Know

1. EarthScope KnowledgeTransfer Developmentin the Context ofSeismic Hazard Analysis (SHA) Know Edward (Ned) Field USGS, Pasadena

2. Themes of this Talk • SHA needs more physics • SHA needs Information Technology • Will EarthScope help SHA?

3. Short Version of Talk Improved Seismic Hazard Analysis: • requires a more physics based approach, which … • requires system level, multidisciplinary effort, which … • requires modularization of the various contributions (community models and databases), which … • will need interoperability, which … • we don’t know how to achieve, which … • is why we need and have an IT collaboration. • EarthScope will contribute to long-term SHA goals (but could hinder as well).

4. Seismic Hazard Analysis Two Components: (1) Earthquake Forecast Probability in time and space of all M≥5 events (2)Ground-Motion Estimation Intensity Measure Regressions (attenuation relations) Full waveform modeling

5. Part I SHA needs more physics

6. Seismic Hazard Analysis(probabilistic) Two Components: (1) Earthquake Forecast Probability in time and space of all M≥5 events (2)Ground-Motion Estimation Intensity Measure Relations (attenuation relations) Full waveform modeling

7. SCEC Phase-III Report On the extent to which site effects can be accounted for in SHA 14 papers New Regressions:

8. An important Phase-III Conclusion: Prediction uncertainty remains high on empirical regressions even after all possible site-effect corrections have been made (surprising to engineers). IMPLICATION: Statistical regression approach appears to be reaching a point of diminishing returns

9. More accurate ground-motion estimates will apparently require waveform modeling from 1st principles of physics

10. SCEC Phase-III Report Included 3D waveform simulations 14 papers Magistrale Olsen

11. Although 3D Waveform Simulations constitute our best hope for more accurate ground-motion predictions, Unfortunately they are not yet accurate enough for official SHA, nor computationally fast enough for routine use.

12. (1) Improved structural representations Improvements in Waveform-modeling will require: (2) Improved modeling of high frequencies, scattering, and nonlinear effects (3) Carefully orchestrated validation exercises (4) Propagation of all significant uncertainties

13. Note: SHA will continue to rely on intensity-measure regressions for some time (improvements are needed, and engineers have other types they would like developed).

14. Seismic Hazard Analysis Two Components: (1) Earthquake Forecast Probability in time and space of all M≥5 events (2)Ground-Motion Estimation Intensity Measure Relations (attenuation relations) Full waveform modeling

15. Current Status The earthquake-forecast model applied in the National Hazard maps uses a time-independent (Poisson) recurrence model for each potential earthquake, meaning each event is completely independent of all other events (even those on the same fault). The 2001 Fall AGU meeting had more than 100 abstracts on stress interaction effects and time-dependent earthquake probabilities (lots of good ideas). There is consensus that some form of time dependence and stress interaction exists, but no consensus on how to model it.

16. A venture in cooperation with the RELM A Working Group for the Development of Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (Earthquake Forecasts)

17. thereby including alternative approaches such as the more developmental physics-based models RELM (1) To develop and test a range of viable earthquake-potential models (not just one "consensus" model). (2) To test these models against existing & future geophysical data. Goals: (3) To examine the seismic hazard implications of each model , which will help … (establish stationary targets) • define existing uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis • identify research topics needed to reduce these uncertainties • identify which models are exportable to regions where options are fewer

18. RELM e.g., based on: • (1) geological fault data. • (2) historical seismicity. Models Under Development • (3) geodetic strain observations. • (4) stress interaction between earthquakes. • (5) spatial and temporal foreshock-aftershock statistics. • Physical simulation models (e.g., Rundle’s “Virtual California”)

19. Part II SHA needs Information Technology

20. SHA Must Interface Among: Disciplines: Scientists (of many ilks) Engineers (research and practice) Risk Analysts Emergency Response Officials The Public • Multiple Modeling and Database resources • (especially as we move toward physics-based, system-level models).

21. Example from RELM A wide variety of earthquake-forecast models are under development. How do we evaluate the hazard implications of each? Previous approach was to butcher existing SHA Fortran code (custom hard-wire) to handle each new model separately. This is no longer a viable approach.

22. This led to the development of: Java-based (object oriented) code for Seismic Hazard Analysiswith a standard interface to allow any type of earthquake-forecast model to plug in this has subsequently evolved into a …

23. Framework for Object-Oriented Seismic Hazard Analysis(FOOSHA?) GOAL: A general framework that will allow the implementation of all foreseeable types of earthquake-forecast and ground motion models, as well as satisfy the rapidly evolving analysis demands of the engineering community and other user groups .

24. Our Developmental Approach (not yet sure this is a good blueprint) • Outline a proposed object-oriented SHA framework (conceptual model or ontology) & publish in SRL to get feedback from the broader community. • Begin implementing the core components in Java. • Implement the framework in Pathway 1 of the SCEC ITR Collaboration (expand ontology for KR&R, utilize Grid computing and digital libraries). • Implement the various RELM earthquake-forecast models (many will be wrapped Fortran code). • Modify framework as needed, hopefully leading to a useful community standard.

25. Desired output is the probability that something of concern will happen over a specified time span Basic Framework (simplified). Time Span Earthquake Forecast Streaming Potential Earthquakes (N total) PQkn Site IMT IML Intensity-Measure Relationship

26. Intensity-Measure Type/Level • a specification of what the analyst (e.g., engineer) is worried about Time Span Earthquake Forecast Streaming Potential Earthquakes (N total) PQkn Site IMT IML Intensity-Measure Relationship

27. Site and Potential Earthquake • The two main physical objects used in the analysis Time Span Earthquake Forecast Streaming Potential Earthquakes (N total) PQkn Site IMT IML Intensity-Measure Relationship

28. Earthquake Forecast • One of the two main model components. A wide variety of types will be developed. Time Span Earthquake Forecast Streaming Potential Earthquakes (N total) PQkn Site IMT IML Intensity-Measure Relationship

29. Intensity-Measure Relationship • The other major model component. A variety of these will also be developed. Time Span Earthquake Forecast Streaming Potential Earthquakes (N total) PQkn Site IMT IML Intensity-Measure Relationship

30. Intensity-Measure Regressions (attenuation relations) Full Waveform Modeling SCEC ITR Collaboration: Pathway 1 Pathway 2 PQkn Site IMT IML Intensity-Measure Relationship Prob(≥IML)

31. Models will have to access shared data resources (community databases) For example …

32. Time Span PQk List Network Earthquake Catalog Fault Activity Database Earthquake Forecast GPS Data (Velocity Vectors) Historical Earthquake Catalog Community Fault Model

33. Sharing data resources will help: • Avoid effort duplication • Help us determine where differences in model predictions come from by ensuring that participants are using consistent data constraints (a huge problem in previous SHA efforts) • If data are machine readable from the host institution, model predictions can easily be updated when inevitable revisions or additions are made to the database (previously data revisions have led to multi-year publication delays). (all of these are critical to improving SHA)

34. This will help reduce the time to generate a hazard map, or a synthetic seismogram, from hours to (hopefully) seconds. Exactly how will the ITR collaboration help? (a few examples) • Grid Computing: • To enable run-time access to whatever high performance computing resources are available at that moment.

35. This will put maintenance responsibility solely on the developer or host. Exactly how will the ITR collaboration help? (a few examples) • Grid Computing & Digital Libraries: • To enable interoperability among distributed earthquake-forecast and ground-motion models and the various databases they depend upon.

36. Exactly how will the ITR collaboration help? (a few examples) • Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR&R): • To keep track of the ontological attributes and relationships that we don’t want to encumber the Java code with. e.g. Attributes of an Earthquake Forecast: the region and time-span it’s applicable to; that it’s a monte-carlo simulation versus having adjustable parameters; handling of epistemic versus aleatory uncertainties; whether it’s a “next event” or “all event” prediction; …

37. Exactly how will the ITR collaboration help? (a few examples) • KR&R and Digital Libraries: • To enable smart eDatabase inquiries • (e.g., so that an appropriate probability model can be constructed for a potential earthquake based on what information is found in the fault activity database).

38. Exactly how will the ITR collaboration help? (a few examples) • Digital Libraries: • To enable version tracking for purposes of SHA reproducibility in an environment of continually evolving models and databases.

39. Part III Will EarthScope help SHA?

40. Will EarthScope help SHA? Absolutely no question over the long term. The most profound ways SHA will be impacted by EarthScope are probably unknown at this time. EarthScope is a great idea.

41. Will EarthScope help SHA? Big Concern: In terms of SHA (at least) we’re not making effective use of data that’s already been collected. e.g., Strong Motion Database (COSMOS) (inadequate quality control) Fault Activity Database (lack thereof)

42. Will EarthScope help SHA? The Problem is: No one wants to pay for the grunt work needed to put existing data into the most useful form. Doing so would have a huge, direct, and immediate impact on SHA. Thus, from an SHA perspective, it’s hard for me to rally around such a massive data gathering effort as represented by EarthScope.

43. Will EarthScope help SHA? If Earthscope gets funded: I urge you to dedicate sufficient resourced for making data available in a useful form. I think 10% for IT is not enough.

44. Will EarthScope help SHA? Biggest Concern: If USArray ends up taking funds away from ANSS, we will be in very serious trouble with respect to improving SHA.

45. Final Questions To what extent is EarthScope dedicated to solving problems directly associated with SHA? How much is SHA being used to “sell” EarthScope?