TIC Working Group E Evolutionary System Architecture

1. TIC Working Group E Evolutionary System Architecture Walter Arabasz & David Oppenheimer March 3, 2005

2. Working Group Members... • Walter Arabasz, Chair (Univ. of Utah, NIC & TIC) • Glenn Biasi (Univ of Nevada, Reno) • Ray Buland (USGS Golden & NEIC) • Art Lerner-Lam (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory & IRIS) • Phil Maechling (Univ. of Southern California & SCEC) • Tom Murray (USGS Anchorage & AVO) • David Oppenheimer (USGS Menlo Park, NIC & CISN) • Rick Schult (Air Force Research Lab, Hanscomb AFB) • Tony Shakal (California Geological Survey/Strong-Motion Instrumentation Program & CISN) • Mitch Withers (Univ of Memphis & NIC)

3. Charge • Define an evolutionary path for transforming existing elements of ANSS into a functional nationwide system—with emphasis on steps that can be taken in the near term (1-3 yrs), based on realistic ANSS funding projections • Clarify key system performance goals [relevant to system design] and characterize “where we are now” • Account for geopolitical realities as well as abstract ideals in designing an ANSS system architecture

4. Presentation Outline • Guiding Principles (Baldrige and Road Map) • Review key system performance goals • Characterize “where we are now” • Discuss (in detail) 3 architectures for an ANSS system • Recommendations

5. Baldrige National Quality Program • A NIST-sponsored program for a systems-level approach to organizational excellence • Provides assessment, self-improvement, and planning tools • Leadership • Strategic Planning • Customer (and Market) Focus • Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge • Human Resource Focus • Process Management • Organizational Performance Results

6. Road Map for Partnership How do we reconcile state/local ownership, investment in, and ongoing support of significant infrastructure for seismic monitoring with the prescriptions of ANSS decision makers?

7. Key System Goals • Rapid Parametric Information • Data Exchange • Information Distribution • Quality Control • Security • Public Archive • One earthquake, one report • Reliability

8. Where We Are Now • “20 Questions” distributed prior to WG-A, but compared against proposed standards • Report discusses survey and provides link to all responses • No seismic network meets proposed standards • Effort will be substantial to meet proposed standards

9. Where-We-Are Now Findings • Standardization of algorithms lacking • Need for reconciliation of multiple reports of earthquakes • Limited centralized waveform archiving • No standardized error estimates • Inadequate metadata • Uneven exchange of waveform data between networks • Little strong motion processing

10. Where-We-Are Now Findings • No uniformity of magnitude calculation • Moment tensor calculations produced only by AEIC, CISN, and NEIC • ShakeMaps produced only by PNSN, CISN, Utah, and Nevada • Parametric data publicly available only from NEIC, AEIC, CISN, and Utah

11. Consider 3 ANSS Architectures • Decentralized • Processing occurs at regional centers • Product conflict resolved nationally • Backed up by national facility • TIC Plan • Like Decentralized but one center per region • Centralized • All processing at a “national facility” or IPS • Raw data (waveforms, picks) forwarded from data concentrators • Always authoritative, but backed up by regions

12. Decentralized Processing WEB EQalert OFR 02-92 Nomenclature Info outlet Data processing ANSS Central Site Concentrator Waveforms Products Archive(s) Regional Seismic Networks EOC OES WEB Stations EQalert

13. Similar to current situation Robust since data close to processing Autonomy fosters local solutions Primary role justifies local funding Local knowledge utilized Regional data sharing sufficient to monitor Facilities at risk from earthquakes Difficult to standardize data exchange Rules required to resolve authoritative information Expensive to staff 7X24 Difficult to integrate global data sets into local archive Duplication of efforts potentially wasteful Pros Cons

14. TIC Plan WEB EQalert OFR 02-92 Nomenclature Info outlet ANSS Central Site Data processing Concentrator Waveforms Products Archive(s) Regional Centers EOC OES WEB Stations Subregional Seismic Networks EQalert Stations

15. Similar to “Decentralized” model Processing could be performed in areas of lower seismic hazard Fewer units decreases complexity of system Similar to “Decentralized” model Potentially expensive to establish new regional centers, and given current level of funding, unlikely to receive much support Uneven work loads from region to region Pros Cons

16. Integrated Processing Service WEB EQalert OFR 02-92 Nomenclature Info outlet ANSS Archive IRIS, NCEDC, and SCECDC Data processing continuous? IPS Concentrator Waveforms Products Waveforms or picks & snippets products EOC OES FEMA, NOAA… RSNs NEIC WEB Stations EQalert

17. Simplifies standardization and delivery Comprehensive view of earthquake Integrates global data for large US quakes Eliminates conflicting reports Minimizes 7X24 cost IPS could be located in area of minimal seismic risk Experienced staff respond Local scientists unburdened from technical response during crises All products go into a central DBMS Continuous waveform archive possible Distribution of RT waveforms to R&D groups Single connection for Earthscope USArray and PBO data streams Data less robust due to long paths Loss of local knowledge Requires methodologies for local/regional/global Regional identity (funding?) diminished Local incentive to invent diminished Data analyst motivation diminished Could take years to develop Single point of algorithm, hardware, and distribution failure Transfer of software back to regional networks disruptive Full waveform exchange costly over DTS; impacts campus traffic if over Internet Pros Cons

18. WG-E Recommendations • Software management group (SMG) (person?) should • write guidelines for ANSS software oversight with TIC/NIC review/approval • develop specifications for next generation of ANSS software • include cost estimates and milestones • address regional and global needs • complete work by 10/31/2005 (?)

19. Recommendations continued • Software should • be open source if possible • evaluated in its full context of development, ownership, and maintenance • permit centralized, decentralized, and “hybrid” modes of operation. One size does not fit all.

20. Recommendations continued • TIC should • allow/invite comment on specifications • have authority to modify specifications based on comments • ensure specifications have broad political and technical support across ANSS

21. Recommendations continued • ANSS management should • review document in early FY06 & allocate funding • Invite universities to participate in development of software projects • Conduct a benefit-cost analysis in FY06 or FY07 • Adopt Baldrige National Quality Program

22. Recommendations continued • ANSS management and principal stakeholders should develop a standard MOA that • defines how partners will participate in ANSS • considers political issues (regional/state/local, centralized/decentralized/hybrid, “Road Map for Partnership”) • defines performance standards to be met

23. Recommendations (finally..) • Regarding OFR 02-92, WGE • Abandon concept of one primary center per ANSS region

24. Closing thoughts • WGE was unable to reach full consensus on the end state. Geopolitical realities are clearly a paramount challenge • Network operators are justifiably concerned about self-preservation • We have the opportunity to be visionary