sensing technology, more reliable and accurate instrumentation, enhanced data acquisition, processing, and storage and incorporation of the collected data into appropriate information systems.

  • Understanding and predicting the long-term behavior of constructed facilities and earth structures, including time effects in disturbed ground. Properties and conditions change with time; our ability to predict accurately what will happen over even short time frames is limited.

  • Improved ability to characterize both the spatial variability of soil properties and the uncertainty in soil properties and soil behavior and the associated reliability of geosystems.

  • Characterizing and engineering with materials that are in the range between hard soils and soft rocks. Shales, mudstones, decomposed granites, and other materials are often encountered for which a determination must be made as to whether to treat them as hard rock or soil. The consequences with respect to project cost and future behavior can be large.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
  • Understanding biogeochemical processes in soils and rocks. Meeting this need will serve two purposes: (1) It will provide better understanding of soil and rock composition and properties and how they may change with time and (2) these phenomena and processes can open the door to both new remediation processes for environmental applications and to innovative and sustainable ground stabilization and improvement applications.

  • Improved soil stabilization and ground improvement methods. More than ever we are forced to deal with sites and subsoil conditions that are inadequate in their present state, especially in urban areas and the megacities in both the developed and developing parts of the world. Less expensive and more effective treatment methods are needed to improve soils and rocks for use both as foundation and construction materials.

  • Improved understanding and prediction of the behavior of geomaterials under extreme loadings and in extreme environments. Understanding and prediction of behavior under extreme loading is essential to hazard mitigation efforts. Understanding geomaterials behavior in extreme environments, including the deep ocean, polar regions, the Moon, and now Mars provide new technical and scientific opportunities and challenges.

  • Development of subsurface databases and data models, including geological and geotechnical data, information on the built environment (e.g., subsurface utility locations), natural resource and environmental data, and monitoring data for natural hazards and environmental conditions.

  • Applications of information-enhanced computing power, information technology, and communication systems. These applications will impact both how and what research can be done because of the opportunities for linking facilities and real-time integration of concurrent experimental, computational, and prototype analyses and observations.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

2.9 THE WAY FORWARD

Beyond the context that spawned the 1989 report there are new perspectives that have introduced new needs and shifted priorities. Some of these perspectives have been discussed in this chapter and more are discussed in Chapter 4. The globalization of the economy and of our political and social environment is also a major force driving these new needs and shifting priorities. For example, rather than focusing solely on discovery and recovery of U.S. natural resources, geoengineering today must focus on global resource recovery issues and global effects of resource use. The new emphasis on sustainable development reflects the growing recognition of the forces of globalization on society and the role of the engineer. None of these issues can be considered individually because of the complex interrelationships among them. For instance, pressures from globalization impact homeland security needs, and homeland security needs impact both infrastructure development requirements and the availability of resources for infrastructure development, rehabilitation, and maintenance. There remains a host of fundamental challenges in understanding the behavior of soils and rocks and of structures composed of soil and rock that need to be addressed by geoengineers in order to more effectively deal with these issues.

The United States and the world need geoengineers and need advances in their abilities to understand, manage and design in, on, and with Earth. Geoengineering is crucial to addressing essential national and global needs, including infrastructure development and sustainability, the availability and reliability of our civil structures, provision of homeland security, protection from natural hazards, and expanding our frontiers of knowledge. The following chapters will address this future. Chapter 3 examines the potential of new tools that might help to solve geoengineering problems in new and efficient ways. Chapter 4 looks at an expansion of the traditional geoengineering role into supporting the emerging fields of sustainability and Earth Systems Engineering (ESE). In Chapter 5 we examine the institutional issues at the National Science Foundation and universities that affect the attainment of the vision described in Chapters 3 and 4.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"2 Updating the 1989 Geotechnology Report: Where Do We Stand?." National Research Council. 2006. Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11558.
×
Page 82
Next: 3 Meeting the Challenges With New Technologies and Tools »
Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium: Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The field of geoengineering is at a crossroads where the path to high-tech solutions meets the path to expanding applications of geotechnology. In this report, the term "geoengineering" includes all types of engineering that deal with Earth materials, such as geotechnical engineering, geological engineering, hydrological engineering, and Earth-related parts of petroleum engineering and mining engineering. The rapid expansion of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology begs the question of how these new approaches might come to play in developing better solutions for geotechnological problems.

This report presents a vision for the future of geotechnology aimed at National Science Foundation (NSF) program managers, the geological and geotechnical engineering community as a whole, and other interested parties, including Congress, federal and state agencies, industry, academia, and other stakeholders in geoengineering research. Some of the ideas may be close to reality whereas others may turn out to be elusive, but they all present possibilities to strive for and potential goals for the future. Geoengineers are poised to expand their roles and lead in finding solutions for modern Earth systems problems, such as global change, emissions-free energy supply, global water supply, and urban systems.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!