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.

5 WHAT IS GEOTECHNICAL DATA VISUALIZATION? Although there are a wide variety of potential visualization approaches and tools, geotechnical data visualization (GDV) for hazard mitigation and disaster response and recovery can be very broadly defined as graphic presentation of geotech- nical data in an attempt to gain insight into the nature of the problem at hand, and that which can then be used to develop potential solutions for that problem. The graphic presenta- tion could range from a simple X-Y plot to an interactive, three-dimensional view of subsurface conditions in a trans- portation corridor. The diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the factors—user, sit- uation, objective, data, and tools—that generally influence what, how, and when GDV is used. Clearly, there will not be one GDV solution for every case: Each user may have different skills, tools, and goals; and each situation will have unique conditions and timing. The objectives and the type and extent of the available data will vary from case to case. While the factors shown in Figure 1 may lead to widely dif- ferent GDV approaches for different situations, their com- mon thread and significant characteristic is a transformation from data to understanding. Another definition applicable to visualization of geo- technical data for hazard mitigation and disaster recovery is found in the Federal Lands Highway Division’s Design Visu- alization Guide (http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/manuals/dv) and shown at the bottom of column one While this guide focuses on the visualization of design concepts in the con- text of answering the question “How will the project look when it is done?”, the tools and techniques presented in the guide could be adopted and adapted to visualization of geotechnical data for hazard mitigation and disaster recovery. The Design Visualization Guide presents a range of routine and innovative visualization tools and techniques including image acquisition, photograph manipulation, interactive and animated two- and three-dimensional applications, stereo- scopic imaging, analytic simulation, and schedule- or event- driven four-dimensional visualizations (space and time). STUDY METHODOLOGY The methods used to gather the information for this study consisted of the following: • A questionnaire submitted to the geotechnical leaders at the 50 U.S. state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and others • Literature search, review, and synthesis • Interviews with geotechnical leaders at several rail and pipeline transportation agencies or companies • Interviews with several GDV leaders in academia • Interviews with GDV software vendors. Study Questionnaire The purpose of the study questionnaire was to • Determine the nature of geotechnical hazards and disas- ters faced by the state DOTs and others in the transpor- tation sector • Understand their data management and processing environment • Ascertain how they use GDV tools and techniques to – develop and implement geotechnical hazard mitiga- tion measures – respond to geotechnical disasters and extreme events • Obtain their opinion about the use and value of GDV tools and techniques. chapter one INTRODUCTION Design visualization could be defined at its simplest as the simulated repre- sentation of a design concept and its contextual impacts or improvements. Traditionally, design visualization (DV) techniques have been directed towards better communication of what the design will look like. This focus has driven a broad application of DV in the public involvement area: Visualization is almost always a required component of large-scale infrastructure and transportation projects. More recently, the focus has been the integration of DV into the overall notion of “context sensitive” design.

6 The questionnaire, included in Appendix A, consisted of 37 primarily closed-end questions organized in the following six sections: 1. Hazards, Disasters, and Extreme Events 2. Geotechnical Data Management 3. Hazard Mitigation to Avert Disaster 4. Responding to Disasters and Extreme Events 5. Long-Term Recovery from Disasters and Extreme Events 6. Evaluation and Opinion. Section 1 addressed the types of natural phenomena, geo- technical hazards, and geotechnical disasters encountered by the DOTs. The natural phenomena in a region (geologi- cal and meteorological) generally determine the types of geotechnical hazards and disasters that may occur. An iden- tical list of geotechnical hazards and geotechnical disasters was provided in this section under the presumption that any geotechnical hazard, if not mitigated, could become a geotechnical disaster. Section 2 was used to assess how the DOTs collect, pro- cess, store, and use geotechnical data when developing and implementing hazard mitigation measures or when respond- ing to disaster or extreme events. The general categories of the questions in this section were: • Geotechnical data collection, storage, and retention • Geotechnical instrumentation usage and processing • Geotechnical remote sensing usage and sources • GDV software usage and users. Section 3 was used to determine the types of hazards the DOTs have attempted to mitigate, and how and when they have used GDV in these efforts. Respondents were asked to identify successful and unsuccessful mitigation efforts. They were also asked to identify how and when GDV is used in a mitigation project and how visualization affected the outcome of their mitigation projects. Section 4 was used to assess how the DOTs use GDV when responding to disasters. These questions focused on the use of geotechnical data in the emergency response immediately following the occurrence of a disaster. Section 5 was used to assess how the DOTs use GDV to facilitate long-term disaster recovery. Respondents were asked to identify the most useful geotechnical data for long- term recovery and to specify how visualization of the data helped achieve recovery. FIGURE 1 The factors—user, situation, objective, data, and tools—that generally influence what, how, and when GDV is used.

7 The questions in Section 6 addressed the frequency and level of use of GDV by the DOTs and were used to gauge their opinion on the utility and value of GDV in hazard mitigation and disaster response. Responses to the survey questions are summarized in matrix form in Appendix B and commentary by the study authors is presented in Appendix C. Literature Review The literature review consisted of a search for national and international journal articles, conference proceedings, ref- erence works, academic research, thesis publications, and textbooks related to the collection, storage, processing, and visualization of geotechnical data. The search was not limited to uses specific to geotechnical hazard mitigation or disaster and extreme event response, as it can be expected that some GDV tools and methods that have been found to be effec- tive in general geotechnical practice would also be effective in such cases. Because of the large number of references found in the literature search, the search results were filtered to remove references less applicable to the study objectives. The search results were further filtered by removing refer- ences that were more than about 10 years old and referred to outdated technologies. Interviews Geotechnical leaders at several railroad and pipeline compa- nies were interviewed in order to evaluate the similarities and differences to the state DOTs’ approach to geotechnical hazard mitigation and disaster response, and to gauge their companies’ use of GDV. Interviews were conducted with Frank Wuttig of Alyeska Pipeline Company, Lewis Ruder of the Burlington Northern–Santa Fe Corporation, and Dr. Caleb Douglas of the Union Pacific Corporation. Interviews with academic R&D leaders were conducted to gain an understanding of the potential future of GDV. These interviews were directed to researchers who are focusing on visualization of natural phenomena and geotechnical hazards and who are exploring the challenges of transferring research and new technologies to geotechnical practice. Interviews were completed with Dr. Michael Olsen at Oregon State University, Dr. Tony Szwilski at Marshall University, and Dr. Gregory Jones at the Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute of the University of Utah. Several developers and vendors of GDV software were also interviewed to examine how their industry participates in the transfer of visualization technology from research to practice. The software vendors were also requested to provide examples images from their GDV software.