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

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 AlertMap 0 sec AlertMap +2 sec ShakeMap + minutes Continuum of earthquake information: 1. Initial trigger2. Rapid magnitude, early MMI observations 3. Post earthquake information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Current applications of early warning Istanbul Electric power plant High rise building (bank) Taiwan Rail system Hospital Mexico and Oaxaca Cities users Private industry 28 Schools84 Housing complex1 TV/Radio stations34 Government offices94 Subway4 Japan Rail/Metro systems Fire/rescue organizations In home information; door/window opening; utility shut-off Elevator control Outdoor works Factories Power plants Hospitals

13. 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… We are looking for partners…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. Santa Rosa August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 ShakeMap

25. Santa Rosa August 2, 2006 Magnitude 4.4 Warning time:11 sec29 sec

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

28. 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…

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

30. 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 3. Educational program Existing technologies:- weather radios - satellite and internet communications - wireless networks Early warning response is specific to individual users Set in broader context of earthquake preparedness

31. 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 Earthquake early warning across California Application and benefits of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

51. Seismic networks UC Berkeley + USGS networks UC Berkeley and US Geological Survey Currently provide rapid earthquake information e.g. ShakeMap

52. Statewide testing UC BerkeleyCaltechSCEC/USC Implement pre-prototype system for algorithm testing Participating Institutions: U.S. Geological Survey Looking forward Algorithms: 1. ElarmS UC Berkeley 2. Virtual Seismologist Caltech 3. Onsite warning Caltech/U. Taiwan 4. …others?

53. Seismic Stations 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 fault S-wave P-wave

54. Seismic Stations 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 fault 1 st Station to detect P-wave arrival S-wave P-wave

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

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

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

58. fault What is early warning? Multiple stations detect P-wave arrival and S-wave arrival  combine information and update alarm everywhere “Network approach” Seismic Stations S-wave P-wave 1. Rapid detection of an earthquake in progress 2. Rapid notification of observed ground shaking 3. Prediction and notification of future ground shaking 1 st Station to detect P-wave arrival  issue alarm onsite “Single station approach”

59. fault What is early warning? Seismic Stations S-wave P-wave 1. Rapid detection of an earthquake in progress 2. Rapid notification of observed ground shaking 3. Prediction and notification of future ground shaking Single station approach more rapid greater uncertainty  use in epicentral region Network approach slower for epicentral region more warning at greater distances more accurate  Use both approaches

60. Loma Prieta ABAG ground shaking Oakland 66% fatalities San Francisco 18% fatalities Cypress viaduct collapse Falling masonry Apartment building collapse 84% of the fatalities were at distances which could have received 20 sec warning

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

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

64. Warning times in San Francisco existing stations existing telemetry delay: 5.5 sec

65. Warning times in San Francisco existing stations telemetry upgrade delay: 2.0 sec

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

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

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

69. Current applications Utilities Power (fire prevention), gas Industry Hazardous chemicals, chip manufacturers, eye surgeons Construction Site safety, (active control buildings) Transportation Airports, rail and subway, bridges Response community Fire departments, rescue teams, government Personal protection Schools, housing complexes (evacuation), hosing unit (preparation) Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Turkey and Romania