1. The NEESgrid Experience: 2000 - 2003
Tom Finholt School of Information University of Michigan

2. Outline SOC functions Description Primary Secondary System History
Organization
Funding
Incentives
Collaboration readiness

3. Outline (continued) Access Resource diagram Technology involved
Successes and challenges
Usage
Analysis of prototype tools
Action logs
Chat logs
Analysis of community expectations
Conclusions

4. SOC functions Primary Secondary Shared instrument
Distributed research center
Virtual community of practice
Community data system

5. Description: System Functional Technical Support
real time remote control of instruments
access to archival and real time data
communication with remote colleagues
Technical
Grid-based, thin client model
CHEF
Support
3 FTEs at Michigan

6. What’s A Grid? Web: Uniform access to documents Grid:
Web: Uniform access to documents
              
Software
catalogs
Grid:
Flexible, high-performance access to resources for distributed communities
Computers
Sensors and
instruments
Data archives
Colleagues
Source: Harvey Newman, Caltech

7. NEESgrid High-Level Architecture
Portal, Web and 3rd Party End User Interfaces
APIs, Tools and Libraries Supporting End User Interfaces
Collaboration Services
Data & Information
Services
Telepresence Services
Simulation & Analysis Services
APIs Supporting Higher Level Information Services
Grid Resource Management Middleware
System Resources: Compute, Network, Data Storage, Testing Sites
Capabilities
data, simulation, collaboration, visualization, telepresence
validated and improved via EA demonstration scenarios and delivered via
APIs and tools for users
services and interfaces at equipment and resource sites
management services for operation

8. Instrumented Structures and Sites Remote Users
Simulation Tools Repository
High-Performance Network(s)
Laboratory Equipment
Field Equipment
Curated Data Repository
Leading Edge Computation
Global Connections
(FY 2005 – FY 2014)
Remote Users: (K-12 Faculty and Students)
Laboratory Equipment

9. Grid Operations Center
The Grid in NEESgrid
Experimental Component
Grid Operations Center
Grid Data Repository
Campus Net Component
NEESgrid Component
Internet Fabric and Operations
Hub C
Hub A
Hub B
NEESpop A
Teleobservation Equipment
Experimental Equipment
Telepresence Equipment
This simple animation is designed to show where the grid components lie in a typical collaborative experiment. It is self-explanatory, but it should be noted that one or more of the NEESpops (e.g., at Site B and C) are optional… they are included here just for consistency.
One important point in this slide is that campus networks and Internet operations/fabric are NOT part of the SI award’s scope. If they were, the resulting competition for project financial and team technical resources could readily constrain any progress by the SI awardee.
Passive co-PI
Video I/O
Active PI
Data Cache
Audio I/O
Data Cache
Site A: Experimental Data Producer
Site B: Remote Lead Investigator
Site C: Passive Collaborator

10. Science and Engineering Grids

11. Bhuj, India. One of the towers of this apartment complex totally collapsed,and the central stairway leaned on another building of the complex Photo courtesy of Dr. J.P. Bardet, University of Southern California

12. Description: History Scoping study Alpha 1.0 Alpha 1.1 MOST experiment
NCSA, ISI, ANL, UM
Alpha 1.0
demonstrated at UNR, November 2002
released February 2003
Alpha 1.1
released May 2003
MOST experiment
real-time control of reaction wall from numerical simulation
UIUC and Colorado, July 2003

13. NEESgrid interface

14. NEESgrid interface

15. NEESgrid interface

16. Operational System Prototype (7/03)
NEESgrid demonstration in the context of a real EE test
moving from demonstration to usability
enabling discovery and research
Demonstration goals
test functionality and usability of the current implementation
identify and deploy new features
Demonstration attributes
synchronized physical experiments at two NEES sites
integrated physical experiments and numerical simulation
pseudo-dynamic testing and control
data analysis, repositories, and visualization
multi-site teleobservation

17. Multi-Site, On-Line Simulation Test (MOST) July 2003
UIUC
Experimental Model f1 m1 f2
Colorado
Experimental Model
NCSA Computational Model m1 f1 f2
SAC Consortium Benchmark Structure

18. Multi-Site, On-Line Simulation Test (MOST)
UIUC
Experimental Model
Colorado
Experimental Model
m1, q1 F2 F1 e =
f1, x1 f2
NEESpop
NEESpop
SIMULATION
COORDINATOR
UIUC MUST-SIM
Dan Abrams
Amr Elnashai
Dan Kuchma
Bill Spencer
and others
Colorado FHT
Benson Shing
NEESpop m1 f1 f2
NCSA
Computational Model

19. MOST Column Test Specimens
Illinois Test Specimen
Colorado Test Specimen

20. July Demonstration Experiment
UIUC
MUST-SIM
NEES POP
Colorado
NEES
POP
Colorado
Experimental Model f2 F2 F1 e
UIUC
Experimental Model f1 m1 =
NCSA
NEES
POP m1 f1 f2
NCSA Computational Model

21. Description: Organization
NEES program ( )
NEESgrid, system integration
NEES Consortium Development
15 equipment sites
NEES Consortium ( )
Board and Executive Committee
Standing Committees

22. BYU/UCSB/USC Les Youd

25. Description: Funding NEESgrid scoping study NEESgrid
cooperative agreement between NSF and NCSA
approximately $300 K,
NEESgrid
$10 million,

26. Description: Incentives
Funding
scientists recruited through the NEES equipment site program and through the NEES grand challenge program
Recognition
innovative system
highly visible to earthquake engineering and computer science communities (e.g., SC 2002 demo)
Novel capabilities
first operational use of globus/OGSA technology
“hybrid” operations -- combining numerical and physical simulations

27. Description: Collaboration readiness
Experiments are collaborative
but frequently defined by collocation
Some use of the Web
shared databases
UCSD “webshaker” site
Ubiquitous use
Equipment sites are all Internet2 participants

28. Access: People Earthquake engineers In the United States only
about 1500
practice and academic
geotechnical, structural, and tsunami sub-fields
Affiliated with the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and CUREE

29. The field of earthquake engineering
Research
University-based
Funded by NSF and industry
Focus on simulation
Physical models (e.g., reduced scale specimens)
Numerical models (e.g., finite element analysis)
Practice
Professional firms
Structural engineering (e.g., earthquake remediation)
Formulation of uniform building codes
Lifelines (e.g., ensure survival of roads, gaslines, power distribution)

30. Access: Instruments Structural Geotechnical Tsunami reaction walls
shake tables
field test
Geotechnical
centrifugews
Tsunami
wave basins

31. Shake table: Nevada, Reno

32. Reaction wall: Minnesota

33. Centrifuge: UC Davis

34. Wave basin: Oregon State

35. George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
NSF Major Research Equipment and Facility Construction award (MRE)
$80 million,
$10 million for system integration (NCSA, ANL, USC-ISI, Michigan, Oklahoma)
$2 million for consortium development (CUREE)
$78 million for new equipment sites
3 shake tables (Buffalo, Nevada-Reno, UCSD)
2 centrifuges (RPI, UC Davis)
5 reaction walls (Berkeley, Buffalo, Colorado, Illinois, Lehigh, Minnesota)
3 field test (Texas, UCSB/USC/BYU, UCLA)
1 lifeline (Cornell)
1 tsunami (Oregon State)

37. Technology involved Globus (USC ISI and ANL) CHEF (Michigan)
GSI and Gridftp
CHEF (Michigan)
Telepresence systems (ANL)
Data repository (NCSA)
Deployment, operations, and support (NCSA)

38. NEESgrid Software Features Alpha 1.0 Release
February 2003 packaged components
Basic Data Streaming Services (NSDS)
Data capture through LabView
Collaborative environment (CHEF-based)
Data viewer (CHEF-based)
CHEF

39. NEESgrid Software Features Alpha 1.0 Release
Tele-Observation but not Tele-Operation
E-Notebook services
Grid services
Tele-Observation
E-Notebook

40. NEESgrid Software Evolution
Alpha 1.0 release (February 2003)
Alpha 1.1 release (June 2003)
Release 2.0 (Fall 2003)
tele-operation via NEESgrid Tele-Control Protocol (NTCP)
faster sampling rates for DAQ
simplified certificate request tools
improved NEESgrid metadata service (NMDS)
Oracle and Sybase support with linked repositories
improved CHEF interface

41. NEESgrid Software Evolution
Release 3.0 (Spring 2004)
audio for telepresence
auto configuration of telepresence sites
telecontrol request queuing
data mirroring and redundancy management

42. Successes Scientific Community Future
First teleobservation of shake table (November 2002)
First data saved to repository (November 2002)
Community
NEES Consortium incorporated (January 2003)
First NEES Consortium meeting (May 2003)
Future
MOST experiment, July 2003
Operational collaboratory October 1, 2004

43. NEESgrid November 2002 Demonstration
Earthquake simulation at UNR early adopter site
biaxial shake table with cameras and instrumentation
40% scale model of a two span bridge
concrete slab over steel girders
Bridge model instrumented with sensors
strain gauges, load cells, displacement, acceleration

44. 16 Channel Instrumentation Placement
Data Repository

45. NEESgrid November 2002 Demonstration
Browser-based collaborative framework
Electronic notebook for data recording
Experiment management tools
data and metadata
Streaming data and video
tele-observation of experiment
data channels from sensors
Data analysis and visualization
Tele-observation
SAP2000 model

46. Earthquake engineers – in Hofstede’s scheme
Power distance
Hierarchical
Bias toward seniority
Individualist
“My lab is my empire”
Solo PI model
Masculine
Adversarial
Competitive
Uncertainty avoidance
Highly skeptical of new technologies
Extremely risk adverse

47. Challenges Cultural differences Building it so they will come
Different jargon
Different world views
Building it so they will come
Objects to think with

48. Grid specialists – in Hofstede’s scheme
Power distance
Egalitarian
Bias toward talent
Collectivist
Use the Internet to create worldwide communities
Project model
Masculine
Adversarial
Competitive
Uncertainty avoidance
Extremely open to new technologies
Extremely risk seeking

49. Agreeing on terms

50. How earthquake engineers think
Customer Need
Customer Requirements
Deployment and Operations
Requirements Analysis
Progress
Feedback
Structure
Design
Structure Construction
Structure Acceptance
Customer Needs Assessment
Design, Engineering, and Development
Structure Operations

51. How grid specialists think
System Design
System Analysis
Prelim Analysis
START
Implementation
More Iterations
Prelim Design
Proto Evaluation
Prototyping
Evaluation

52. Prototype usage
H.323 videoconferencing
Worktools

53. User expectations
Community survey
Workshop survey

54. Survey methods Community survey
National, random stratified proportional sample
Stratified on region (six regions – CA, NW, SW, MW, SE, NE) and sub-field (e.g., structural, geotechnical etc.)
EERI membership roll and key tsunami mailing lists as sampling frame
n = 361
Web and mail administration, March – May, 2002
Two waves of follow-up; three waves of postal follow-up
99 responses (27% response rate)
Response profile reflects the sample proportions

55. Survey methods Workshop survey Opportunity sample
Registered participants in nineteen of the twenty regional workshops
The survey administration was not ready for the first workshop held in Charleston, SC
n = 287
Web and paper-and-pencil, pre- and post-workshop administration, January – April, 2002
260 pre-workshop responses (91% response rate)
15 matched pre- and post-workshop responses (5% matched response rate)
60% matched response rate for Houston, TX workshop
53% matched response rate for Lawrence, KS workshop
5% matched response rate for San Jose, CA workshop
0% matched response for the other fourteen workshops

56. Survey methods Technical surveys Practice survey (2002)
Response from fourteen of fifteen sites
Practice survey (2002)
Administered to 444 engineers
187 responses (42%)
11% non-NEES equipment sites
9% women
56% students
39% from Year 1 (26% repeat response rate)

57. Practice survey: Data use

58. Practice survey: Collaboration
2001
2002
Item
Mean SD N
Number of collaborations you are currently involved with
2.5
6.1 66
2.3
4.7 72
Number of collaborations with remote participants
1.4
3.2 62
1.3
3.6 71
Number of collaborators on your primary collaboration
5.7
7.1 60
7.3
Number of collaborators from prior collaborations in primary collaboration
1.6
3.1 57
1.7
3.0 61

59. Expectations about NEES
Questionnaire item
Percent
in agreement
Workshop samplea
Community sampleb
1. Provide me with access to experimental data that are not currently available.
83%
63%
2. Expand opportunities for lifelong learning.
81%
50%
3. Improve my capacity to practice earthquake engineering.
82%
54%
Notes: a n = 167; b n = 76

60. Expectations about NEES
Questionnaire item
Percent
in agreement
Workshop samplea
Community sampleb
4. Provide me with new opportunities for collaboration with colleagues at other institutions.
78%
57%
5. Provide me with access to experimental facilities that are not available at my institution.
75%
55%
6. Provide me with access to computational resources that are not currently available.
70%
59%
Notes: a n = 167; b n = 76

61. Expectations about NEES
Questionnaire item
Percent
in agreement
Workshop samplea
Community sampleb
7. Improve my ability to design codes and provisions for reducing seismic losses.
69%
51%
8. Expand your opportunities for data management and visualization.
67%
53%
9. Provide me with new opportunities for incorporating measured data in the classroom.
54%
32%
Notes: a n = 167; b n = 76

62. Response profiles 19% 35% 70% 52% 3% 2% 8% 11% Community sampleb
Sub-field affiliation
Workshop samplea
Community sampleb
Geotechnical
19%
35%
Structural
70%
52%
Tsunami 3% 2%
Other 8%
11%
Notes: a n = 250; b n = 89

63. Response profiles 41% 73% 59% 27% Community sampleb Workshop samplea
Earthquake engineering orientation
Workshop samplea
Community sampleb
Practitioner
41%
73%
Academic researcher/education
59%
27%
Notes: a n = 250; b n = 89

64. Top concerns among community respondents
Item for concern
Percent concerned or very concerned
1. Determining standard community-wide data formats
60%
2. Determining policies and procedures for sharing of equipment
44%
3. Network quality, monitoring and upgrade
43%
4. Determining standard meta-data formats
41%
5. Intellectual property rights for shared data
39%

65. Summary of survey data analysis
Workshop and community respondents share consensus about NEES expectations
…but level of agreement is much higher among workshop respondents
Access to experimental data is paramount
…and is more important than access to experimental facilities for both workshop and community respondents

66. Summary of survey data analysis
Workshop respondents differed from community respondents
Skewed more heavily toward structural earthquake engineers (70% vs. 52%)
Skewed more heavily toward academic earthquake engineers (59% vs. 27%)
Producing standard data formats is a critical goal

67. The field of dreams
I was sitting on the verandah of my farm house in eastern Iowa when a voice clearly said to me, “If you build it, he will come.” – Ray Kinsella in Shoeless Joe, by W.P. Kinsella
Image source:

68. Building it so they will come…
Balance contributions (pp in the Atkins report)
Weight domain science too heavily?
Overemphasize procurement of existing technologies
Computer scientists become viewed as “merely” consultants and implementers
Weight computer science too heavily?
End user needs insufficiently addressed
Emphasis on novelty at the expense of usability and stability
Source: Atkins report --

69. Innovation vs. extrapolation
computational grids
e-science
Social &Technological Forces
collaboratories
distance learning
community networks
electronic commerce
digital libraries
electronic journals
video conferencing
Extrapolation

70. Building it so they will come…
Give users objects to think with (scenarios, mock-ups, prototypes)
Be patient…let users convince themselves
Know where you’ve been (collect baseline data) and what’s changed (collect data as you go along)

72. Building it so they will come…
Remove institutional barriers to collaboration
David and Spence draft report
p. 13 Arzberger and Finholt report
OECD report on access to publicly funded research data
NIH statement on data sharing
Pritzker covenant
Sources: Arzberger and Finholt report OECD report NIH draft statement --

73. Conclusions Data access dominates teleoperation Cultural schism
NEES Consortium not IT savvy
Fit to grid capabilities is imperfect
Mixed goals
bulk of award to build new facilities for physical simulation
long-term desire is for numerical simulation