1 / 69

CISN Earthquake Early Warning

CISN Earthquake Early Warning. Real-time testing of algorithms statewide. Richard Allen, UC Berkeley. U.S. Geological Survey. Caltech. UC Berkeley. SCEC/USC. What is early warning?. 1. Rapid detection of an earthquake in progress 2. Rapid notification of observed ground shaking

brandyt
Download Presentation

CISN Earthquake Early Warning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CISN Earthquake Early Warning Real-time testing of algorithms statewide Richard Allen, UC Berkeley U.S. Geological Survey Caltech UC Berkeley SCEC/USC

  2. What is early warning? 1. Rapid detection of an earthquake in progress 2. Rapid notification of observed ground shaking 3. Prediction and notification of future ground shaking

  3. What is early warning? 1. Rapid detection of an earthquake in progress 2. Rapid notification of observed ground shaking 3. Prediction and notification of future ground shaking Continuum of earthquake information: 1. Initial trigger 2. Rapid magnitude, early MMI observations 3. Post earthquake information AlertMap 0 sec AlertMap +2 sec ShakeMap + minutes

  4. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing Implement pre-prototype system for algorithm testing Algorithm implementation for a statewide system Algorithms: 1. Onsite warning – single station Caltech/U. Taiwan 2. Virtual Seismologist – network approach Caltech 3. ElarmS – network approach UC Berkeley 4. …others?

  5. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing what we plan to do… seismic networks waveform processing

  6. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing what we plan to do… seismic networks waveform processing waveform processing • Hub locations: • UC Berkeley • USGS Menlo • Caltech

  7. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing what we plan to do… seismic networks output parameters Onsite warning • predicted ground shaking onsite waveform processing waveform processing • Hub locations: • Berkeley • USGS • Caltech

  8. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing what we plan to do… seismic networks output parameters Onsite warning • predicted ground shaking onsite waveform processing Virtual Seismologist • location • magnitude • predicted ground shaking everywhere waveform processing • Hub locations: • Berkeley • USGS • Caltech

  9. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing what we plan to do… seismic networks output parameters Onsite warning • predicted ground shaking onsite waveform processing Virtual Seismologist • location • magnitude • predicted ground shaking everywhere waveform processing ElarmS • location • magnitude • predicted ground shaking everywhere • Hub locations: • Berkeley • USGS • Caltech

  10. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing Goal: evaluation of early warning methodologies in real-time Aug ‘06 Year 1: Initial real-time outputs from EEW algorithms Year 2: Adding uncertainty estimates; website display Year 3: Evaluation of past and future performance  specifications for implemented early warning system Jul ‘09 • equipment requirements (stations) • telemetry • processing

  11. Earthquake early warning Operational systems around the world Systems under development Japan Romania Taiwan United States Turkey Italy Mexico Greece India

  12. Current applications of early warning around the world • Mexico and Oaxaca Citiesusers • Private industry 28 • Schools 84 • Housing complex 1 • TV/Radio stations 34 • Government offices 94 • Subway 4 • Japan • Rail/Metro systems • Fire/rescue organizations • In home information; door/window opening; utility shut-off • Elevator control • Outdoor works • Factories • Power plants • Hospitals • Taiwan • Rail system • Hospital • Istanbul • Electric power plant • High rise building (bank)

  13. Potential applications of early warning in California We are looking for partners… Industry Chemical plants, biotech, manufacturing, construction  isolate systems, move to a safe/hold mode  reduced damage and faster business resumption Transportation Metro, BART, airports, highways (?)  slow and stop Utilities Electric, gas, water  more rapid system management, reduce cascading failures Personal Protection Schools, offices, warehouses, homes  duck and cover command before shaking  evacuation of dangerous single story buildings In the future… Active response buildings and…

  14. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  15. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  16. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  17. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  18. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  19. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  20. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 “Alarm time”  4 sec of data at 4 stations ShakeMap

  21. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  22. Santa Rosa AlertMap August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  23. Santa Rosa August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

  24. Santa Rosa August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 Warning time: 11 sec 29 sec

  25. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing seismic network earthquake parameters event processing control interface • ground shaking • location • magnitude • predicted ground shaking actions • Hub locations: • Berkeley • USGS • Caltech • other…? CISN end user: not part of current CISN testing plan

  26. Potential applications of early warning in California Industry Chemical plants, biotech, manufacturing, construction  isolate systems, move to a safe/hold mode  reduced damage and faster business resumption Transportation Metro, BART, airports, highways (?)  slow and stop Utilities Electric, gas, water  more rapid system management, reduce cascading failures Personal Protection Schools, offices, warehouses, homes  duck and cover command before shaking  evacuation of dangerous single story buildings In the future… Active response buildings and…

  27. Cost Is early warning too expensive? Cost of retrofitting buildings: Barker Hall: $14 mill Barrows Hall: $20 mill Hearst Mining: $80 mill (base isolation) Wurster Hall: $30 mill UC Berkeley SAFER program: $20 mill per year for 20 years Spent $900 mill so far

  28. Cost Is early warning too expensive? Cost of early warning: 1. The seismic network Installation of 600 new stations: $6 - $30 mill Network operation: $2 - $6 mill per year 2. Transmitting warning information Existing technologies: - weather radios - satellite and internet communications - wireless networks 3. Educational program • Early warning response is specific to individual users • Set in broader context of earthquake preparedness

  29. Earthquake early warning across California Application and benefits of • 1. The most effective system: • single station + network based approaches • 2. Warning times: • seconds to tens of seconds • more warning for most damaging events; up to 1 minute • 3. A warning would be available to many of the affected population for most earthquakes • 4. Broad range of applications • reduce the loss of life • reduce injuries • reduce damage/costs • increase speed of recovery • 5. The cost is not large compared to • other mitigation strategies

  30. Early warning methodologies Seismic Stations P-wave fault S-wave

  31. Early warning methodologies 1st Station to detect P-wave arrival Seismic Stations P-wave fault S-wave

  32. Early warning methodologies 1st Station to detect P-wave arrival  issue alarm onsite “Single station approach” Seismic Stations P-wave fault S-wave

  33. Early warning methodologies 1st Station to detect P-wave arrival  issue alarm onsite “Single station approach” Multiple stations detect P-wave arrival Seismic Stations P-wave fault S-wave

  34. Early warning methodologies 1st Station to detect P-wave arrival  issue alarm onsite “Single station approach” Multiple stations detect P-wave arrival  combine information and issue alarmeverywhere “Network approach” Seismic Stations P-wave fault S-wave

  35. Early warning methodologies 1st Station to detect P-wave arrival  issue alarm onsite “Single station approach” Multiple stations detect P-wave arrival and S-wave arrival  combine information and updatealarmeverywhere “Network approach” Seismic Stations P-wave fault S-wave

  36. Early warning methodologies • Single station approach • more rapid • greater uncertainty •  use in epicentral region • Network approach • slower for epicentral region • more warning at greater distances • more accurate Seismic Stations P-wave fault S-wave  Use both approaches

  37. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing what we plan to do… seismic network earthquake parameters event processing • ground shaking • location • magnitude • predicted ground shaking • Hub locations: • Berkeley • USGS • Caltech • other…?

  38. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing seismic network earthquake parameters event processing control interface • ground shaking • location • magnitude • predicted ground shaking actions • Hub locations: • Berkeley • USGS • Caltech • other…? CISN end user: not part of current CISN testing plan

  39. Warning times in San Francisco • From “Alarm” time • (4 sec of data at 4 stations) • Existing stations • Telemetry upgrade

  40. Probabilistic warning times – infrastructure upgrade San Francisco • 130 stations • 2 sec telemetry • 2 stations with pT MMI 7: moderate MMI 9: heavy damage

  41. Warning times in San Francisco • From “Alarm” time • (4 sec of data at 4 stations) • Existing stations • Telemetry upgrade Loma Prieta earthquake • 20 sec warning for San Francisco and Oakland • Single station would provide <10 sec

  42. Probabilistic warning times Northern California • WG02 Report • probabilities • ground shaking • ElarmS • warning times WG02 Earthquake Probabilities Scenario ShakeMap

  43. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing seismic network control interface actions

  44. August 2006 – July 2009 CISN statewide testing seismic network control interface actions control interface actions control interface actions

More Related