Overview

PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is an important component of the National Earthquake Hazards Reductions Program (NEHRP). NEHRP is a coordinated effort across four federal agencies to address earthquake risk in the United States. Since 2004, NEES researchers have produced significant advances in the science and technology for earthquake loss reduction that would not have been possible without the network’s experimental facilities and cyberinfrastructure. By Fiscal Year 2014, NSF will have supported 10 years of NEES operations and research.

As part of NSF’s preparation of plans for Fiscal Year 2014 and beyond, NSF sought input from the broad earthquake engineering community on “Grand Challenges in Basic Earthquake Engineering Research,” with one consideration being that the program after 2014 need not be focused on—or limited to—existing facilities. At the request of NSF (see Statement of Task, Box S.1), the National Research Council (NRC) hosted a two-day workshop to give members of the community an opportunity to identify grand challenges and to describe networks of earthquake engineering experimental capabilities and cyberinfrastructure tools that could contribute to addressing these challenges.

WORKSHOP PLANNING

An NRC steering committee was established to organize the workshop, which was held on March 14–15, 2011, at the NRC’s Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Workshop participants included 37 researchers and practitioners, drawn from a wide range of disciplines, to focus on the two key questions in the task statement. In addition, observers from NSF, NSF contractors, NEHRP, and the current NEES Operations Center attended the discussions. Altogether, there were 52 workshop attendees, including the committee and NRC staff (Appendix C).

The committee organized the workshop into a series of keynote presentations, breakout sessions, and plenary sessions. Six keynote speakers were tasked with articulating, through their presentations and associated white papers (Appendix B), a vision that would help guide discussions among the workshop participants. Each speaker discussed a key component of earthquake engineering research—community, lifelines, buildings, information technology, materials, and modeling and simulation—and considered four cross-cutting dimensions—community resilience, pre-event prediction and planning, design of infrastructure, and post-event response and recovery. Breakout sessions were the primary mechanism for brainstorming, analyzing, and documenting responses to the workshop questions outlined in the task. Four breakout sessions were structured along the cross-cutting dimensions, and one breakout session organized participants along disciplinary lines—buildings, lifelines, geotechnical/tsunamis, and community resilience. Each breakout session included a moderator, who served as the leader and chief spokesperson for the breakout group, and a committee member who served as rapporteur.

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS

This report summarizes the major points and ideas expressed during the workshop. It is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of all topics and issues relevant to earthquake engineering research. The observations or views contained in this report are those of individual participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the committee, or the NRC. Therefore, references in the report to workshop “participants” do not imply that all participants were polled or that they necessarily agreed with the particular statements. In addition, the grand challenge problems and networked facilities discussed in the following sections were suggested by breakout group participants and they do not represent conclusions or recommendations of the committee or the NRC.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
Overview PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP The committee organized the workshop into a series of keynote presentations, breakout sessions, and plenary The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake sessions. Six keynote speakers were tasked with articulat- Engineering Simulation (NEES), supported by the National ing, through their presentations and associated white papers Science Foundation (NSF), is an important component (Appendix B), a vision that would help guide discussions of the National Earthquake Hazards Reductions Program among the workshop participants. Each speaker discussed (NEHRP). NEHRP is a coordinated effort across four federal a key component of earthquake engineering research— agencies to address earthquake risk in the United States. community, lifelines, buildings, information technology, Since 2004, NEES researchers have produced significant materials, and modeling and simulation—and considered advances in the science and technology for earthquake loss four cross-cutting dimensions—community resilience, pre- reduction that would not have been possible without the event prediction and planning, design of infrastructure, and network’s experimental facilities and cyberinfrastructure. post-event response and recovery. Breakout sessions were By Fiscal Year 2014, NSF will have supported 10 years of the primary mechanism for brainstorming, analyzing, and NEES operations and research. documenting responses to the workshop questions outlined As part of NSF’s preparation of plans for Fiscal Year in the task. Four breakout sessions were structured along 2014 and beyond, NSF sought input from the broad earth- the cross-cutting dimensions, and one breakout session quake engineering community on “Grand Challenges in organized participants along disciplinary lines—buildings, Basic Earthquake Engineering Research,” with one consider- lifelines, geotechnical/tsunamis, and community resilience. ation being that the program after 2014 need not be focused Each breakout session included a moderator, who served as on—or limited to—existing facilities. At the request of NSF the leader and chief spokesperson for the breakout group, and (see Statement of Task, Box S.1), the National Research a committee member who served as rapporteur. Council (NRC) hosted a two-day workshop to give members of the community an opportunity to identify grand challenges SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS and to describe networks of earthquake engineering experi- mental capabilities and cyberinfrastructure tools that could This report summarizes the major points and ideas contribute to addressing these challenges. expressed during the workshop. It is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of all topics and issues relevant to WORKSHOP PLANNING earthquake engineering research. The observations or views contained in this report are those of individual participants An NRC steering committee was established to organize and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop the workshop, which was held on March 14–15, 2011, at participants, the committee, or the NRC. Therefore, refer- the NRC’s Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Work- ences in the report to workshop “participants” do not imply shop participants included 37 researchers and practitioners, that all participants were polled or that they necessarily drawn from a wide range of disciplines, to focus on the two agreed with the particular statements. In addition, the grand key questions in the task statement. In addition, observers challenge problems and networked facilities discussed in from NSF, NSF contractors, NEHRP, and the current NEES the following sections were suggested by breakout group Operations Center attended the discussions. Altogether, there participants and they do not represent conclusions or recom- were 52 workshop attendees, including the committee and mendations of the committee or the NRC. NRC staff (Appendix C). 1

OCR for page 1
2 GRAND CHALLENGES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH BOX S.1 Statement of Task The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), as a component of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, NSF will have supported 10 years of NEES operations and research, and seeks an evaluation of next-generation U.S. needs for earthquake engineering research beyond 2014. A National Research Council committee will organize a public workshop on the Grand Challenges for earthquake engineering research, to bring together experts to focus on two questions: 1. What are the high-priority Grand Challenges in basic earthquake engineering research that require a network of earthquake engineering experimental facilities and cyberinfrastructure? 2. What networked earthquake engineering experimental capabilities and cyberinfrastructure tools are required to address these Grand Challenges? The workshop will feature invited presentations and discussion. The committee will develop the agenda, select and invite speakers and discussants, and moderate the discussion. Workshop participants will be asked to describe the experimental infrastructure capabilities and cyberinfrastructure tools in terms of requirements, rather than by reference to any existing or specifically located future facilities. In responding to the foregoing questions, workshop participants will also be asked to consider future technical and conceptual advances with the potential to influence future earthquake hazard research, such as early warning systems, new materials, sustainability, high-performance computing and networking, modeling, sensor and monitoring technologies, and other factors identified by the committee. The committee will prepare a report summarizing discussions at the workshop; the report will not include findings or recommendations. Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research 1. Community Resilience Framework: A common theme noted by participants was that the earthquake Grand challenges in earthquake research are the prob- engineering community currently lacks an interac- lems, barriers, and bottlenecks in the earthquake engineer- tive and comprehensive framework for measuring, ing field that hinder realization of the NEHRP vision—“A monitoring, and evaluating community resilience. nation that is earthquake resilient in public safety, economic Such a framework could apply innovative method- strength, and national security” (NEHRP, 2008). As such, ologies, models, and data to measure community they define frontiers in basic earthquake engineering research performance at various scales, build on the experi- that would be needed to provide transformative solutions for ence and lessons of past events, and help ensure that achieving an earthquake-resilient society. past and future advances in building, lifelines, urban Thirteen grand challenge problems emerged over the design, technology, and socioeconomic research course of the workshop. The committee has summarized result in improved community resilience. Such a t hem in terms of five overarching Grand Challenges, framework also could advance our understanding of described below, in order to capture interrelationships and both the direct and indirect impacts of earthquakes crossovers among the 13 problems and to highlight the inter- so that community-level interactions and impacts disciplinary nature of their potential solutions. Participants can be better characterized. noted that grand challenge problems do not stand alone; they are complex, and this complexity exists not only within 2. Decision Making: Another sentiment reiterated earthquake engineering but also in earthquake engineering’s during the workshop was that current research position among other competing social challenges. As such, findings related to community resilience do not addressing a grand challenge problem involves consideration a dequately influence decisions and actions on of a variety of barriers—economic, regulatory, policy, soci- the part of key decision makers, such as private- etal, and professional—along with the scientific and tech- sector facility owners and public-sector insti- nological solutions. The five overarching Grand Challenges tutions. Communities typically build based on are intended to serve as useful focal points for discussions traditional standards, and when affected by major among stakeholders and decision makers planning future earthquakes, they respond and recover based on investment toward achieving a more earthquake-resilient intuition, improvisation, and adaptive behaviors nation.

OCR for page 1
3 OVERVIEW that are drawn from the individuals available to retrofit of the built environment’s most vulnerable p articipate. Consequently, the lessons learned sectors would help ensure a safer environment and in one community and event rarely translate to a more resilient community. the next community affected. Participants sug- 5. Design Tools: Participants suggested that develop- gested that achieving earthquake resilience could involve a community-based, holistic approach that ing and exploiting new emerging materials and includes decisions and actions that are based on innovative structural concepts and integrating them overarching goals, a clear understanding of the within design tools could dramatically improve built environment, rapid and informed assessment the performance of all types of infrastructure and data, and planned reconstruction and recovery. increase earthquake resilience in ways that are also Mechanisms for motivating action could include sustainable. There is a wide range of sustainable, d eveloping incentives to promote community highly resilient, new materials that can offer op- development and pre-event planning; simulation- portunities to significantly change the way infra- based decision-making strategies for use in com- structure is designed and constructed. Harnessing munity development, pre-event planning, in early the power of performance-based earthquake engi- response post event, and through the long-term neering could achieve a resilient infrastructure that recovery process; state-of-the-art decision-making incorporates these innovative new materials and tools that will lead to more efficient resource allo- structural systems. cations; and methodologies and tools that allow decision makers to compare different strategies Networks of Facilities for post-earthquake reconstruction and long-term pre-earthquake mitigation. The second goal of the workshop was for participants to identify the general requirements for networked earthquake 3. Simulation: Participants noted that knowledge engineering experimental capabilities and cyberinfrastructure of the inventory of infrastructure components and tools associated with addressing the grand challenge prob- points of connection between different infrastructure lems. The suggested experimental facilities cover testing and types is lacking within the earthquake engineering monitoring over a wide range of scales, loading regimes, community. They identified a need for scalable tools boundary conditions, and rates on laboratory and field (in that autonomously create an accurate database of all situ) specimens. Cyberinfrastructure tools are also important infrastructure components, including points of inter- for capturing, analyzing, and visualizing experiments and for dependency with other infrastructure components. supporting the advanced simulations discussed in the work- Empowered with this complete mapping of an urban shop. Participants described 14 facilities that could contribute region’s infrastructure systems, powerful simulation to solving the grand challenge problems: technologies could model the time and spatial im- 1. Community resilience observatory: Such an ob- pacts of a seismic event at all length scales spanning from the component scale to the regional scale, and servatory could encompass interlinked facilities that from disaster response to community recovery. function as a laboratory without walls, integrating experimental testing and simulations with a holistic 4. Mitigation: A large earthquake or tsunami in a understanding of communities, stakeholders, deci- highly populated region of the United States would sions, and motivations. cause massive damage to the built environment and 2. Instrumented city: An instrumented testbed in a communities in the region, and the resulting social and economic consequences would cascade across high-risk, urban environment could provide invalu- the country, particularly if major energy, transporta- able data about the performance of the commu- tion, or supply hubs are affected. Key characteristics nity and allow unprecedented research on studying of this Grand Challenge include developing strate- decision-making processes for development and gies to measure, monitor, and model community calibration of comprehensive, community models. vulnerability, motivations, and mitigation strate- 3. Earthquake engineering simulation center: Such gies, and establishing mitigation solutions for the community’s most vulnerable sectors. Participants a center could bring together earthquake engineer- suggested that mitigation solutions could be based ing researchers with experts in algorithm develop- on the use of a new generation of simulation tools ment, computational and statistical methods, and and design solutions coupled with up-to-date infor- high-end computational and cloud development mation available from distributed sensing systems. methodologies to enable transformative advances Development of better approaches for renewal and in modeling and simulation.

OCR for page 1
4 GRAND CHALLENGES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH 4. Earthquake engineering data synthesis center: experiments could enable a significant throughput of SSI experiments to help advance knowledge of Such a center could offer the research community this crucial component of earthquake engineering. a large-scale database system for ingesting data sources from a variety of sensor types including 10. Large-scale shaking table: Testing complete imaging, remote sensing, video, and information structures or full-scale subsystems in multiple management systems. directions could provide fundamental knowledge 5. Earth observation: Earth observation systems for understanding the response of actual construc- tion and the contributions of lateral and gravity could provide an integration of continuous and load resisting systems and non-structural systems, multi-sensor (e.g., aerial, satellite, and unmanned validating post-earthquake evaluation methods for aerial vehicle) observations of communities at damaged structures. various scales for the purpose of characterizing the physical attributes of communities and monitoring 11. Tsunami wave simulator: Such a revolutionary the effects of earthquakes (e.g., damage assessment new facility could combine a tsunami wave basin and recovery). with the capability to shake the ground to simulate 6. Rapid monitoring facility: Such a facility could liquefaction and subsidence. provide the earthquake engineering community 12. Advanced structural subsystems characterization with a suite of highly portable sensing and data facility: Such a facility could test full-sized or close- acquisition tools that could be rapidly deployed to to-full-scale subsystems and components under fully structures, geo-facilities, and lifelines to monitor realistic boundary and loading conditions, to repli- their stability after seismic events. cate the effects of corrosion, accelerated aging, and 7. Sustainable materials facility: Partnering with fatigue, and have the capability for multi-axial load- ing, high-temperature testing, and high pressures. material science facilities could lead to the de- It could enable the development of more accurate velopment and testing of new construction grade structural models needed for characterization of materials that are self-healing, capable of energy subsystems, components, and materials. capture, or ultra-high strength, and to understand the use of sustainable materials for earthquake 13. Non-structural, multi-axis testing facility: A engineering applications. A sustainable materials h igh-performance multi-axis facility could be facility could test these materials under the condi- developed with the frequency range and levels of tions they may experience when used in construc- motion to investigate and characterize the perfor- tion accounting for the influence of aging and mance of non-structural elements (e.g., partitions) degradation. a nd other content (e.g., shelving, information 8. Networked geotechnical centrifuges: Networked t echnology equipment, lighting, electrical and mechanical equipment) in three dimensions within geotechnical centrifuges, each including innova- a building or other infrastructure. tive capabilities for robotic manipulation and ac- tuation within the centrifuge container during the 14. Mobile facility for in situ structural testing: A experiment, could allow new types of experimental suite of highly portable testing equipment in such modeling of landslides (including submarine land- a facility could include shakers, actuators, sensors, slides), liquefaction, and tsunamis. and high-resolution data acquisition systems that 9. SSI shaking table: A large-scale, dynamic shaking could enable structures, lifelines, or geotechnical systems to be tested in place. table designed for soil-structure interaction (SSI)