The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), an important component of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Since 2004, NEES researchers have produced significant advances in the science and technology for earthquake loss reduction that would have not been possible without the network’s experimental facilities and cyberinfrastructure. By Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, NSF will have supported 10 years of NEES operation and research. Looking beyond 2014, NSF asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a community workshop to describe the Grand Challenges for earthquake engineering research related to achieving earthquake resilience. This report summarizes the discussions at the workshop.
NEHRP is a multi-agency program focused on reducing losses due to earthquakes. It includes programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Federal Emergency Management Agency, NSF, and U.S. Geological Survey. A major component of NSF’s role in NEHRP is focused on NEES, a large-scale investment in a nationally distributed network of shared engineering facilities for experimental and computational research—a national infrastructure for testing geotechnical, structural, and nonstructural systems (see Box 1.1 for a description of the existing NEES network).
With the current NEES network scheduled to end in 2014, NSF has sought community input for the preparation of plans, for FY 2014 and beyond, to address Grand Challenges in basic earthquake engineering research. NSF has stipulated that future investments in networked earthquake engineering research infrastructure beyond 2014 should not be focused on—or limited to—existing facilities but would build on the synergies provided by networked facilities and cyberinfrastructure tools to achieve solutions to the grand challenge problems.
A steering committee was established by the NRC to organize the workshop and to write a report summarizing what transpired at the workshop. Committee members were selected for their expertise in earthquake engineering research, broadly defined, with a focus on the use of experimental facilities and the application of cyberinfrastructure to engineering research. Special effort was made to involve members who were not strongly associated with existing NEES facilities so that the workshop could take a fresh look at the Grand Challenges and facilities requirements beyond 2014. The committee met in December 2010 to plan the workshop and again immediately following the workshop to organize workshop outputs into a report.
Approach for the Workshop
In accordance with the Statement of Task, the committee designed the workshop to look beyond 2014 and focus on two key questions:
1 The committee understood the first question of “networks of facilities and cyberinfrastructure,” not to require both but to allow a network of experimental facilities or a network of cyberinfrastructure services. Consequently, the word “and”—as written in the task statement (see Box S.1)—was interpreted as “and/or.”
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
1 Introduction OVERVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Planning Committee Simulation (NEES), an important component of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Since A steering committee was established by the NRC to 2004, NEES researchers have produced significant advances organize the workshop and to write a report summariz- in the science and technology for earthquake loss reduction ing what transpired at the workshop. Committee members that would have not been possible without the network’s were selected for their expertise in earthquake engineering experimental facilities and cyberinfrastructure. By Fiscal research, broadly defined, with a focus on the use of experi- Year (FY) 2014, NSF will have supported 10 years of NEES mental facilities and the application of cyberinfrastructure operation and research. Looking beyond 2014, NSF asked the to engineering research. Special effort was made to involve National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a community members who were not strongly associated with existing workshop to describe the Grand Challenges for earthquake en- NEES facilities so that the workshop could take a fresh look gineering research related to achieving earthquake resilience. at the Grand Challenges and facilities requirements beyond This report summarizes the discussions at the workshop. 2014. The committee met in December 2010 to plan the workshop and again immediately following the workshop BACKGROUND to organize workshop outputs into a report. NEHRP is a multi-agency program focused on reduc- Approach for the Workshop ing losses due to earthquakes. It includes programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Federal In accordance with the Statement of Task, the committee Emergency Management Agency, NSF, and U.S. Geologi- designed the workshop to look beyond 2014 and focus on cal Survey. A major component of NSF’s role in NEHRP two key questions: is focused on NEES, a large-scale investment in a nation- ally distributed network of shared engineering facilities for • What are the high-priority Grand Challenges in experimental and computational research—a national infra- basic earthquake engineering research that require structure for testing geotechnical, structural, and nonstruc- a network of earthquake engineering experimental tural systems (see Box 1.1 for a description of the existing facilities and/or cyberinfrastructure?1 NEES network). • What are the general requirements for experimental With the current NEES network scheduled to end in facilities and cyberinfrastructure that will be needed 2014, NSF has sought community input for the preparation to most effectively address the identified Grand of plans, for FY 2014 and beyond, to address Grand Chal- Challenges? lenges in basic earthquake engineering research. NSF has stipulated that future investments in networked earthquake engineering research infrastructure beyond 2014 should not be focused on—or limited to—existing facilities but would 1 The committee understood the first question of “networks of facilities build on the synergies provided by networked facilities and and cyberinfrastructure,” not to require both but to allow a network of experi- mental facilities or a network of cyberinfrastructure services. Consequently, cyberinfrastructure tools to achieve solutions to the grand the word “and”—as written in the task statement (see Box S.1)—was challenge problems. interpreted as “and/or.” 5
OCR for page 5
6 GRAND CHALLENGES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH BOX 1.1 The Existing NEES Network The primary focus of NEES is on the research community and practicing engineers who develop the innovations necessary to reduce the impact of seismic disasters. The NEES network infrastructure encompasses management headquarters; 14 earthquake engineering and tsunami research facility sites located at universities across the United States (available for testing on-site, in the field, or remotely); and cyberinfrastructure operations that connect the work of the experimental facilities, researchers, educators, and students. SOURCE: http://nees.org/. The committee suggested that the Grand Challenges and associated white papers (see Appendix B), which were would define the frontiers in basic earthquake engineering distributed prior to the workshop, the speakers were tasked research needed to provide transformative solutions for with articulating a vision that would help guide workshop achieving an earthquake-resilient society. Transformative d iscussions. The first three keynote speakers—Laurie solutions to the Grand Challenges could be achieved by Johnson, Laurie Johnson Consulting; Reginald DesRoches, improved design codes, public policies, innovative systems, Georgia Institute of Technology; and Gregory Deierlein, design and analysis methods, and sensing and actuation Stanford University—presented their ideas for transfor- technologies embedded in the built environment. Workshop mative earthquake engineering research in the categories participants were asked to address the key questions without of community, lifelines, and buildings, respectively. Each regard to the current capabilities or limitations of the existing considered four dimensions: community resilience, pre- NEES facilities. event prediction and planning, design of infrastructure, and Paraphrasing the National Academy of Engineering’s post-event response and recovery (see Box 1.2). To facilitate (NAE) Grand Challenges for Engineering, a grand challenge discussion on the advances in technology, three additional is a large and complex problem that needs to be mastered keynote speakers—James Myers, Rensselaer Polytechnic to ensure the sustainability of civilization and the health of Institute; John Halloran, University of Michigan; and Omar its citizens while reducing individual and societal vulner- Ghattas, University of Texas at Austin—presented roadmaps abilities (NAE, 2008). A grand challenge will not be met for information technology, materials, and modeling and without finding ways to overcome the barriers that block simulation, respectively. The technology keynote speakers its accomplishment. The NEHRP vision—“A nation that is introduced the workshop participants to the transforma - earthquake resilient in public safety, economic strength, and tive possibilities of technology for earthquake engineering national security” (NEHRP, 2008)—is a grand challenge by beyond 2014. the NAE definition. A fundamental goal of this workshop, Additionally, two workshop participants—Ken Elwood, therefore, was to describe the earthquake engineering chal- U niversity of British Columbia, and Thomas Heaton, lenges in terms of problems, barriers, and bottlenecks that California Institute of Technology—provided their obser- must be solved to realize the NEHRP vision. vations on the two recent devastating earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan (see Box 1.3). Gregory Fenves, co-chair of the committee, spoke briefly on behalf of Masayoshi Workshop Organization Nakashima, committee member, who was unable to attend The workshop was held on March 14–15, 2011, at the the workshop because of the major earthquake in Japan NRC’s Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Workshop which had occurred just days before the workshop. participants included 37 researchers and practitioners drawn Breakout sessions were the primary mechanism for from a wide range of disciplines to focus on the two key brainstorming, analyzing, and documenting responses to the questions in the task statement. In addition, seven observers two key workshop questions. Four breakout sessions were from NSF and the broader earthquake engineering research structured along the dimensions described in Box 1.2, and community attended the discussions. Altogether, there were one breakout session organized participants along disciplin- 53 workshop attendees, including the committee and NRC ary lines: buildings, lifelines, geotechnical/tsunamis, and staff. community resilience. Each breakout session included a The committee invited six keynote speakers to the work- moderator, who served as both leader of the breakout session shop to inform discussions about the Grand Challenges and and facilitator of open and organized discussion, and a com- rapid advances in technology. Through their presentations mittee member who served as rapporteur. The moderators—
OCR for page 5
7 INTRODUCTION BOX 1.2 Four Dimensions as an Organizing Principle for the Workshop As an organizing principle for the workshop, the committee defined four dimensions to achieve the vision for an earthquake-resilient society. Examples of topics in each dimension are defined below. These were used as a starting point for the discussions at the workshop. Community resilience • efining community response and recovery needs. D • btaining community-based information and experiences that can be used for policy development. O • ollecting, processing, analyzing, and disseminating information. C • ervasive information sharing and decision making through social networking and crowd-sourcing technology. P • nderstanding social dynamics that influence community decisions and actions. U Pre-event prediction and planning • amage prediction and the estimation of the impacts and losses for individual buildings, lifelines, and societal systems. D • alidated and reliable models of soil-foundation-building systems, non-structural systems, and building contents. V • esign of lifeline systems for multiple performance objectives and multiple levels of ground motion. D • odels of inventory that can be validated and updated for regional impact assessment and loss estimation. M • redictive model of system performance and interdependencies. P • ocial, human, and economic resilience modeling, and the effects on adaptability after a disaster. S • odeling of effects of governance on resilience, such as regulatory regimes, emergency decision-making processes, and recovery policies. M Design of infrastructure • nalysis and design approaches, strategies, and methods for systems, components, and materials, including new infrastructure, rehabilitation of A existing infrastructure, and repair of damaged infrastructure. • nfrastructure design for individual buildings, lifelines, and urban environments as complex systems. I • ransparent and performance-based approaches for buildings and lifelines along with other approaches that achieve multiple objectives for resiliency. T Post-event response and recovery • ost-event sensing, damage diagnosis, and prognosis of individual facilities and interdependent infrastructure systems in dense urban environments. P • se of sensing systems for emergency response, including assessment, prioritization, dispatching, and decision making. U • eal-time model updating and validation. R • ocial networking and crowd-sourcing technologies for understanding complex societal dynamics, including temporary changes in governance after S an event and during recovery. Kathleen Tierney, University of Colorado, Boulder; John community resilience, including the need to develop more Egan, AMEC Geomatrix; Ken Elwood, University of British robust models of building risk/resiliency and aggregate Columbia; and Sharon Wood, University of Texas at Austin— inventories of community risk/resiliency for use in mitiga- also served as chief spokespersons for their breakout group tion, land use planning, and emergency planning. Reginald in plenary sessions. Each breakout session allowed ample DesRoches discussed a number of challenges faced by life- time for discussion, interaction, and iteration, followed by a line facilities, including their wide range in scale and spatial report in the plenary sessions with refinement by participants. distribution, the fact that lifelines are partially or completely buried and are therefore strongly influenced by soil-structure interaction, their increasing interconnectedness, and their ag- Summary of Keynote Presentations ing and deterioration. Gregory Deierlein discussed methods The first three presentations focused on identifying and for addressing the research needs and challenges for build- describing the Grand Challenges. Laurie Johnson discussed ings, which he distinguished between those associated with needs and opportunities for networked facilities and cyber- either pre-earthquake planning, design and construction, or infrastructure in support of basic and applied research on post-earthquake response, evaluation, and restoration.
OCR for page 5
8 GRAND CHALLENGES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH BOX 1.3 Observations from New Zealand and Japan Ken Elwood, University of British Columbia, presented his observations from the February 22, 2011, earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, as three lessons relevant to the Grand Challenges in earthquake engineering. They are summarized below: 1. Aftershocks a. Consideration of aftershocks (e.g., residual capacity) should be incorporated into performance-based seismic design. b. We need a better understanding of the seismology of aftershocks and their broader effects within the seismological environment, and to incorporate this knowledge into post-earthquake decisions and recovery strategies. 2. Influence of soil-structure interaction (including liquefaction) on structural response a. Liquefaction can both help and hinder structural performance (damage to the building may occur, but the contents of the building will remain intact). b. A more holistic approach to buildings is needed (e.g., one that considers geotechnical systems). c. Large-scale studies are needed to study the interaction between the building and the foundation. 3. Community resilience a. amage to the community extends far beyond lives lost; destruction of historical buildings and landmarks can have huge impacts on a city’s D character and identity. b. A major public policy challenge is how to protect existing buildings (especially very old buildings with little real estate value). c. We need to evaluate the impact that post-earthquake assessment has on the ability for the city to recover. The following are comments from committee member Masayoshi Nakashima, Kyoto University, regarding the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake. These were based on preliminary information available in Japan on March 14, 2011. 1. An extremely large rupture of more than 400 km was not anticipated by seismologists. 2. A huge tsunami caused complete devastation of many towns and villages and large loss of life. Damage and deaths from tsunamis appear to be much greater than from the earthquake shaking. 3. There was significant subsidence (about 1 to 2 meters) of coast lines, which is speculated to have aggravated the tsunami damage. 4. Urban damage, such as observed in Sendai, is particularly characterized by the loss of lifelines. 5. he performance of hundreds of high-rises and base-isolated buildings in the Tokyo metropolitan area appears to be good. Many days are needed T to collect associated data. 6. There is widespread disruption in the Tokyo metropolitan area, because of a shortage of electric power. 7. Post-earthquake responses of the central and local governments are being tested. Several hundred thousand people were forced to move to evacu- ation centers. 8. echnical and social response to nuclear accidents is a major issue for the country. T 9. The earthquake caused large fires, including at oil tank farms. 10. There is severe liquefaction in areas of reclaimed land. The second three presentations focused on advances in on deterministic earthquake simulations to those based on technology. James Myers discussed information technology stochastic models. and explored the potential for increased computing power, data sizes, and sensor density—combined with a rapidly ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT increasing capability to focus those resources on demand and to automate larger and more complex tasks—to further This report is the committee’s summary of what trans- progress on the Grand Challenges. John Halloran discussed pired at the workshop. It reflects only those topics addressed new materials and proposed designing a built environment in workshop presentations, discussions, and background with more resilient, lighter, stronger, and more sustainable papers, and it is not intended to be a comprehensive summary materials based on fossil carbon. Finally, Omar Ghattas dis- of all topics and issues relevant to earthquake engineering cussed opportunities to extend large-scale simulation-based research. The observations or views contained in this report seismic hazard and risk analysis from its current reliance are those of individual participants and do not necessarily rep-
OCR for page 5
9 INTRODUCTION resent the views of all workshop participants, the committee, quake engineering research that require a network of or the NRC. Therefore, references in the report to workshop earthquake engineering experimental facilities and cyber- “participants” do not imply that all participants were polled infrastructure, and Chapter 3 summarizes those require- or that they necessarily agreed with the particular statements. ments. Appendix A contains the final breakout group In addition, the grand challenge problems and networked p resentations, and Appendix B contains the six white facilities discussed in the following sections were suggested papers presented by the keynote speakers at the workshop. by breakout group participants and they do not represent con- A list of workshop participants and the agenda are given clusions or recommendations of the committee or the NRC. in Appendixes C and D, respectively. Appendix E presents Chapter 2 describes the Grand Challenges in earth- biographical sketches of the committee members.
OCR for page 5