1. Earthquake & Tsunami Hazard

2. 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 How will your operational teams deliver into this ?

3. 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

4. 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...

5. 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

6. 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
( A7zevwEv0LqUk15F_xkOBZs/edit#gid=0)

7. 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)
( boK5wmlX_W849clCc/edit#gid=0)

8. 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 ?

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

10. 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)
Making operational resources available from December How will your operational teams deliver into this ?
Through web services and other APIs (e.g., FDSN web services, GeoJson services, …)

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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...

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

15. 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?