Grand Challenges in Earthquake
Engineering Research

A Community Workshop Report

Committee for the Workshop on Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research—
A Vision for NEES Experimental Facilities and Cyberinfrastructure Tools

Committee on Seismology and Geodynamics

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Division on Earth and Life Studies


                     OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Washington, D.C.

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

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 R1
Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research A Community Workshop Report Committee for the Workshop on Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research— A Vision for NEES Experimental Facilities and Cyberinfrastructure Tools Committee on Seismology and Geodynamics Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Division on Earth and Life Studies

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by the National Science Foundation under contract No. CMMI-1047519. Any opin - ions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-21452-0 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-21452-1 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet: Cover: Cover design by Francesca Moghari. Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advis - ing the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE FOR THE WORKSHOP ON GRAND CHALLENGES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH—A VISION FOR NEES EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES AND CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE TOOLS GREGORY L. FENVES, Co-chair, University of Texas at Austin CHRIS D. POLAND, Co-chair, Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, California ADAM J. CREWE, University of Bristol, United Kingdom RONALD T. EGUCHI, ImageCat, Inc., Long Beach, California JEROME F. HAJJAR, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts JEROME P. LYNCH, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MASAYOSHI NAKASHIMA, Kyoto University, Japan National Research Council Staff JASON ORTEGO, Project Manager and Research Associate DAVID A. FEARY, Project Director ERIC EDKIN, Senior Program Assistant v

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON EARTH SCIENCES AND RESOURCES CORALE L. BRIERLEY, Chair, Brierley Consultancy, LLC, Highlands Ranch, Colorado KEITH C. CLARKE, University of California, Santa Barbara DAVID J. COWEN, University of South Carolina, Columbia WILLIAM E. DIETRICH, University of California, Berkeley ROGER M. DOWNS, Pennsylvania State University, University Park JEFF DOZIER, University of California, Santa Barbara WILLIAM L. GRAF, University of South Carolina, Columbia RUSSELL J. HEMLEY, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. MURRAY W. HITZMAN, Colorado School of Mines, Golden EDWARD KAVAZANJIAN, JR., Arizona State University, Tempe ROBERT B. MCMASTER, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis M. MEGHAN MILLER, UNAVCO, Inc., Boulder, Colorado ISABEL P. MONTAÑEZ, University of California, Davis CLAUDIA INÉS MORA, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico BRIJ M. MOUDGIL, University of Florida, Gainesville CLAYTON R. NICHOLS, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office ( Retired), Ocean Park, Washington HENRY N. POLLACK, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor JOAQUIN RUIZ, University of Arizona, Tucson DAVID T. SANDWELL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California PETER M. SHEARER, University of California, San Diego REGINAL SPILLER, Frontera Resources Corporation (Retired), Houston, Texas RUSSELL E. STANDS-OVER-BULL, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Denver, Colorado TERRY C. WALLACE, JR., Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico National Research Council Staff ANTHONY R. dE SOUZA, Director ELIZABETH A. EIDE, Senior Program Officer DAVID A. FEARY, Senior Program Officer ANNE M. LINN, Senior Program Officer SAMMANTHA L. MAGSINO, Program Officer MARK D. LANGE, Associate Program Officer JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Financial and Administrative Associate NICHOLAS D. ROGERS, Financial and Research Associate COURTNEY R. GIBBS, Program Associate JASON R. ORTEGO, Research Associate ERIC J. EDKIN, Senior Program Assistant CHANDA IJAMES, Program Assistant vi

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON SEISMOLOGY AND GEODYNAMICS DAVID T. SANDWELL, Chair, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California MICHAEL E. WYSESSION, Vice Chair, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri J. RAMÓN ARROWSMITH, Arizona State University, Tempe EMILY E. BRODSKY, University of California, Santa Cruz JAMES L. DAVIS, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York STUART P. NISHENKO, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California PETER L. OLSON, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland NANCY L. ROSS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg CHARLOTTE A. ROWE, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico BRIAN W. STUMP, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas AARON A. VELASCO, University of Texas, El Paso vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface Within a one-month period in 2011, two major earth- O nly three days after the Tohoku earthquake, the quakes struck countries that are among the best prepared National Research Council convened a long-planned com- for earthquakes. The M6.1 South Island of New Zealand munity workshop sponsored by the National Science Foun- earthquake (February 22, 2011) had an epicenter 6 km from dation. The purpose of the workshop was to give members Christchurch. Less than three weeks later, the M9.0 Tohoku of the earthquake engineering community an opportunity to earthquake (March 11, 2011) hit the northeast region of identify the “Grand Challenges” for earthquake engineering Japan’s largest island, unleashing a massive tsunami. At the research that would be needed to achieve an earthquake- time of this publication, it is estimated that more than 25,000 resilient society. Based on these grand challenges, the par- people perished in the Tohoku earthquake and the economic ticipants were asked to identify the networked facilities, both toll in Japan may exceed 3 percent of its gross domestic experimental and cyberinfrastructure, needed to address the product. These two earthquakes came on the heels of major challenges. Six keynote speakers provided their ideas and earthquakes in Haiti and Chile within the past 18 months, perspectives about the grand challenges and key technolo- providing stark reminders of the devastating impact major gies that will contribute to earthquake resilience. Through earthquakes have on the lives and economic stability of mil- discussions in breakout sessions and plenary sessions, the lions of people worldwide. participants identified Grand Challenges in earthquake engi- The events in Haiti continue to show that poor planning neering and the general requirements for networked facilities and governance lead to long-term chaos. The steady recov- to pursue Grand Challenge research on preparedness, mitiga- ery of Chile demonstrates that modern earthquake planning, tion, response, and recovery. proper construction, and mitigation activities facilitate rapid The timing of the community workshop, held while recovery. The recent earthquake in New Zealand underscores the world was learning about the impact of the Tohoku the importance of including resilience—the ability to recover earthquake, emphasized to the 53 participants that although quickly—as a goal of urban development, land use planning, great progress in earthquake resilience has been made over and earthquake preparedness. Japan, as one of the most the past 40 years, the geological threats to the United States prepared nations, reminds us of the evolving nature of our are substantial. Society must make a major commitment to understanding of major earthquakes and their consequences. increase the resilience of its communities, infrastructure, There is uncertainty inherent in all aspects of earthquake and citizens. The Grand Challenge problems and networked engineering that needs to be addressed on an ongoing basis facilities identified by the workshop participants will accel- with transformative research, process and code development, erate the research needed for transformative solutions to and focused implementation programs. achieve this goal. Gregory L. Fenves, Co-chair Chris D. Poland, Co-chair ix

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments The workshop would not have been successful without tivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The the contributions of those who attended; discussions were review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential informative, professional, and conducted in a cooperative to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish spirit. For providing excellent white papers and keynote to thank the following individuals for their participation in presentations to the workshop, the committee would like the review of this report: to thank Gregory Deierlein, Reginald DesRoches, Omar Ghattas, John Halloran, Laurie Johnson, and James Myers. Richard Bowker, Memphis Light, Gas, and Water, The workshop was also greatly enhanced by the leader- Tennessee ship of the breakout group moderators: John Egan, Ken Russell A. Green, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Elwood, Kathleen Tierney, and Sharon Wood. Also to be State University, Blacksburg a cknowledged are the workshop participants: Richard Ronald O. Hamburger, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Bowker, Mehmet Celebi, Raymond Daddazio, Leonardo Inc., San Francisco, California Duenas-Osorio, Shirley Dyke, Ahmed Elgamal, Mohammed Ann Patton, Ann Patton Company, LLC, Tulsa, Ettouney, Charles Farrar, Kent Ferre, Steve French, Branko Oklahoma Glisic, Thomas Heaton, Jon Heintz, William Holmes, Muneo Kathleen J. Tierney, University of Colorado at Boulder Hori, Kimberly Kurtis, Kincho Law, Bret Lizundia, Stephen Mahin, James Malley, Sami Masri, Peter May, Shamim Although the reviewers listed above have provided Pakzad, Hope Seligson, Jonathan Stewart, Costas Synolakis, many constructive comments and suggestions, they were and Solomon Yim. All participants are listed in Appendix C not asked to endorse—nor did they see—the final draft of of this document. the workshop report before its release. The review of this This report has been reviewed in draft form by indi- report was overseen by Susan Hanson, Clark University, viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical and William Holmes, Rutherford & Chekene. Appointed by expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Com- independent examination of this report was carried out in mittee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide accordance with institutional procedures and that all review candid and critical comments that will assist the institution comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the in making its published report as sound as possible and to final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objec- committee and the NRC. x

OCR for page R1
Contents OVERVIEW 1 1 INTRODUCTION 5 Background, 5 Overview of the Workshop, 5 Organization of the Report, 8 2 GRAND CHALLENGES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH 11 Community Resilience Framework, 13 Decision Making, 14 Simulation, 15 Mitigation, 16 Design Tools, 18 3 NETWORKS OF FACILITIES 21 Community Resilience Observatory, 22 Instrumented City, 23 Earthquake Engineering Simulation Center, 23 Earthquake Engineering Data Synthesis Center, 23 Earth Observation, 23 Rapid Monitoring Facility, 24 Sustainable Materials Facility, 24 Networked Geotechnical Centrifuges, 24 SSI Shaking Table, 24 Large-Scale Shaking Table, 24 Tsunami Wave Simulator, 24 Advanced Structural Subsystems Characterization Facility, 25 Non-Structural, Multi-Axis Testing Facility, 25 Mobile Facility for In Situ Structural Testing, 25 REFERENCES 27 xi

OCR for page R1
xii CONTENTS APPENDIXES A Breakout Session Presentations 29 B White Papers 43 Transformative Earthquake Engineering Research and Solutions for Achieving Earthquake-Resilient Communities, 44 Grand Challenges in Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Research, 51 Earthquake Engineering Research Needs in the Planning, Design, Construction, and Operation of Buildings, 58 Cyberinfrastructure-Intensive Approaches to Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research, 65 A Built Environment from Fossil Carbon, 70 Uncertainty Quantification and Exascale Computing: Opportunities and Challenges for Earthquake Engineering, 74 C Workshop Participants 81 D Workshop Agenda 85 E Committee Biographies 89