Workshop on Implementation of SCEC Earthquake Hazard Research Results in Earthquake
Engineering Research and Practice
8:00
Introductions
8:30
Discussion stimulated by brief plenary presentations on what are the key problems /issues/ ne
opportunities at the interface between earthquake science and earthquake engineering, includ
information technology aspects:
Speaker:
Recorder:
Geotechnical engineering, research and practice:
Jon Bray
Rob Wesson
Structural engineering, research:
Allin Cornell
“
Structural engineering, practice:
Craig Comartin
“
Ongoing and Proposed Collaboration
Paul Somerville
“
OpenSHA (Open Seismic Hazard Analysis)
Ned Field
“
10:30 Break
11:00 SCEC Presentations on existing joint research projects:
Noon: Lunch.
10/03/03
1
1 pm: Issue 1: What are potential collaboration projects, including information technology; between
scientists and individuals involved primarily in:
Moderators:
Recorder:
Room A: Ground motions and intensity measures
Somerville / Whittaker Deierlein
Room B: Probabilistic seismic hazard
Petersen / Elnashai
Wesson
2:00
Break
2:30
Issue 2: What are potential interface strategies for organizing and funding collaboration?
resources/mechanisms are needed? What opportunities exist for collaboration between
scientists and individuals involved primarily in:
Moderators:
Recorder:
Room A: Research
Jordan / Roblee
Nigbor
Room B: Professional practice, public administration
Savage / Rojahn
3:30
Break
4:00
Reporting on breakouts and discussion of next steps in plenary session.
5:00
Adjourn
10/03/03
Wesson
2
An Overview of the Southern
California Earthquake Center
Thomas H. Jordan
Director
Seismic Hazard in the United States
U.S. Geological Survey
National Seismic Hazard Map
• Specifies maximum
intensity of shaking
expected at a site
during a fixed time
interval
• High hazard is
concentrated along
the active plate
boundary
• Highest hazard is in
Southern California
Peak ground acceleration with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years
10/03/03
4
Seismic Risk in the United States
“HAZUS’99 Estimates of Annual Earthquake Losses for the United
States”, FEMA, September, 2000
• U.S. annualized
earthquake loss
(AEL) is about
$4.4 billion/yr.
• For 25 states, AEL
> $10 million/yr
• 49% of the total is
concentrated in
Southern California
• 25% is in Los
Angeles County
alone
10/03/03
5
Risk Analysis: A System-Level Problem
Risk = Probable Loss (lives & dollars) =
Hazard

Faulting, shaking,
landsliding, liquifaction
10/03/03
Exposure
Extent & density of built
environment

Fragility
Structural fragility
6
Southern California: a Natural Laboratory for
Understanding Seismic Hazard and Managing Risk
•
Tectonic diversity
•
Complex fault
network
•
High seismic
activity
•
Excellent geologic
exposure
•
Rich data sources
•
Large urban population
with densely built
environment  high risk
•
Extensive research program coordinated by Southern California Earthquake
Center (SCEC) under NSF and USGS sponsorship
10/03/03
7
SCEC History
• Founded in 1991 as NSF Science & Technology Center, jointly sponsored
by the USGS
– Motivation: lack of effort on Southern California earthquake problem
– Goal: to develop a “master model” of earthquake hazards
• Organized through a series of focused studies
– Phase I: Future Seismic Hazards in Southern California, Implications of the
1992 Landers Earthquake Sequence
– Phase II: Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes,
1994 to 2024
– Phase III: Accounting for Site Effects in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses
of Southern California
– Phase IV: Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models
• In 1998, unsuccessfully proposed to extend to California Earthquake
Research Center
• In 2002, “graduated” from STC Program and reconfigured at a free-standing
center under a 5-year NSF/USGS collaborative agreement (SCEC2)
10/03/03
8
How Is SCEC2 Different?
• Explicit mission to advance physics-based seismic hazard
analysis
• Broadened, more open collaboration
• Interdisciplinary focus groups for system-level integration and
development of community models
• Emphasis on simulation and model-based inference
• Major effort to create a Community Modeling Environment
(CME) based on advanced IT — the SCEC Collaboratory
• Enhanced Communication, Education, and Outreach (CEO)
Program
• Explicit Implementation Interface for management of
knowledge transfer and partnership efforts
10/03/03
9
SCEC Mission
• To gather all types of information about earthquakes
in Southern California
• To integrate this information into a comprehensive,
physics-based, predictive understanding of
earthquake phenomena
• To communicate this understanding to end-users and
the people of Southern California as useful
knowledge for reducing earthquake risks
10/03/03
10
The SCEC Collaboration
• An open, but structured, collaboration
– Open to any individuals and institutions that seek to collaborate on the
science of earthquakes in Southern California
– Structured to achieve specific objectives in Southern California
– Resources are assigned based potential contributions to these
objectives
• An institution-based organization
– Core institutions provide major, sustained commitment to SCEC
objectives
– Participating institutions are nominated through participation of
individual scientists
10/03/03
11
SCEC Institutions
Core Institutions (14)
Participating Institutions (30)
University of Southern California (lead)
California Institute of Technology
Columbia University
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
San Diego State University
Stanford University
U.S. Geological Survey, Golden
U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park
U.S. Geological Survey, Pasadena
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Diego
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of Nevada, Reno
Arizona State University; Boston University; Brown
University; Cal-State, Fullerton; Cal-State,
Northridge; Cal-State, San Bernardino; California
Geological Survey; Carnegie Mellon University;
Central Washington University; CICESE; ETHZ; Jet
Propulsion Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory; Oregon State University;
Pennsylvania State University; Rice University;
SUNY Stony Brook; Texas A&M University;
University of California, Berkeley; University of
California, Davis; University of California, Irvine;
University of California, Riverside; University of
California, Santa Cruz; University of Colorado;
University of Massachusetts; University of New
Mexico; University of Oregon; Utah State University;
URS Corporation; Whittier College
10/03/03
12
SCEC Organization
Chart
SCEC Director
Board of Directors
Science Planning
Committee
External
Advisory Council
CEO Planning
Committee
SCIGN
Coord. Com.
Geology
Committee
Structural Rep.
Focus Group
Implementation
Interface
SCEC/ITR
Project
Geodesy
Committee
Fault Systems
Focus Group
Education
Borderlands
Working Group
Seismology
Committee
Eqk Physics
Focus Group
Public
Outreach
FARM
Committee
Ground Motion
Focus Group
Diversity
Task Force
SHA
Focus Group
Special Projects
& Operations
10/03/03
Disciplinary
Committees
Focus Groups
CEO
Activities
13
Advisory Council
Robert Smith (Chair/Science
U. Utah)
Planning
Committee
Jeff Freymueller (U. Alaska)
Raul Madariaga (Ecole Normale
SCIGN
Geology
Superieure)
Coord. Com.
Committee
Jack
Moehle (PEER)
SCEC/ITR
Project
Geodesy
Committee
Farzad Naeim (John A. Martin &
Borderlands
Seismology
Associates)
Working Group
Committee
Garry Rogers (Geological
Survey of
FARM
Committee
Canada)
SCEC Director
Board of Directors
External
Advisory Council
Chris Rojahn (Applied Technology
CEO Planning
Committee
Council)
Haresh Shah (RMS, Inc.)
Structural Rep.
Implementation
SeanFocus
Solomon
Institution
Group(Carnegie Interface
of Washington)
Fault Systems
Education
Focus Group
Ellis Stanley
(LA Emergency
Preparedness
Eqk Physics Department)
Public
Focus Group
Outreach
Ground Motion
Focus Group
Diversity
Task Force
Susan Tubbesing (EERI)
SHA
Focus Group
10/03/03
14
SCEC Director
Board of Directors
Planning Committee
Science
Planning
• Chaired by Deputy
Director
External
Advisory Council
CEO Planning
Committee
Committee
• Develops SCEC science plans
–SCIGN
Advised by BoD and
AC
Geology
Coord. Com.
Committee
– coordinates with USGS
•
SCEC/ITR
Project
Reviews
Structural Rep.
Focus Group
Geodesy
Committee
proposals
Implementation
Interface
Fault Systems
Education
Focus Groupcoherent science
formulates
project
and
Borderlands
Seismology
Physics
Public
program consistent
with short-termEqk
objectives
and longWorking Group
Committee
Focus Group
Outreach
term goals
FARM
Committee
recommendations
• Makes
project funding
10/03/03
to
Ground Motion
Group
BoardFocus
of Directors
Diversity
Task Force
regarding
SHA
Focus Group
15
Disciplinary
Committees
SCEC Director
Board of Directors
Science Planning
Committee
CEO Planning
Committee
•
SCIGN
Coord. Com.
Seismology
Committee
SCEC/ITR
Project
Geodesy
Committee
Borderlands
Working Group
Geology
Committee
External
Advisory Council
Seismology
– Broadband, high dynamic range sensors
Structural Rep.
Implementation
– Seismic information systems
Group
– Focus
Seismic
imaging systems Interface
•
Fault Systems
Tectonic
Geodesy
Group
– Focus
Strainmeters
– GPS
Physics
– Eqk
InSAR
•
Focus Group
Earthquake Geology
–Ground
Neotectonics
Motion
– Focus
Paleoseismology
Group
FARM
Committee
•
Education
Public
Outreach
Diversity
Task Force
Fault and
SHARock Mechanics
– Laboratory studies
Focus Group
– Field studies
10/03/03
16
Geodesy Disciplinary Committee
Crustal Motion Map, V3.0
•
•
•
10/03/03
833 crustal velocity estimates at 762 points
Co-seismic offsets for the Landers, Northridge & Hector
Mine earthquakes
Data from SCIGN
17
Geology Disciplinary Committee
Puente Hills Blind Thrust
Dolan et al. [2003]
• Four large earthquakes have
occurred on the Puente Hills
blind thrust in the last 11,000
years.
• This fault is capable of
producing an earthquake of M >
7 beneath downtown Los
Angeles
• The ground motions from such
an event might severely
damage even the bestdesigned buildings
10/03/03
Fold scarp on
Trojan Way, Bellflower
18
Displacement Pulse from a M
7.0 Blind-Thrust Earthquake
Beneath Los Angeles
Simulation by
Hall, Heaton, Wald, and Halling
10/03/03
19
SCEC Director
Board of Directors
Focus Groups
Science Planning
Committee
External
Advisory Council
CEO Planning
Committee
SCIGN
Coord. Com.
Geology
Committee
Structural Rep.
Focus Group
Implementation
Interface
SCEC/ITR
Project
Geodesy
Committee
Fault Systems
Focus Group
Education
Borderlands
Working Group
Seismology
Committee
Eqk Physics
Focus Group
Public
Outreach
FARM
Committee
Ground Motion
Focus Group
Diversity
Task Force
SHA
Focus Group
10/03/03
20
Structural Representation Focus Group
Objective: a unified 3-D representation of active faults and
anelastic structure in Southern California
Community Fault Model (CFM)
Community Velocity Model (CVM)
Magistrale et al., (2001)
USR
Plesch & Shaw (2003)
From Fault Models to Block Models
Fault representation on FEM
mesh
mblock model of LA
Carl Gable, LANL
10/03/03
22
Communication,
Education & Outreach
SCEC Director
Board of Directors
Planning and Resources
• SCEC CommunityScience
Development
Committee
– SCEC scientists and students
• Implementation
Interface
SCIGN
Geology
Structural Rep.
Coord.
Com.
Committee
Focus public
Group
– Scientists,
engineers,
practicing professionals,
officials, risk managers,
business & industry
SCEC/ITR
Geodesy
Fault Systems
Project
Committee
Focus Group
• Borderlands
Public Outreach
Working Group
External
Advisory Council
CEO Planning
Committee
Implementation
Interface
Education
Seismology
Committee
Eqk Physics
Focus Group
Public
Outreach
FARM
Committee
Ground Motion
Focus Group
Diversity
Task Force
– News media, civic groups and the general public
• Education
SHA
– Students and educators at K-12 and College
Focus
levels
Group
10/03/03
23
E-Cube Collaboration
Goal: To develop a web-based Electronic
Encyclopedia of Earthquakes (E-Cube)
Partners:
• Consortium of Universities for Research
in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)
• Incorporated Research Institutions for
Seismology (IRIS)
Funding: $650K grant over 2 yrs from
NSF/NSDL program (EHR Directorate)
10/03/03
24
Implementation
Interface
SCEC Director
Board of Directors
Science Planning
Committee
External
Advisory Council
CEO Planning
Committee
SCIGN
Coord. Com.
Geology
Committee
Structural Rep.
Focus Group
Implementation
Interface
SCEC/ITR
Project
Geodesy
Committee
Fault Systems
Focus Group
Education
Borderlands
Working Group
Seismology
Committee
Eqk Physics
Focus Group
Public
Outreach
FARM
Committee
Ground Motion
Focus Group
Diversity
Task Force
SHA
Focus Group
10/03/03
25
Current Implementation Activities
THEME
Ground-Motion Prediction
using Rupture Dynamics
PROJECT
Pseudo-Dynamic Modeling Project
INVESTIGATORS
Beroza, Guatteri
SPONSORS
PEER-Lifelines,
SCEC
3D Basin Code Validation Project
Day, Bielak, Dreger,
Graves, Larsen, Olsen,
Pitarka
PEER-Lifelines,
SCEC
Foamquake Data Interp. Project:
Phase 1: Modeling of directivity
Phase 2: Validation of source inversion
procedures
Day, Graves, Pitarka,
Silva, Zeng
PEER-Lifelines,
admin through SCEC
Object Oriented PSHA Framework
Project (Open-PSHA)
PSHA Code Validation Project
Field
SCEC
Wong et al., Field to use
results to validate OpenPSHA
PEER-Lifelines
Surface Faulting Hazard
Schwartz, Petersen;
Wills; Rockwell
PEER-Lifelines
Vector-Valued Hazard Project
Somerville, Cornell
SCEC, PEER
Ground-Motion Time
Histories
Time Histories for PEER PerformanceBased Earthquake Engineering
Testbeds
Somerville
PEER, SCEC
Ground-Motion Prediction
Model
Next Generation Attenuation Project
Power, Chiou,
Abrahamson, Anderson,
Beroza, Day, Graves,
Olsen, Somerville, Zeng
PEER-Lifelines,
SCEC
Interface
Workshop on the interface between
SCEC and earthquake engineering
research and practice
Somerville
SCEC
Loss Estimation
Loss Estimation Methodology for
Evaluating Societal Impacts of
Alternative Seismic Hazard M odels
Campbell
SCEC
Ground-Motion
Simulation Code
Validation
Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Analysis
10/03/03
26
Special Projects
SCEC Director
Board of Directors
Science Planning
Committee
External
Advisory Council
CEO Planning
Committee
SCIGN
Coord. Com.
Geology
Committee
Structural Rep.
Focus Group
Implementation
Interface
SCEC/ITR
Project
Geodesy
Committee
Fault Systems
Focus Group
Education
Borderlands
Working Group
Seismology
Committee
Eqk Physics
Focus Group
Public
Outreach
FARM
Committee
Ground Motion
Focus Group
Diversity
Task Force
SHA
Focus Group
10/03/03
27
SCEC/ITR Project
Goal: To develop a Community Modeling Environment that can support
system-level earthquake science – the SCEC Collaboratory
Funding: $10M grant over 5 yrs from NSF/ITR program (CISE and
Geoscience Directorates)
Start date: Oct 1, 2001
NSF
SCEC/ITR
Project
SDSC
Information
Science
10/03/03
ISI
SCEC
Institutions
USGS
IRIS
Earth
Science
28
SCEC Community Modeling Environment
An information infrastructure for system-level earthquake science
KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION
& REASONING
Knowledge Server
Knowledge base access, Inference
Translation Services
Syntactic & semantic translation
Knowledge Base
Ontologies
Curated taxonomies,
Relations & constraints
DIGITAL
LIBRARIES
Pathway Models
Pathway templates,
Models of simulation codes
Navigation &
Queries
Versioning,
Topic maps
Code
Repositories
FSM
RDM
AWM
Mediated
Collections
Federated
access
SRM
KNOWLEDGE
ACQUISITION
Acquisition Interfaces
Dialog planning,
Pathway construction
strategies
Pathway Assembly
Template instantiation,
Resource selection,
Constraint checking
Users
Data & Simulation
Products
Data Collections
GRID
Pathway Execution
Policy, Data ingest, Repository access
Pathway
Instantiations
Grid Services
Compute & storage management, Security
Computing
10/03/03
Storage
29
Computational Pathways
Pathway 4:
1: Ground
2:
3:
Standardmotion
Physics-based
Seismic
Hazard Analysis
simulation
earthquake
inverse
problem
forecasting
Other Data
Geology
Geodesy
Unified Structural Representation
Faults
FSM
Motions
RDM
Stresses
AWM
Ground
Motions
SRM
3
Earthquake
Forecast Model
4
Invert
Anelastic model
2
Intensity
Measures
Attenuation
Relationship
1
FSM = Fault System Model
RDM = Rupture Dynamics Model
10/03/03
AWP = Anelastic Wave Propagation
SRM = Site Response Model
30
Pathway 1: OpenSHA
Time Span
OpenSHA
A Community Modeling Environment for
Seismic Hazard Analysis
IM
Type, Level
EarthquakeRupture
Forecast
Rupn,i
Site
Sourcei
Intensity-Measure
Relationship
 N(i)

Prob(IMT  IML)  1 1  Prob(IMT  IML,Site | Rup n,i) * Prob(Rup n,i)

i1 
n1
I
10/03/03
Field, Jordan & Cornell, 2003
31
Pathway 4: Unified Approach to the Inverse of
Regional Waveform Data for Source and Earth
Structure
• Seismology Disciplinary Committee
– Waveform data from regional earthquakes
• Structural Representation and Fault System Focus
Groups
– Model parameterization using Community Block Model
• Ground Motion Focus Group
– 3D waveform simulations
• SCEC/CME Project
– Data and computational grids for inversion of large data
sets
10/03/03
32
SCEC/CME Undergraduate Intern Program
10/03/03
33
Questions About SCEC’s Future
•
As we reach the midway point of SCEC2, how should we focus our research
program to achieve our key 5-year objectives?
•
What are the best strategies to increase the funding for the interdisciplinary
research that fuels the SCEC collaboration?
•
In particular, where we will find the resources to pursue major initiatives in exciting
areas like fault and rock mechanics, investigations of the southern San Andreas
fault and the California Borderland, and the NGA project?
•
How can SCEC work colleagues in N. California and elsewhere to advance
earthquake science?
•
How can SCEC improve its interface with the NSF earthquake engineering
research centers and the NEES program?
•
How should SCEC activities be coordinated with EarthScope activities? What
SCEC initiatives should be put forward under the banner of EarthScope?
10/03/03
34
Summary
SCEC provides Southern California with
– a focus on the serious problem of urban
vulnerability to earthquakes
– a framework for coordinating the activities of
many organizations representing different
approaches to earthquake risk reduction
– an engine for transforming raw earthquake
information into useful knowledge and practical
understanding
– an organization effective in educating the public
about earthquake hazards and risk reduction
10/03/03
35