meeting the anss performance standards & future cisn infrastructure cisn-pmg egill hauksson,...
TRANSCRIPT
Meeting the ANSS Performance Standards
&Future CISN Infrastructure
CISN-PMG Egill Hauksson, Caltech
Presented to
CISN Steering and Advisory Committees
at UC Berkeley, 30 August 2006
Locations of southern California quarry blasts
Guoqing Lin et al. (2006)
Horizontal error ~ 1kmDepth error ~2.5 km
Detection threshold for the SCSN based on the phase
data from 2001-2005
Probability of detecting an M=1.8 with the SCSN configuration as of 01/2006
Meeting ANSS Performance Standards:Conclusions
•In general the CISN meets ANSS performance standards - Speed of delivery- Quality of Products- Uptime of instrumentation
•NCEDC, SCEDC, and CISN-EDC allow us to meet the requirements of “data archiving and public distribution”
•Future outlook is less bright if infrastructure is not improved
Budget Change Request for CISN
“We have only been aroundfor a short time,and we have not measured everything…”
Prof. HirooKanamori
Nature of Request: Full Funding of CISN
• OES & other partners established CISN in 2001• OES charged CISN with the responsibility of earthquake
monitoring and real-time reporting in California• Funding for CISN comes from three main sources: Federal
USGS, State OES, and CGS
• OES has requested: – Products be based on the best science – Products be statewide in nature: coverage/calibration– Timely delivery of products– Robustness in both product generation and delivery– Development of new products– State, Federal, University, & Private Sector Partnerships
for best use of resources
Background History • For almost a century the earthquake monitoring has been
done separately in northern and southern California• Monitoring technology and products have developed mostly
independently and parts of the state are underserved• The 1994 Northridge earthquake caused $40billion in
damage and FEMA/OES provided funding for TriNet• TriNet greatly improved earthquake monitoring capabilities
and ShakeMap was developed for southern California• OES, USGS, & partners decided to combine resources to
form CISN in 2001 to extend these new technologies statewide
• The Governors Office added a line item in Fy01/02 to the OES budget to fund CISN
• State funding to CISN was cut in 2001 and 2002 from $6.6M/yr to $2.4M/yr, which only cover operations and maintenance of existing systems
State Level Considerations• OES increasingly relies on rapid delivery of accurate
earthquake information for decision on:– Response, including search & rescue and deployment of
mutual aid resources– Calculation of total impact using HAZUS & requesting
federal resources– Long term mitigation plans based on an accurate catalog
• CEA, Caltrans, OSHPOD, DSA, and others– Rely on an accurate records of what earthquakes
occurred and their impacts in response and recovery– CISN products are also used in CEA insurance models
• CISN is viewed as a model earthquake monitoring operation across the nation – ANSS seeks to extend CISN technology to other states
Fault/Rupture model used in the USGS/CGS 2002 hazards maps(Ned Field, USGS 2006)
1) Are ruptures confined to fault segments?2) Can ruptures involve more than one fault?
Justification• To ensure accurate CISN statewide reporting
instrumentation needed for regions without coverage• To maintain current monitoring capabilities aging
instrumentation & data processing equipment must be replaced
• To improve robustness: software, telemetry, and product generation and other aspects of CISN need to be modernized & tested using modern risk approaches
• Rapid estimation of the total impact of the earthquake requires accurate and correctly spatially sampled data
• Modern infrastructure such as CEA, BART, Caltrans, trains, airports, utilities, biotechnology labs. etc. need products based on the best science, which in some cases may deliver information before the shaking arrives
Analysis of All Feasible Alternatives1. Continue with current staffing and monitoring capabilities
a) Does not address the problemb) Given the existing staffing and workload demands, the CISN is not able to
make acceptable and rapid progressc) Instrumentation is aging and rate of failures is increasingd) Statewide coverage will gradually become spotty and products will be only
rough estimates, and weaken the State’s public safety capacitye) Lessons lost for next generation earthquake engineering design
2. Redirect current resourcesa) Staff already working at full capacity, and instrumentation may wait for
several weeks before staff is available for repair workb) Because damaging earthquakes can occur any time, daily operations and
maintenance are the highest priority
3. Augment CISN with additional staff and resources to procure instrumentation and develop other needed capabilities
a) This would cost $10.0M annually in additional state fundingb) State OES could possibly leverage additional federal funding from
USGS/ANSS and FEMAc) The new funding would allow needed statewide coverage, instrumentation
upgrades, needed implementation of robustness, and user training
CISN Instrumentation Plan: 2005-2010
Table 1. CISN Instrumentation Plan: 2005 - 2010
Southern
California
Northern
California
Statewide
Existing Additional Needed
Existing Additional Needed
Total
Urban Strong Motion (SM) 602 698 372 588 2260
Broadband + SM1 170 60 38 212 480
Short Period (SP) + SM 16 90 61 119 286
Analog SP 2 133 0 367 0 2913
Borehole 15 35 36 24 110
Geotechnical Arrays 14 20 8 18 60
Buildings 221
Bridges 70
Dams 26
Others 13
1 Includes Anza stations 2 Includes UNR, DWR, and PG&E stations
CISN Infrastructure Goals: Maintain and improve earthquake
monitoring• To reach the CISN goal of 480 broadband
and strong motion stations:– We need to add 27/yr stations for 10 years
– We need to upgrade 20/yr stations, presuming 10 year equipment life
– Current status:
– Adding ~2 stations per year
– Upgrading ~1 station per year
CISN Infrastructure Goals: Improve ShakeMap coverage
•To reach the CISN goal of 2260 strong motion stations:
–We need to add 60stations/yr for 10 years–We need to upgrade 113 stations/yr, presuming 20 year equipment life
–Current status: –Adding ~ 5 stations/yr–Upgrading ~ 5 stations/yr
•Data acquisition, processing, and product distribution infrastructure & robustness
Timetable• CISN requests additional funding starting
in FY07/08 • This additional funding will be used for
capacity building for the next decade– New/upgraded BB instrumentation: 27/yr & 20/yr– New/upgraded SM stations: 60/yr & 110/yr– 5 year projects:
• Improve reliability of products for M7.8 earthquakes • Improve robustness to ensure that CISN will provide all
products for M7.8 quake & report on aftershocks• Speed product delivery -- to provide warnings• User training and engineering utilization
Recommendation• Alternative #3, provide funding for CISN capacity
building• A balanced approach that allows all aspects of
CISN infrastructure to be improved• Enhancement of the CISN outreach programs, to
train first responders and others in applying the CISN products in earthquake response
• Enhanced use of CISN products in earthquake engineering of infrastructure and long term mitigation
Draft CISN Infrastructure Budget
• Earthquake monitoring 2.40M/yr• ShakeMap coverage 2.30M/yr• Improve robustness 1.50M/yr• Improve product reliability 0.50M/yr• New products & delivery 1.00M/yr • Outreach: first responders 0.75M/yr• Earthquake engineering utilization 0.75M/yr• OES- overhead 0.80M/yr• TOTAL Project Request to OES 10.0M/yr