National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary

« Previous: Appendix B - Survey Response Matrices
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Survey Response Commentary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22215.
×
Page 76

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.

67 Approximately 80% of the state geotechnical leaders and others who received the study questionnaire responded. Their responses and commentary are presented here. SECTION 1. HAZARDS, DISASTERS, AND EXTREME EVENTS 1.01 What natural phenomena hazards do you encounter? The natural phenomena hazards encountered in each state depend, of course, on the state’s geological and meteorological setting. Although earthquakes are a common geological haz- ard in about 50% of the states, meteorological impacts domi- nate the natural hazards. Nearly 90% of all natural hazards identified are weather-related. The typical transportation sys- tem geotechnical leader encounters four to six different natural phenomena hazards (Figure C1). 1.02 What geotechnical hazards do you encounter? The geotechnical hazards identified by the geotechnical leaders generally reflect the geological and meteorological setting of their regions. However, four of the five most fre- quently identified geotechnical hazards are related to slope or embankment stability; the fifth is settlement or heave. This implies that geotechnical issues with natural or cut slopes and embankments or fills are nearly universal across all geological and meteorological regions. The most frequently mentioned “Other” item was bridge and roadway scour. The DOTs in each state typically encounter six to seven different types of geotechnical hazards (Figure C2). 1.03 What geotechnical disasters have you had to respond to? Questions 1.02 and 1.03 each have 574 possible responses (41 respondents times 14 hazard types). Of these 574, 301 haz- ards were identified and, according to respondents, approxi- mately 85% of the disasters had occurred. This implies that in 15% of the cases, the DOTs have identified the hazard, but have either mitigated the potential hazard or have not yet experienced the disaster of that type (Figure C3). 1.04 Which hazard, disaster, or extreme event types do you most frequently encounter? The most frequently encountered hazards, disasters, and extreme events reported by the DOTs are generally consis- tent with the hazards and disasters most frequently identified in questions 1.02 and 1.03. More than half of the respondents reported that landslides were their most frequently encountered hazard or disaster. About one-third of the respondents reported embankment failures and rockfalls as being most frequent. On average, the DOTs identified one to two hazard or disaster types as being the most frequently encountered (Figure C4a). 1.05 Which hazard, disaster, or extreme event types are most detrimental to your organization’s finances and reputation? The hazards, disasters and extreme events most fre- quently reported as detrimental to the organization’s finan ces and reputation are landslides and sinkholes. However, one respondent noted that, “Failures of constructed embank- ments are very expensive to correct and because they were engineered structures it reflects very poorly on the department when they fail.” On average, the DOTs identified one or two hazard or disaster types as being the most detrimental to the organization’s finances and reputation (Figure C4b). SECTION 2. GEOTECHNICAL DATA MANAGEMENT 2.01 What geotechnical data does your organization keep on paper file? The most common geotechnical data kept as paper files include logs, reports, maps, drawings, and other typical information that might be obtained from a hazard mitigation or disaster recovery project. Some information that might be useful in disaster response, such as extreme event reports or pre-event photographs, appears to be less commonly kept on file. On average, the DOTs keep about seven different types of geotechnical data in paper format (Figure C5). 2.02 What geotechnical data does your organization keep in electronic format suitable for visualization? The distribution of geotechnical data kept in electronic form suitable for visualization generally echoes the distribu- tion of data kept in paper form. Among the 369 data items identified in questions 2.01 and 2.02, approximately 28% are kept as paper only, 27% are kept in electronic form only, and 45% are kept in both formats. On average, the DOTs keep about seven different types of geotechnical data in an elec- tronic format (Figure C6). 2.03 Does your organization have a centralized electronic database for any or all of the geotechnical data listed in Question 2.02? Among the 37 respondents to this question, approxi- mately 57% have some form of centralized database for geotechnical data. APPENDIX C Survey Response Commentary

68 FIGURE C4a Hazards most frequently encountered. FIGURE C4b Hazards most detrimental to organization. FIGURE C5 Geotechnical data in paper files. FIGURE C1 Natural phenomena hazards encountered. FIGURE C2 Geotechnical hazards encountered. FIGURE C3 Geotechnical hazards responded to.

69 2.04 If yes to question 2.03, how long is the data retained? With the exception of one respondent who stated that its geotechnical data would be kept for 50 years, the DOTs that have a centralized database for geotechnical data plan to keep the data on file permanently. 2.05 If yes to question 2.03, what database do you use? Approximately 59% of DOTs that used a centralized data- base for geotechnical data have developed their own data- base. Among the other 41% using a commercial database, most are using some type of boring log and fence diagram software and several DOTs are using the commercial data- base engines for their geotechnical data. 2.06 Do you use a formal geotechnical data exchange format? Only one state DOT responded that it is currently using a formal geotechnical data interchange format. The one respon- dent is following the Data Interchange for Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Specialists (DIGGS) standard. Informa- tion found elsewhere indicates that several states are in the process of adopting a formal geotechnical data interchange format. 2.07 What geotechnical instrumentation does your orga- nization use? The geotechnical instrument types most commonly used by the DOTs (more than 70% of respondents) include incli- nometers, piezometers, settlement gages, and open stand pipe wells. The distribution of instruments is consistent with the most frequently encountered geotechnical hazards of landslides, rockfalls, embankment failures, and settlement issues. On average, each DOT is using five to six different instrument types (Figure C7). 2.08 On what types of projects do you use geotechnical instrumentation? Among the DOTs that responded to this question, 95% use geotechnical instrumentation to monitor new construction, 81% to monitor hazards and 76% to monitor constructed facilities long-term. About 62% of the DOTs use instrumentation to mon- itor foundations and subgrade, 62% use instrumentation on their bridges, and 24% use pavement instrumentation (Figure C8). 2.09 How is the decision to use geotechnical instrumenta- tion made? Ninety-five percent (95%) of the respondents indicate that expert opinion and engineering judgment is used in deciding when and where to use geotechnical instrumentation. How- ever, 62% use that approach as their sole method of selection. The others use that method in combination with some risk analysis method or are required by department policy to use instrumentation (Figure C9). 2.10 How do you collect geotechnical instrumentation data? Although nearly all of the DOTs (92%) use manual meth- ods to collect their geotechnical instrumentation data, fewer FIGURE C6 Geotechnical data in electronic files. FIGURE C7 Geotechnical instruments used. FIGURE C8 Geotechnical instrument project types.

70 than 10% use that approach as their sole data collection method. The use of manual reading methods may imply that these data are not accessible for visualization or must be man- ually keyed in to some system to be available (Figure C10). 2.11 How do you establish hazard mitigation warning and action levels for geotechnical instrumentation data? As with selection of geotechnical instrumentation, most DOTs (89%) use expert opinion and engineering judg- ment to set hazard mitigation warning and action levels for geo technical instrumentation. About 38% use this approach as their sole method of setting warning and action levels. The others use this approach in combination with some level of analysis and testing. One respondent noted that the agency doesn’t establish warnings or action levels “due to agency being very averse to potential false alarms” (Figure C11). FIGURE C9 Geotechnical instrument decision processes. FIGURE C10 Geotechnical instrument data collection. FIGURE C11 Setting mitigation warning and action levels. 2.12 How do you store and process geotechnical instru- mentation data? Approximately 95% of the responding DOTs indicated that they used a spreadsheet application to manage their geo- technical instrumentation data. Thirty-five percent (35%) use this approach as their sole data management method. The others use this approach in combination with vendor, department, and web-based data management systems. The use of spread- sheets to manage geotechnical instrumentation data may be convenient and effective on a short-term, project-specific basis, but will likely not be effective for wider, long-term uses (Figure C12). 2.13 What remote sensing data does your organization use for geotechnical mapping and monitoring? The most common remote sensing data types reported by the DOTs are views of surface features and topography (e.g., FIGURE C12 Instrument data storage and processing.

71 FIGURE C13 Remote sensing data used. air photos, LiDAR, topographic maps, and satellite images). Remotely sensed subsurface data such as SAR and inSAR is used by only about 27% of the respondents (Figure C13). 2.14 Where do you obtain remote sensing data for geotech- nical mapping and monitoring? Among the DOTs using remote sensing data for geotechni- cal mapping and monitoring, the majority are using data from public agencies (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture) and free or inexpensive commercial sources (Figure C14). 2.15 What geotechnical data visualization (GDV) software does your organization use? The majority of the DOTs use GDV software for bor- ing logs and laboratory data presentation. The heavy use of FIGURE C14 Remote sensing data sources. FIGURE C15 Geotechnical data visualization software used. spreadsheet software is likely for general purpose x-y plot- ting. About 40% of the respondents use more complex soft- ware such as geographical information systems (GIS) and instrumentation software. Relatively few (about 20%) are using software for image analysis (Figure C15). The boring log and fence diagram programs in use are also used by some DOTs for laboratory data visualization. Spread- sheet software is used extensively for collecting, processing, and storing geotechnical data. Other commonly noted software packages included limit equilibrium slope stability software and inclinometer data reduction and presentation software. 2.16 Who in your organization uses GDV software? The predominant users of GDV software in the DOTs are geotechnical engineers (89% of respondents) and geologists (68%). About 20% of the respondents indicate that other FIGURE C16 Geotechnical data visualization software users.

72 in planning hazard mitigation, but the sample size is likely too small to distinguish differences in use by development phase. The DOTs use GDV on average in about five of the seven hazard mitigation development phases (Figure C19). 3.04 How has GDV contributed to the development of hazard mitigation measures? About two-thirds of the respondents have identified one or more areas in which GDV contributed to the development of hazard mitigation measures, but the sample size is likely too small to distinguish differences in contributions. On average, the DOTs report that GDV contributes in three to four areas (Figure C20). 3.05 How has GDV contributed to the implementation of hazard mitigation measures? Approximately 80% of the respondents report that GDV enabled them to implement hazard mitigation measures that office staff (e.g., planners, managers) use this software, but fewer than 5% of the respondents indicate that field person- nel (e.g., maintenance, construction, emergency responders) use the software. This distribution of users likely indicates that visualization of geotechnical data is not regularly used during disaster response (Figure C16). SECTION 3. HAZARD MITIGATION TO AVERT DISASTER 3.01 What types of geotechnical hazards have you been able to mitigate impacts through data collection and visualization? As one might expect, the geotechnical hazards most frequently mitigated successfully echo the distribution of geotechnical hazards encountered (see question 1.02). The geotechnical hazards that are less frequently mitigated suc- cessfully in general appear to be those that may be less predictable (e.g., seismic hazards, avalanches) or less com- monly encountered (e.g., wind-blown soil, frozen ground). The most common “Other” hazard that was averted through mitigation was bridge and roadway scour (Figure C17). 3.02 What types of geotechnical hazards have you been unable to successfully mitigate? Nearly half of the respondents (46%) did not identify any unsuccessful hazard mitigation efforts. However, among those who did identify unsuccessful efforts, the most common types were sinkholes and unstable embankments or slopes (Figure C18). 3.03 In what phase of developing hazard mitigation mea- sures do you use GDV? About two-thirds of the respondents use GDV in one or more phases of developing hazard mitigation measures. The use of these tools is greatest in assessing the hazard and least FIGURE C17 Successfully mitigated geotechnical hazards. FIGURE C18 Unsuccessfully mitigated geotechnical hazards. FIGURE C19 Data visualization in hazard mitigation.

73 improved public safety. About 40% believed that visual- ization improved worker safety and traffic mobility during implementation. Only 20% believed that visualization con- tributed to faster implementation. One respondent reported that visualization resulted in a more economical implemen- tation (Figure C21). SECTION 4. RESPONDING TO DISASTERS AND EXTREME EVENTS 4.01 What geotechnical data would you find most useful in responding to disasters or extreme events? The geotechnical data that the respondents would find most useful in responding to disasters include a comprehen- sive list of topographic maps and subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater data (Figure C22). Although about 70% of the respondents indicated that pre-event photographs would be FIGURE C20 Data visualization’s contribution to hazard mitigation development. FIGURE C21 Data visualization’s contribution to hazard mitigation implementation. FIGURE C22 Useful geotechnical data for disaster response. useful, fewer than 20% indicated that these photographs are kept in their electronic files (see question 2.02). 4.02 What geotechnical data do you have on line visual access to in the field when responding to disasters or extreme events? Approximately 60% of the respondents have on line, visual access in the field to one or more of the geotechni- cal data elements when responding to disasters. However, only about one-third of them have the data they need. For example, nearly 90% would find visual access to boring log data useful in the field, but only about 30% have that access (Figure C23). 4.03 Does GDV play a role in any of these aspects of your response to disasters or extreme events? The respondents indicate that the most common role of GDV in disaster response is in the immediate assessment and design of damage repair measures and safety analysis. The FIGURE C23 Available geotechnical data for disaster response.

74 FIGURE C24 Role of geotechnical data in disaster response. impact of GDV is less on repair implementation and public or worker safety, but, for many DOTs, is clearly important for these purposes (Figure C24). SECTION 5. LONG-TERM RECOVERY FROM DISASTERS AND EXTREME EVENTS 5.01 What geotechnical data do you find most useful in long-term recovery from disasters or extreme events? The geotechnical data identified as being most useful for long-term recovery from disasters is generally similar to the data identified as being most useful for disaster response (see Question 4.01). The percentage of respondents identifying a particular data item (e.g., geotechnical reports) is less for this question that for Question 4.01, which is perhaps an indica- tor of the lesser urgency associated with long-term disaster recovery than with disaster response (Figure C25). FIGURE C25 Useful geotechnical data for disaster recovery. FIGURE C26 Role of geotechnical data in long-term disaster recovery. 5.02 How do you use GDV for long-term recovery from disasters or extreme events? The DOT geotechnical leaders report that they use GDV most frequently in the design (87%) and analysis (71%) of recovery measures (Figure C26). The responses to this ques- tion are generally consistent with responses to a similar ques- tion regarding the use of GDV in assessing and implementing geotechnical hazard mitigation measures (see Question 3.03). 5.03 In what way has GDV contributed to long-term recov- ery from disasters or extreme events? The top three areas in which visualization of geotechni- cal data contributes to long-term recovery from geotechnical disasters or extreme events are more economical design and FIGURE C27 Contribution of geotechnical data visualization to long-term disaster recovery.

75 implementation, improved public safety, and quicker recov- ery. At least 60% of the DOT geotechnical leaders reported that visualization of geotechnical data made a contribution in these three areas (Figure C27). SECTION 6. EVALUATION AND OPINION 6.01 How often does your organization use tools to visu- alize geotechnical data for disaster or extreme event response and mitigation? About 29% of the DOT geotechnical leaders are frequent users of GDV tools for disaster or extreme event response, 37% are occasional users, and 31% rarely or never use these tools (Figure C28). The relatively low level of usage is likely a reflection of the challenge of rapidly retrieving and visualiz- ing appropriate geotechnical data in an environment in which speed is essential but the data and tools are not designed for rapid response. 6.02 How would you characterize your organization’s level of use of GDV tools? Approximately half of the DOT geotechnical leaders characterize their organization’s use of GDV tools as expert or intermediate level (Figure C29). The current survey did not explore the reasons why some state DOTs are less sophis- ticated users of visualizations tool than others. However, potential factors may be funding constraints, reliance on consultants to provide this service, or the relatively slower pace at which those agencies are able to adopt emerging technologies. 6.03 GDV improves our ability to mitigate hazards. (agree/ disagree) About 90% of the DOT geotechnical leaders agree or generally agree that GDV can or does improve their ability to mitigate geotechnical hazards (Figure C30). The 5% who FIGURE C28 Use of geotechnical data visualization tools for disaster or extreme event response. FIGURE C29 Level of use of geotechnical data visualization.

76 generally disagreed with this statement did not offer reasons why they disagreed. However, it is reasonable to speculate that those who generally disagree may consider visualization less critical than other aspects of designing and implement- ing geotechnical hazard mitigation measures. 6.04 GDV improves our ability to respond to disasters or extreme events. (agree/disagree) The response to this statement is similar to the response to the previous question, with approximately 90% of the DOT geotechnical leaders agreeing or generally agree- ing with the statement that GDV improves their ability to respond to disasters or extreme events; the difference is that a greater percent more strongly agreed with this statement (Figure C31). Considering that relatively few of the DOTs have visual access to geotechnical data during disaster response (see Question 4.02), it can be assumed that this FIGURE C30 Geotechnical data visualization improves hazard mitigation. FIGURE C31 Geotechnical data visualization improves disaster response. response indicates that the geotechnical leaders recognize that improved methods of rapidly retrieving and visualizing geotechnical data would improve their response to geotech- nical disasters and extreme events. 6.05 GDV improves our ability to achieve long-term recov- ery from disasters or extreme events. (agree/disagree) About 93% of the DOT geotechnical leaders agree or generally agree that GDV can or does improve their ability to achieve long-term recovery from geotechnical disasters or extreme events (Figure C32). This response is consistent with their response to the statement that GDV improves their ability to mitigate hazards (see 6.02). It seems reasonable to assume that this similarity may be the result of the DOTs’ ability to more completely access and visualize geotechnical data dur- ing hazard mitigation and long-term recovery activities than is possible during disaster response.

77 FIGURE C32 Geotechnical data visualization improves disaster recovery.

Next: Appendix D - Software Lists »
Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 467: Visualization of Geotechnical Data for Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Response evaluate the tools and techniques used for mitigating geotechnical hazards and responding to geotechnical disasters such as landslides, rockfalls, settlement, sinkholes, and other events.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!