Earthquake Forecasting Interoperability

(1)

Earthquake Forecastin

Interoperability

GGF17 Grid Interoperability Session

Tokyo Japan

May 11 2006

Geoffrey Fox

Computer Science, Informatics, Physics

Pervasive Technology Laboratories

Indiana University Bloomington IN 47401

http://gr

ids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/presentations/

(2)

APEC Cooperation for Earthquake Simulation

n

ACES

is a seven year-long collaboration among scientists

interested in

earthquake and tsunami predication

•

Primary goal

predicting event

occurrence

; other related work

discusses

consequences of event

(Earthquake Engineering)

•

http://w

ww.quakes.uq.edu.au/ACES/

n

Charter

ed under

APEC

–

(3)

100 Years After the San Francisco Earthquake

It is now known that the M ~ 7.9 San Francisco earthquake and fire of April 18, 1906 killed more than 3000 persons. Estimates are that if such an event were to happen again today, damages could easily total well in excess of $500 Billion, with potential fatalities of many thousands of lives.

(4)

(5)

Participating Institutions

n CSIRO Australia

n Monash University Australia

n University of Western Australia, Perth,

Australia

n University of Queensland Australia

n University of Western Ontario Canada n University of British Columbia Canada

n China National Grid

n Chinese Academy of Sciences

n China Earthquake Administration n China Earthquake Network Center

n Brown University n Boston University

n Jet Propulsion Laboratory n Cal State Fullerton

n San Diego State University

n UC Davis n UC Irvine n UC San Diego

n University of Southern California n University of Minnesota

n Florida State University n US Geological Survey

n Pacific Tsunami Warning Center PTWC

Hawaii

n National Central University, Taiwan

(Taiwan Chelungpu-fault Drilling Project)

n University of Tokyo

n Tokyo Institute of Technology (Titech) n Sophia University

n National Research Institute for Earth

Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) Japan

(6)

(7)

In its first seven years, ACES has:

Enhanced international cooperation and understanding

Stimulated new computational science and technology

Laid the foundations for a the new field of earthquake simulations

Established earthquake science that is analytical and predictive

rather than simply descriptive & observational

In its second five years, ACES must:

Exploit inevitable “data deluge” and detailed simulations across

micro to macro scales

Develop a series of science-based hazard mitigation products

Centralize the role of information technology with cross economy

infrastructure

Expand the membership to include other economies

Support integrated science and products of publi

interest across the member economie

(8)

1992 Landers, California Earthquake

(Courtesy H. Zebker, Stanford)

Deformation in the Eastern Mojave Shear Zone

(Courtesy G. Peltzer, UCLA)

Role of Space Technology

Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry (InSAR) can detect changes (both large and small) in surface deformation of the earth’s crust over synoptic scales.

(9)

Role of Information Technology

and Grids in ACES

Numerical simulations of physical, biological and social

systems

Engineering design

Economic analysis and planning

Sensor networks and sensor webs

High performance computing

Data mining and pattern analysis

Distance collaboration

Distance learning

Public outreach and education

Emergency response communication and planning

Geographic Information Systems

(10)

Background: Earthquake Forecast – Published Feb 19, 2002, in PNAS.

( JB Rundle et al., PNAS, v99, Supl 1, 2514-2521, Feb 19, 2002; KF Tiampo et al., Europhys. Lett., 60, 481-487, 2002; JB Rundle et al.,Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 41(4), DOI 10.1029/2003RG000135 ,2003. http://quakesim.jpl.nasa.gov )

Color Scale



Decision Threshold

D.T. => “false alarms” vs. “failures to predict”

CL#03-2015

Plot of Log

10

(Seismic Potential)

Increase in Potential for significant events, ~ 2000 to 2010

Eighteen significant earthquakes (M > 4.9; blue circles) have occurred in Central or Southern California. Margin of error of the anomalies is +/- 11 km; Data from S. CA. and N. CA catalogs:

After the work was completed

1. Big Bear I, M = 5.1, Feb 10, 2001 2. Coso, M = 5.1, July 17, 2001

After the paper was in press ( September 1, 2001 ) 3. Anza I, M = 5.1, Oct 31, 2001

After the paper was published ( February 19, 2002 ) 4. Baja, M = 5.7, Feb 22, 2002

5. Gilroy, M=4.9 - 5.1, May 13, 2002 6. Big Bear II, M=5.4, Feb 22, 2003 7. San Simeon, M = 6.5, Dec 22, 2003

8. San Clemente Island, M = 5.2, June 15, 2004 9. Bodie I, M=5.5, Sept. 18, 2004

10. Bodie II, M=5.4, Sept. 18, 2004 11. Parkfield I, M = 6.0, Sept. 28, 2004 12. Parkfield II, M = 5.2, Sept. 29, 2004 13. Arvin, M = 5.0, Sept. 29, 2004

14. Parkfield III, M = 5.0, Sept. 30, 2004 15. Wheeler Ridge, M = 5.2, April 16, 2005 16. Anza II, M = 5.2, June 12, 2005

17. Yucaipa, M = 4.9 - 5.2, June 16, 2005 18. Obsidian Butte, M = 5.1, Sept. 2, 2005

(11)

(12)

Interoperability Summary

n

Need to define

common infrastructure

and

domain specific standards

•

Not too many “historical” constraints; could adopt GT4, OMII, ……

•

Build Interoperable Infrastructure gatewayed to existing legacy

applications and Grids

n

Generic Middleware

•

Grid software including workflow

•

Portals/Problem Solving environments incl. visualization

•

We need to ensure that we can make security, job submission, portal, data

access (sharing) mechanisms in different economies interoperate

n

Geographic Information Systems GIS

•

Use services as defined by Open Geospatial Consortium (Web Map and

Feature Services) http://w

ww.crisisgrid.net/

n

Earthquak

e/Tsunami Science Specific

•

Satellites, sensors (GPS, Seismic)

•

Fault, Tsunami … Characteristics stored in databases

(13)

GONET _Hi-net K-NET

Database for Model Construction Plate

Motion

Platform for Integrated Simulation

Data Processing, Visualization, Linear Solvers

Simulation Output

PC clusters for small-intermediate problems

Earth Simulator for large-scale problems

GIS Urban Information Tectonic Loading Earthqua keRuptur e Structure Oscillatio n Wave Propagati on Tsunami Generatio n

Earthquake Generation

Strong Motion and Tsunami Generation

JST-CREST Integrated Predictive Simulation System

Artificial Structure Oscillation

(14)

Pacific Rim

Universities

(

APRU ) PRAGMA

SERVOGrid GEON SCECGrid Vlab Earth Simulator Naregi

China National Grid Access Infrastructure Institutions

IMS

International TeraShake Pattern Informatics ALLCAL GeoFEST, PARK, VirtualCalifornia QuakeTables Sesismic InSAR PBO (GPS) U.S.A. FORMOSAT-3/COSMIC (F/C) Chines Taipei JST-CREST GeoFEM GPS Seismic Daichi (InSAR) Japan CAS LURR Seismic GPS P.R. China Pattern Informatics Polaris Radarsat Canada prototype Finley, LSM PANDAS Seismic data, fault database, GPS Australia Wave Motion Earthquake Forecast/Model Data (shared

as part of collaboration) Country

and/or Economies

(15)

(16)

Current PTWC Network of Seismic Stations

(17)

Tokyo

Forecasting Shallow Earthquake Locations in Japan

(<20 km Depth)

Tokyo Area, Japan. JMA Catalog is used. (K. Nanjo, JBR, J Holliday,

DLTurcotte, 2004).

Image at right was shown during lectures at Kyoto University October 13, 2004 and at Tokyo University, October 14, 2004.

Copies are available from

Professor James Mori, Kyoto U. or Professor Mitsuhiro Matsu’ura, Tokyo U.

The October 23, 2004, M = 6.8 Niigata, Japan earthquake killed at least 37 people and injured thousands. Its main shock and principal aftershocks with M 5 are shown (arrow).

Figure by by K. Nanjo

6 ≤ M 5 ≤ M ≤ 6

Plot of Log10 (Seismic Potential)