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.

26 ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The breadth and depth of academic R&D bodes well for the future of GDV. For example: • The University of Utah’s Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute’s visualization projects include mod- eling, display, and understanding uncertainty for policy decision making; situational awareness visualization; and more general studies of uncertainty visualization. • One focus of Marshall University’s Center for Environ- mental, Geotechnical and Applied Sciences is visualizing geohazards and their impacts on society, including impacts on transportation systems. • The Civil Engineering Geomatics research group at Oregon State University integrates geomatics engineering, computer science, geotechnical engineering, and geology to analyze hazards in civil engineering. Its focus is on applications of terrestrial laser scanning and geographic information systems. • Focusing on a smaller scale subject, the University of Michigan’s Geotechnical Research and Visualization Engineering Laboratory is developing advanced visual- ization software and hardware for soil characterization. • Temple University’s Coe Geotechnical Research Group is studying laboratory- and field-scale non-destructive and geophysical methods for visualizing the subsurface and their applications to geotechnical issues related to development, rehabilitation, and maintenance of infra- structure systems. Among other universities actively engaged in research and development in the area are Columbia, Harvard, Iowa State, and Louisiana State; the universities of Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, and Washington; the University of California-Davis, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Michigan Technological University, and Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute and State University. As suggested by this small sampling, current academic R&D will likely have near-term benefits for the practicing geotechnical engineer. In addition, there is much academic research underway to resolve more fundamental visualization issues such as better algorithms, better hardware, and, per- haps most importantly, better human-machine interfaces. The human-machine interface includes the hardware (keyboards, pointers, and screens) and visible portion of the software that we use to enter data, control processing, and generate the text and images needed to understand and solve the problem at hand. Better algorithms are needed to process the larger and larger data sets being encountered; better hardware is needed to quickly and accurately display the underlying data; and better human-machine interfaces are needed so that users can retrieve important information and arrive at decisions more confidently and quickly. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT The following quote (Moore, 2010) generally characterizes the commercial software industry. For me the difference between Technology and Product is the motivation for writing them: Technology is written because it is interesting, cool, solves a problem in an innovative way and pushes our understanding of computer science further . . . some of this technology will turn into massively successful commer- cial software but this is often done as an afterthought or as a reaction to a highly successful piece of research. Product is written to be sold. A potential set of buyers are identified and software is written with the sole purpose of selling to that target market . . . [For] a commercial organization there is little or no intrinsic value in the software itself, the value is in the product. While the visualization capabilities of geotechnical soft- ware continue to improve with respect to visualization of input parameters, analytical results, and visual parameter entry, the primary motive of commercial software develop- ment is profit. The software vendors interviewed noted that product development is generally customer- and competi- tor-driven. Customer-requested changes and improvements push geotechnical software development; but keeping pace with or staying ahead of competitors, and thereby maintain- ing market share, is a significant factor in vendor software development. Geotechnical engineers in transportation might also look outside their discipline for applications that could be adapted to visualization of geotechnical data (Figure 17). For example, software developers in the mineral and energy exploration industry have developed powerful tools for visualizing the subsurface based on boring log and remote sensing data. The medical profession’s two- and three-dimensional visualization tools for remotely sensed human data may also be a model or chapter seven CURRENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

27 resource for software and techniques that can be used in the visualization of geotechnical data (Figure 18). OPEN-SOURCE DEVELOPMENT Developers of open-source geotechnical software are focused primarily on analytical tools rather than visualization tools. The open-source geotechnical analytical software pack- ages generally have some visualization capabilities, but the visualization features are less well developed than in com- parable commercial software packages (e.g., OpenSees, the Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation http:// opensees.berkeley.edu/) (Figure 19). Open-source software designed specifically for visualization is much more sophis- ticated, but is not well integrated with geotechnical data (e.g., VisIt, developed by the DOE Advanced Simulation and Computing Initiative, http://visit.llnl.gov). A drawback of some open-source software is that it is developed and maintained in an academic environment in which the focus of improvements and changes can be on research rather than practical applications. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES Innovative technology, sometimes called disruptive innova- tion (Christensen 1997), refers to technical developments that create a significant shift in how or how fast a task is completed. Innovative technologies are often thought of as having a radical and immediate impact, but can be incre- mental as well. Some innovative technologies put an end to previous technologies, some enhance existing ones. One frequently cited innovative technology in the geotechnical engineering world was the development of microprocessors that led to the hand-held calculator and the demise of the slide rule. Subsequent microprocessor development led to the personal computer and unprecedented computing power at every engineer’s desk. A few innovative technologies that could potentially impact data visualization for geotechnical hazard mitigation and disaster response include unmanned aerial systems (UAS), situational awareness visualization, “big data” management, and smart devices. Unmanned aerial systems, commonly referred to as “drones,” have potential for remote sensing applications and visual inspection of hazards and disasters. UAS are more mobile and generally less expensive that other airborne remote sensing systems and, therefore, have the ability to provide more focused and near-real time collection of three- dimensional point cloud data. The use of UAS for visual inspection of hazards and disasters is being explored by NASA for its Western States Fire Mission http://www.nasa. gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/WSFM/index.html. Similar UAS have also been used for safer and closer inspec- tion of geotechnical hazards and disasters. Situational awareness is described by three components: perception of all temporal and spatial elements of a situa- tion; understanding the relationships among these elements; FIGURE 17 Use of geotechnical data visualization tools for disaster or extreme event response. FIGURE 18 Level of use of geotechnical data visualization. FIGURE 19 Geotechnical data visualization software users.

28 and projection of that understanding into the near future. The study and application of these concepts has been part of such fields as military command and control, air traffic control, and civilian emergency response for many years; but recent research has begun to suggest how they might be applied to visualizing the elements of situational awareness, which requires the rapid integration of many types of data from multiple sources—including the possibility of incorporating geotechnical data in the immediate response to geotechnical disasters and extreme events. “Big data” refers to the explosion of information facing geotechnical engineers. Data are constantly increasing in volume, variety, and velocity (the speed at which data accu- mulate). The new software methods of managing, retrieving, visualizing, and interpreting large data sets that are being developed and applied in disciplines outside of geotechnical engineering are gradually being adapted for and adopted by the geotechnical profession. The proliferation of “smart” devices (phones, pads, tablets, etc.) provides another opportunity for innovative application of technology to geotechnical disaster response. An individ- ual with a smart device can witness, report, and record events as they occur. Using social media or other communication channels, these “eyes on the ground” could provide invalu- able reconnaissance data to disaster response teams. Dashti et al. (2014) evaluated this method of data collection during the 2013 floods in Colorado. Dashti noted that “much of the data about infrastructure performance and the progression of geological phenomena are lost during the event or soon after as efforts move to the recovery phase.” Smart device users can provide these data, but the challenge will be to filter, inter- pret, and validate this uncontrolled, ad hoc data source.