Meeting the ANSS Performance Standards

1
Meeting the ANSS Performance StandardsFuture
CISN Infrastructure

• CISN-PMG
• Egill Hauksson, Caltech
• Presented to
• CISN Steering and Advisory Committees
• at UC Berkeley, 30 August 2006

2
Meeting the ANSS Performance Standards
ANSS standards emphasize speed over Quality
3
Locations of southern California quarry blasts
Horizontal error 1km Depth error 2.5 km
Guoqing Lin et al. (2006)
4
SCEC Community Fault Model and Seismicity
Distance to faults
5
Percentage of SCSN events versus the distance
from the fault
x100
6
Detection threshold for the SCSN based on the
phase data from 2001-2005
Probability of detecting an M1.8 with the SCSN
configuration as of 01/2006
7
Meeting ANSS Performance StandardsConclusions

• 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

8
Budget Change Request for CISN
Prof. Hiroo Kanamori
9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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?
13
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

14
Analysis of All Feasible Alternatives

• Continue with current staffing and monitoring
  capabilities
• Does not address the problem
• Given the existing staffing and workload demands,
  the CISN is not able to make acceptable and rapid
  progress
• Instrumentation is aging and rate of failures is
  increasing
• Statewide coverage will gradually become spotty
  and products will be only rough estimates, and
  weaken the States public safety capacity
• Lessons lost for next generation earthquake
  engineering design
• Redirect current resources
• Staff already working at full capacity, and
  instrumentation may wait for several weeks before
  staff is available for repair work
• Because damaging earthquakes can occur any time,
  daily operations and maintenance are the highest
  priority
• Augment CISN with additional staff and resources
  to procure instrumentation and develop other
  needed capabilities
• This would cost 10.0M annually in additional
  state funding
• State OES could possibly leverage additional
  federal funding from USGS/ANSS and FEMA
• The new funding would allow needed statewide
  coverage, instrumentation upgrades, needed
  implementation of robustness, and user training

15
CISN Instrumentation Plan 2005-2010
16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
Government's first duty and highest obligation
is public safety
21
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