Earthquake & Tsunami Hazard

Agenda Agree how we work within the Earthquake and Tsunami group. how to trigger the System (for EQS and TSU) GMPEs (or in term of MMI) vs population density for EQs Expected tsunami height for Tsunamigenic earthquakes how we interact according to the geographical occurrence of the event Who takes part ? How does learning spread around all those that need to know ? How we share with other hazards ? Making operational resources available from December 2016. How will your operational teams deliver into this ?

Agenda Agree the ‘products’ we will supply. Given the nature of Earthquake and Tsunamis Emergency mode (see the Tohoku earthquake use case agreed with ERCC). Test mode of the system

Agenda Agree the goals we want to gain from the Multi-hazard meeting that follows (attended by Task and Hazard leads only). Key points for the Earthquake and Tsunami group: e.g. common platform for all the hazards to share the products; rotational point of contact, at least for our group; developing a multi-hazard structure for the 3h reports.... Agree the next steps we, or others collectively, will, take next to enable us to start pre-operations with ERCC in December. E.g. undertake exercises. Issues and risks which we think should be managed by the project Coordinator: e.g. difficulty in making or find some of the products that are of interest to ERCC, especially in the analysis of the impact...

Agree how we work within the Earthquake and Tsunami group how to trigger the System (for EQS and TSU) GMPEs (or in term of MMI) vs population density for Eqs INGV is setting up this triggering system which is reasonably trivial GDACS is not reliable and it is targeting something different EMSC System for alert Expected tsunami height for Tsunamigenic earthquakes Needs tsunami simulation and population DB (as for the Eqs) TRIDEC can provide it External trigger from ERCC

Agree how we work within the Earthquake and Tsunami group How we interact according to the geographical occurrence of the event Earthquakes: Within Europe – Within Aristotle countries EQ operational The institution provides its own solution (web services, push, other) Within Europe – Outside Aristotle countries EQ operational EMSC solution (s) Outside Europe Information from GFZ, EMSC, NEIC/USGS (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h9OYy44us2Dx3ewo7pMZ A7zevwEv0LqUk15F_xkOBZs/edit#gid=0)

Agree how we work within the Earthquake and Tsunami group How we interact according to the geographical occurrence of the event Tsunamis: Within Mediterranean EQ location and magnitude parameters from EQS Simulation (TRIDEC) or NEAMTWS decision matrices (TBD) Observations of sea level gauges !!! Outside Mediterranean/Global Simulation or NEAMTWS decision matrices (TBD) (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AuAobaeirlp8n5WDI7vYJmxNqB boK5wmlX_W849clCc/edit#gid=0)

Agree how we work within the Earthquake and Tsunami group Who takes part ? How does learning spread around all those that need to know ? Only those operational 7/24h At the beginning a smaller subset of institutions Prefer the rotative ?

Agree how we work within the Earthquake and Tsunami group Competence areas for Earthquakes

Agree how we work within the Earthquake and Tsunami group How we share with other hazards ? Through the Aristotle Platform being designed and built on the basis of the existing INGV platform (see movies) https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxDxZNLL3vuCX2ptSGstZ1hJblU https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxDxZNLL3vuCejlPem1yUzJPa1k Making operational resources available from December 2016. How will your operational teams deliver into this ? Through web services and other APIs (e.g., FDSN web services, GeoJson services, …)

Agree the ‘products’ we will supply. Given the nature of Earthquake and Tsunamis: Emergency mode (see the Tohoku earthquake use case agreed with ERCC). Test mode of the system Important in order to test the system

Earthquake-Tsunami Test Case – Tohoku (conform to suggestions provided at 4/27 meeting and provided on 5/17) ARISTOTLE_EH_TH_report_Tohoku_3H.docx ERCC comments: There are several maps to be included that you have identified them already; I think with these, this report is already on a good track. For the multi-hazard section, maps informing about the area that phenomena may (or not) occur would also be useful. As for the radioactive plume, the figure should be somehow explained further. I also note that you have indicated several maps to be inserted, which is important.

Agree the goals we want to gain from the Multi-hazard meeting that follows.. Key points for the Earthquake and Tsunami group: common platform for all the hazards to share the products; rotational point of contact, at least for our group; developing a multi-hazard structure for the 3h reports that allows the Hazard to excahnge opinions and ideas Agree the next steps IT meeting in September (date ?) Each Institutions provides the services that are working start pre-operations with ERCC in December. E.g. undertake exercises. Issues and risks which we think should be managed by the project Coordinator: e.g. difficulty in making or find some of the products that are of interest to ERCC, especially in the analysis of the impact...

Service operations OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Consideration: how to make best use of the networking capacity and our pool of expertise?

what about scalability (in terms of hazards and regions)? Service operations OPTION 2 OPTION 1 Pros Cons Very stable solution and sustainable (as long as resources are provided) Few partners involved into the operative system BUT involved at the level of pool of experts Good if you have a low number of partners Potential conflict with national urgent matters (however, this is also the reason of a backup institution) Easier to ensure reliability (also less training needed) Single point of contact with ERCC Pros Cons Institutions engaged at all levels in the full operative system More complicated to organise. Work load for individual partners more feasible, which affects sustainability too More training activities needed to ensure everyone is ready for action when their shift comes Different people producing the reports, less inertia As in Op 1., single point of contact with ERCC Considerations: how to make best use of the networking capacity and our pool of expertise? what about scalability (in terms of hazards and regions)? what is more sustainable in the long term?