Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

29 CONCLUSIONS This study summarizes the use and value of data visualiza- tion for geotechnical hazard mitigation and disaster response in the transportation profession. The objectives of the study were to quantify the nature and number of geotechnical haz- ards and disasters facing transportation personnel, determine what types of geotechnical data and visualization tools are available to them, and evaluate the effectiveness of the geo- technical data visualization (GDV) tools they use. The study is based on a literature review, interviews with selected rail and pipeline geotechnical leaders, interviews with visualization research and development (R&D) leaders in academia, interviews with geotechnical software vendors, and a survey of the state department of transportation (DOT) geotechnical leaders. Completed survey responses were received from 40 of the 50 state DOT geotechnical leaders and from the DOT geotechnical leader in Puerto Rico. An additional five state DOTs provided partial responses. Key findings of the study are summarized here: The natural phenomena hazards that threaten transporta- tion systems throughout the United States include hazards of geological origin, but are dominated by meteorological hazards. Extreme precipitation, extreme temperatures, and high winds are the most frequently occurring natural phe- nomena hazards. Nearly every type of geotechnical hazard threatens trans- portation systems, but the most common are landslides, rock falls, and embankment failures. The most costly hazards are landslides, rock falls, and sinkholes. The state DOTs are faced with more hazards than they can reasonably and economically address, and they are acutely aware of the social and political damage that often accompanies a geotechnical disaster. Traditional geotechnical, instrument, and remote sensing data are collected and retained, but some DOTs have yet to implement systems to readily access and visualize the data. The complexity and pace of development of new GDV tech- nology and methods will be a significant challenge to the DOTs and to other transportation sectors for the foreseeable future. Most DOTs report that geotechnical hazard mitigation is generally successful and that visualization of geotechnical data has an important role in identifying hazards and imple- menting mitigation measures. Visualization tools are gener- ally used in all aspects of hazard mitigation development and implementation, including identification, monitoring, design, and construction of the mitigation measures. Most geotechnical leaders would like to have a substan- tial amount of geotechnical data available online and on site during geotechnical disaster response, but relatively few have the systems to accomplish this goal. The geotechnical leaders in every transportation sector identify speed as the essential element of disaster response. Their challenge is developing systems and data that could provide critical GDV with the speed and simplicity necessary for disaster response. When available, visualization of geotechnical data has an important role in responses to geotechnical disasters. Visual- izations improve damage assessment, design and implemen- tation of repairs; and contribute to maintaining public and worker safety. Visualization of geotechnical data has a role in long-term recovery from geotechnical disasters that is very similar to its role in hazard mitigation. Visualization tools are generally used in all aspects of long-term recovery development and implementation, including analysis, design, and construction of the recovery measures. Visualization of geotechnical data contributes to more economical design, improved public and worker safety, and faster recovery. In addition to funding limitations for GDV tools, there appears to be some institutional resistance in the transporta- tion sector to adopting new tools and methods. These tools may be viewed as unjustifiably expensive or as a threat to established personnel and procedures. Geotechnical leaders in transportation, especially in the public sector, must use their position and authority to overcome these challenges. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES The results of the study survey and interviews suggest a number of research opportunities, including: • Geotechnical hazard identification and prioritization • Geotechnical data standards and data interchange formats • The human-machine interface. chapter eight CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

30 Geotechnical Hazard Identification and Prioritization Natural phenomena and geotechnical hazards are generally well understood by the geotechnical leaders in transporta- tion; but additional research is needed to identify and pri- oritize all significant geotechnical hazards in transportation systems—a particular challenge because many of the haz- ards are hidden from view and may not be recognized until disaster strikes. Research into geotechnical hazard identifica- tion should be focused on improving methods of subsurface investigation and additional application of remote sensing technologies. Geotechnical hazard prioritization research could focus on understanding the likelihood of a hazard’s becoming a geotechnical disaster and on methodologies to prioritize a diverse range of hazards. Many state DOTs have undertaken an inventory of selected geotechnical hazards; for example, in Alaska, of its unstable slope inventory. However, additional research is needed to identify all significant geotechnical hazards, evaluate their potential consequences, and perform a risk analysis to provide a consistent and defensible prioritization for the limited geo- technical hazard mitigation funding that is available. The importance of additional research for geotechnical hazard identification and prioritization is underscored by a recent study of the grand challenges in civil engineering (Becerik-Gerber et al. 2014). In this study of civil engineer- ing disciplines, including architectural, coastal, environmen- tal, transportation, structural, geotechnical, and construction engineering, 10 of the 27 challenges were related to transpor- tation and directly or indirectly related to geotechnical engi- neering. Three of the top 10 grand challenges are directly or indirectly related to transportation and geotechnical engineering. The top 10 grand challenges were determined by examining the economic, environmental, and societal impacts of each identified challenge. Geotechnical Data Standards and Data Interchange Formats Geotechnical data is a diverse mix of numeric, text, and imag- ing data coming from field investigation, laboratory testing, analysis, design, construction, and maintenance records. Although several approaches to standardizing the collection, storage, transmission, and use of geotechnical data have been developed and proposed to the geotechnical profes- sion, none of these proposals has yet received widespread acceptance. Additional R&D is needed to create a geotechni- cal data standard that is comprehensive and understandable; and to develop a data interchange format that can be readily implemented by data generators, software developers, and the geotechnical engineering community. In addition to the benefits of data transparency, consistency, and communica- tion, the adoption of a geotechnical data standard and data interchange format would greatly facilitate the development and application of GDV tools. The development of the DIGGS data interchange format has progressed slowly, but action has been taken by the Geo- Institute of the ASCE to revitalize this standard (Bachus 2014). To be successful, any additional R&D of data stan- dards and data exchange formats must be coordinated among the geotechnical data generators, software vendors, the geo- technical engineering community, and the various agencies that might sponsor and fund the effort. The Human–Machine Interface Among the GDV topics currently being pursued academi- cally and commercially, the most important may be R&D of better human–machine interfaces. The human–machine interface includes the devices such as keyboards, pointers, and screens as well as the visible portion of the software used to enter data, control processing, and generate the text and images needed to understand and solve the problem at hand. Geotechnical engineers in all sectors, not just in trans- portation, are faced with an ever-growing array of comput- ing and visualization tools. The different human-machine interfaces found in almost every tool adds another level of complexity to the engineer’s work load. The advent of “big data” in the geotechnical profession adds an even greater challenge. Using yesterday’s tools to manage and visualize today’s data volume, variety, and velocity would be a frus- trating and unreliable undertaking. This trend is not limited to geotechnical engineering; other industries are using data analytics to improve business operations and for complex decision support. Additional research might be undertaken to simplify and standardize GDV tool interfaces. While the data analytics research topic is not typical geotechnical engineering research, it is important that this research be conducted with input from practicing geotechni- cal engineers. Consequently, this research will likely need to be a joint effort among the geotechnical and software/hard- ware engineering communities.