Atlas

Morteza Mirshekari

Can you walk us briefly through your leadership role as Geotechnical Practice Manager? What are your key responsibilities and areas of focus?

My role is Geotechnical Practice Manager and I lead a team of geologists and geotechnical engineers. The project execution coordinator ensures quality control, manages client relationships, and mentors staff. The team developer ensures accountability, continuous learning, and technical excellence. By training and certifying professionals, we align their goals with business objectives.

As part of my role, I balance technical rigor with practical constructability and promote collaboration among design teams, contractors, and stakeholders. Integrating emerging technologies into geotechnical engineering to streamline field data collection and enhance decision-making is a passion of mine. In Addition, I encourage open communication and knowledge sharing amongst the team to maintain consistency in quality and to drive innovative problem-solving. Our multidisciplinary projects require strong team dynamics to manage risk and deliver value.

As infrastructure projects grow in scale and complexity, how can geotechnical engineering evolve to better anticipate and mitigate geological and environmental risks?

The complexity of infrastructure projects demands more data-driven geotechnical engineering. Our methods include geotechnical data repositories, advanced site characterization methods, remote sensing, and real-time monitoring to gain a better understanding of subsurface conditions. BIM and GIS allow for a holistic assessment of risk when geotechnical data is added.

Geotechnical engineering is significantly affected by climate change and extreme weather events. Groundwater levels are shifting, shorelines are eroding, and scour occurs, which requires adaptive design and resilience-focused planning to address these risks. Infrastructure professionals must remain innovative, collaborative, and learning-oriented in today’s changing infrastructure landscape.

In seismic-prone regions, what advancements in site response analysis and soil-structure interaction are helping engineers build for long-term resilience?

The advancements in site response and soil-structure interaction analyses can be viewed in three key areas: (1) improvements in data collection and management practices, (2) advancements in earthquake databases and ground motion models, and (3) evolution of the state of practice and analytical software. Each of these areas is progressing rapidly, driven by recent technological developments.

•Data Collection and Management

Geophysical and geotechnical testing methods are well established for seismic site characterization. With the advent of multi-channel surface wave analysis (MASW), crosshole and down hole testing, and cone penetration testing with seismic sensors (SCPT), subsurface profiles are now more precise. Engineering can develop detailed, site-specific soil behavior models by combining these datasets with GPS and GIS maps. A cloud-based platform and centralized data repository, such as those provided by GeoIntegrate, has improved data accessibility, consistency, and sharing between teams, resulting in more reliable site response analyses..

•Earthquake Databases and Ground Motion Models

By expanding earthquake databases like PEER’s and USGS’s, it is now easier to select and scale ground motions for site-specific response analyses (e.g., NGA-West3). For dynamic analyses, improved ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) include basin effects and directivity. More realistic and risk-informed design strategies are possible with these enhanced models.

•Analytical Tools and State of Practice

The advancement of numerical modeling software has enabled DeepSoil, OpenSees, FLAC, and PLAXIS to model complex soil systems and foundations more accurately. The performancebased earthquake engineering (PBEE) frameworks have elevated geotechnical seismic design to ensure infrastructure survives earthquakes and remains operational.

For evaluating seismic site response and soil-structure interaction, these three areas are merging to provide a more robust and predictive framework. Building resilient infrastructure in seismically hazardprone regions requires an integrated approach.

“ Ultimately, the key is to close the gap between design assumptions and field realities. “

In your view, what are the most overlooked considerations in large-scale foundation design and slope stability projects that often surface during construction?

It is important to consider the inherent uncertainty and variability of subsurface conditions. Despite limited geotechnical data, construction often reveals subgrade layers, groundwater conditions, or weak zones not initially discovered. Both stability and constructability can be significantly affected by these surprises.

In addition, groundwater behavior is often underestimated and is a major cause of differing site condition claims. If drainage or dewatering plans fail to account for changes in water levels, slope behavior or foundation performance can be altered or undermined.

It is also sometimes neglected during design. It is important to consider factors such as access constraints, excavation sequence, soft soils during rainy seasons, and safety measures when executing projects. Project constraints are often not fully understood during geotechnical design, which causes insufficient project understanding.

Erosion, vegetation changes, and climate variability—especially increased rainfall intensity or drought cycles—can all increase slope stability over time and affect durability.

Lastly, complex subsurface geometries and conditions are still analyzed using outdated or overly simplified equations. Traditional methods can be helpful, but they often fail when applied to heterogeneous soils, irregular topographies, or critical infrastructure. For example, finite element modeling (FEM) can provide a much more realistic understanding of soil-structure interaction, stress redistribution, and failure mechanisms.

Ultimately, the key is to close the gap between design assumptions and field realities. This requires robust site characterization, scenariobased design approaches, and close collaboration between designers, contractors, and field engineers throughout the project lifecycle.

What advice would you give to earlycareer geotechnical professionals seeking to position themselves at the forefront of innovation and leadership in this evolving field?

As computing, data analytics, remote sensing, and climateaware design advance, geotechnical engineering is rapidly evolving. Early-career professionals need to cultivate technical depth and cross-disciplinary skills to stay competitive. You will also need to master finite element modeling, Python programming, and artificial intelligence to automate and enhance geotechnical processes.

While we value experience, current practices are not immune to improvement. Young engineers offer a fresh perspective on subsurface behavior, while seasoned engineers have a deeper understanding. Experience and innovation are necessary to advance the profession.

Communication of complex geotechnical concepts is a key element of effective leadership. In my experience, earlycareer engineers prioritize technical expertise over presenting their findings in a concise, clear, and professional way. Strong leaders consistently communicate well in geotechnical engineering.

As you begin your career, seek out mentors, stay connected with professional communities, and adopt new technologies. Changing environmental and societal demands often lead innovators to bridge the gap between theory and practice. It is best for geotechnical software experts, field investigators, and construction monitors to develop intuitive judgment and intuition.