that are drawn from the individuals available to participate. Consequently, the lessons learned in one community and event rarely translate to the next community affected. Participants suggested that achieving earthquake resilience could involve a community-based, holistic approach that includes decisions and actions that are based on overarching goals, a clear understanding of the built environment, rapid and informed assessment data, and planned reconstruction and recovery. Mechanisms for motivating action could include developing incentives to promote community development and pre-event planning; simulation-based decision-making strategies for use in community development, pre-event planning, in early response post event, and through the long-term recovery process; state-of-the-art decision-making tools that will lead to more efficient resource allocations; and methodologies and tools that allow decision makers to compare different strategies for post-earthquake reconstruction and long-term pre-earthquake mitigation.

3. Simulation: Participants noted that knowledge of the inventory of infrastructure components and points of connection between different infrastructure types is lacking within the earthquake engineering community. They identified a need for scalable tools that autonomously create an accurate database of all infrastructure components, including points of interdependency with other infrastructure components. Empowered with this complete mapping of an urban region’s infrastructure systems, powerful simulation technologies could model the time and spatial impacts of a seismic event at all length scales spanning from the component scale to the regional scale, and from disaster response to community recovery.

4. Mitigation: A large earthquake or tsunami in a highly populated region of the United States would cause massive damage to the built environment and communities in the region, and the resulting social and economic consequences would cascade across the country, particularly if major energy, transportation, or supply hubs are affected. Key characteristics of this Grand Challenge include developing strategies to measure, monitor, and model community vulnerability, motivations, and mitigation strategies, and establishing mitigation solutions for the community’s most vulnerable sectors. Participants suggested that mitigation solutions could be based on the use of a new generation of simulation tools and design solutions coupled with up-to-date information available from distributed sensing systems. Development of better approaches for renewal and retrofit of the built environment’s most vulnerable sectors would help ensure a safer environment and a more resilient community.

5. Design Tools: Participants suggested that developing and exploiting new emerging materials and innovative structural concepts and integrating them within design tools could dramatically improve the performance of all types of infrastructure and increase earthquake resilience in ways that are also sustainable. There is a wide range of sustainable, highly resilient, new materials that can offer opportunities to significantly change the way infrastructure is designed and constructed. Harnessing the power of performance-based earthquake engineering could achieve a resilient infrastructure that incorporates these innovative new materials and structural systems.

Networks of Facilities

The second goal of the workshop was for participants to identify the general requirements for networked earthquake engineering experimental capabilities and cyberinfrastructure tools associated with addressing the grand challenge problems. The suggested experimental facilities cover testing and monitoring over a wide range of scales, loading regimes, boundary conditions, and rates on laboratory and field (in situ) specimens. Cyberinfrastructure tools are also important for capturing, analyzing, and visualizing experiments and for supporting the advanced simulations discussed in the workshop. Participants described 14 facilities that could contribute to solving the grand challenge problems:

1. Community resilience observatory: Such an observatory could encompass interlinked facilities that function as a laboratory without walls, integrating experimental testing and simulations with a holistic understanding of communities, stakeholders, decisions, and motivations.

2. Instrumented city: An instrumented testbed in a high-risk, urban environment could provide invaluable data about the performance of the community and allow unprecedented research on studying decision-making processes for development and calibration of comprehensive, community models.

3. Earthquake engineering simulation center: Such a center could bring together earthquake engineering researchers with experts in algorithm development, computational and statistical methods, and high-end computational and cloud development methodologies to enable transformative advances in modeling and simulation.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement