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

Meeting the ANSS

Performance Standards

ANSSstandardsemphasize speed over Quality

Locations of southern California quarry blasts

Guoqing Lin et al. (2006)

Horizontal error ~ 1kmDepth error ~2.5 km

SCEC Community Fault Model and

Seismicity

Distance to faults

Percentage of SCSN events versus the distance from the fault

x100

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

“Government's first duty and highest obligation is public

safety”

CISN only needs this much?

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