1. 10/03/031

2. 2

3. An Overview of the Southern California Earthquake Center Thomas H. Jordan Director

4. 10/03/034 Seismic Hazard in the United States U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Map Specifies maximum intensity of shaking expected at a site during a fixed time intervalSpecifies maximum intensity of shaking expected at a site during a fixed time interval High hazard is concentrated along the active plate boundaryHigh hazard is concentrated along the active plate boundary Highest hazard is in Southern CaliforniaHighest hazard is in Southern California Peak ground acceleration with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years

5. 10/03/035 Seismic Risk in the United States “HAZUS’99 Estimates of Annual Earthquake Losses for the United States”, FEMA, September, 2000 U.S. annualized earthquake loss (AEL) is about $4.4 billion/yr.U.S. annualized earthquake loss (AEL) is about $4.4 billion/yr. For 25 states, AEL > $10 million/yrFor 25 states, AEL > $10 million/yr 49% of the total is concentrated in Southern California49% of the total is concentrated in Southern California 25% is in Los Angeles County alone25% is in Los Angeles County alone

6. 10/03/036 Structural fragility Risk = Probable Loss (lives & dollars) = Hazard  Exposure  Fragility Extent & density of built environment Faulting, shaking, landsliding, liquifaction Risk Analysis: A System-Level Problem

7. 10/03/037 Southern California: a Natural Laboratory for Understanding Seismic Hazard and Managing Risk Tectonic diversityTectonic diversity Complex fault networkComplex fault network High seismic activityHigh seismic activity Excellent geologic exposureExcellent geologic exposure Rich data sourcesRich data sources Large urban populationLarge urban population with densely built environment  high risk Extensive research program coordinated by Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) under NSF and USGS sponsorshipExtensive research program coordinated by Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) under NSF and USGS sponsorship

8. 10/03/038 SCEC History Founded in 1991 as NSF Science & Technology Center, jointly sponsored by the USGSFounded in 1991 as NSF Science & Technology Center, jointly sponsored by the USGS –Motivation: lack of effort on Southern California earthquake problem –Goal: to develop a “master model” of earthquake hazards Organized through a series of focused studiesOrganized through a series of focused studies –Phase I: Future Seismic Hazards in Southern California, Implications of the 1992 Landers Earthquake Sequence –Phase II: Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2024 –Phase III: Accounting for Site Effects in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses of Southern California –Phase IV: Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models In 1998, unsuccessfully proposed to extend to California Earthquake Research CenterIn 1998, unsuccessfully proposed to extend to California Earthquake Research Center In 2002, “graduated” from STC Program and reconfigured at a free-standing center under a 5-year NSF/USGS collaborative agreement (SCEC2)In 2002, “graduated” from STC Program and reconfigured at a free-standing center under a 5-year NSF/USGS collaborative agreement (SCEC2)

9. 10/03/039 How Is SCEC2 Different? Explicit mission to advance physics-based seismic hazard analysis Broadened, more open collaboration Interdisciplinary focus groups for system-level integration and development of community models Emphasis on simulation and model-based inference Major effort to create a Community Modeling Environment (CME) based on advanced IT — the SCEC Collaboratory Enhanced Communication, Education, and Outreach (CEO) Program Explicit Implementation Interface for management of knowledge transfer and partnership efforts

10. 10/03/0310 SCEC Mission To gather all types of information about earthquakes in Southern CaliforniaTo gather all types of information about earthquakes in Southern California To integrate this information into a comprehensive, physics-based, predictive understanding of earthquake phenomenaTo integrate this information into a comprehensive, physics-based, predictive understanding of earthquake phenomena To communicate this understanding to end-users and the people of Southern California as useful knowledge for reducing earthquake risksTo communicate this understanding to end-users and the people of Southern California as useful knowledge for reducing earthquake risks

11. 10/03/0311 The SCEC Collaboration An open, but structured, collaborationAn open, but structured, collaboration –Open to any individuals and institutions that seek to collaborate on the science of earthquakes in Southern California –Structured to achieve specific objectives in Southern California –Resources are assigned based potential contributions to these objectives An institution-based organizationAn institution-based organization –Core institutions provide major, sustained commitment to SCEC objectives –Participating institutions are nominated through participation of individual scientists

12. 10/03/0312 SCEC Institutions Core Institutions (14) University of Southern California (lead) California Institute of Technology Columbia University Harvard University Massachusetts Institute of Technology San Diego State University Stanford University U.S. Geological Survey, Golden U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park U.S. Geological Survey, Pasadena University of California, Los Angeles University of California, San Diego University of California, Santa Barbara University of Nevada, Reno Participating Institutions (30) Arizona State University; Boston University; Brown University; Cal-State, Fullerton; Cal-State, Northridge; Cal-State, San Bernardino; California Geological Survey; Carnegie Mellon University; Central Washington University; CICESE; ETHZ; Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Oregon State University; Pennsylvania State University; Rice University; SUNY Stony Brook; Texas A&M University; University of California, Berkeley; University of California, Davis; University of California, Irvine; University of California, Riverside; University of California, Santa Cruz; University of Colorado; University of Massachusetts; University of New Mexico; University of Oregon; Utah State University; URS Corporation; Whittier College

13. 10/03/0313 SCEC Organization Chart SCEC Director Board of Directors Science Planning Committee External Advisory Council CEO Planning Committee FARM Committee Geology Committee Geodesy Committee Seismology Committee Fault Systems Focus Group SHA Focus Group Ground Motion Focus Group Eqk Physics Focus Group Structural Rep. Focus Group Implementation Interface Education Public Outreach SCEC/ITR Project SCIGN Coord. Com. Borderlands Working Group Special Projects & Operations Disciplinary Committees Focus Groups CEO Activities Diversity Task Force

14. 10/03/0314 Advisory Council SCEC Director Board of Directors Science Planning Committee External Advisory Council CEO Planning Committee FARM Committee Geology Committee Geodesy Committee Seismology Committee Fault Systems Focus Group SHA Focus Group Ground Motion Focus Group Eqk Physics Focus Group Structural Rep. Focus Group Implementation Interface Education Public Outreach SCEC/ITR Project SCIGN Coord. Com. Borderlands Working Group Diversity Task Force Robert Smith (Chair/ U. Utah) Jeff Freymueller (U. Alaska) Raul Madariaga (Ecole Normale Superieure) Jack Moehle (PEER) Farzad Naeim (John A. Martin & Associates) Garry Rogers (Geological Survey of Canada) Chris Rojahn (Applied Technology Council) Haresh Shah (RMS, Inc.) Sean Solomon (Carnegie Institution of Washington) Ellis Stanley (LA Emergency Preparedness Department) Susan Tubbesing (EERI)

15. 10/03/0315 Planning Committee SCEC Director Board of Directors Science Planning Committee External Advisory Council CEO Planning Committee FARM Committee Geology Committee Geodesy Committee Seismology Committee Fault Systems Focus Group SHA Focus Group Ground Motion Focus Group Eqk Physics Focus Group Structural Rep. Focus Group Education Public Outreach SCEC/ITR Project SCIGN Coord. Com. Borderlands Working Group Diversity Task Force Implementation Interface Chaired by Deputy Director Develops SCEC science plans –Advised by BoD and AC –coordinates with USGS Reviews project proposals and formulates coherent science program consistent with short-term objectives and long- term goals Makes recommendations to Board of Directors regarding project funding

16. 10/03/0316 Disciplinary Committees SCEC Director Board of Directors Science Planning Committee External Advisory Council CEO Planning Committee FARM Committee Seismology Committee Geodesy Committee Geology Committee Fault Systems Focus Group SHA Focus Group Ground Motion Focus Group Eqk Physics Focus Group Structural Rep. Focus Group Implementation Interface Education Public Outreach SCEC/ITR Project SCIGN Coord. Com. Borderlands Working Group Diversity Task Force Seismology –Broadband, high dynamic range sensors –Seismic information systems –Seismic imaging systems Tectonic Geodesy –Strainmeters –GPS –InSAR Earthquake Geology –Neotectonics –Paleoseismology Fault and Rock Mechanics –Laboratory studies –Field studies

17. 10/03/0317 Disciplinary Geodesy Disciplinary Committee Crustal Motion Map, V3.0 833 crustal velocity estimates at 762 points833 crustal velocity estimates at 762 points Co-seismic offsets for the Landers, Northridge & Hector Mine earthquakesCo-seismic offsets for the Landers, Northridge & Hector Mine earthquakes Data from SCIGNData from SCIGN

18. 10/03/0318 Geology Disciplinary Committee Puente Hills Blind Thrust Four large earthquakes have occurred on the Puente Hills blind thrust in the last 11,000 years. This fault is capable of producing an earthquake of M > 7 beneath downtown Los Angeles The ground motions from such an event might severely damage even the best- designed buildings Fold scarp on Trojan Way, Bellflower Dolan et al. [2003]

19. 10/03/0319 Simulation by Hall, Heaton, Wald, and Halling Displacement Pulse from a M 7.0 Blind-Thrust Earthquake Beneath Los Angeles

20. 10/03/0320 Focus Groups SCEC Director Board of Directors Science Planning Committee External Advisory Council CEO Planning Committee FARM Committee Geology Committee Geodesy Committee Seismology Committee Fault Systems Focus Group SHA Focus Group Ground Motion Focus Group Eqk Physics Focus Group Structural Rep. Focus Group Implementation Interface Education Public Outreach SCEC/ITR Project SCIGN Coord. Com. Borderlands Working Group Diversity Task Force

21. Objective: a unified 3-D representation of active faults and anelastic structure in Southern California Magistrale et al., (2001) Community Velocity Model (CVM) Community Fault Model (CFM) Plesch & Shaw (2003) Structural Representation Focus Group USR

22. 10/03/0322 From Fault Models to Block Models Fault representation on FEM mesh  block model of LA Carl Gable, LANL

23. 10/03/0323 Communication, Education & Outreach SCEC Director Board of Directors Science Planning Committee External Advisory Council CEO Planning Committee FARM Committee Geology Committee Geodesy Committee Seismology Committee Fault Systems Focus Group SHA Focus Group Ground Motion Focus Group Eqk Physics Focus Group Structural Rep. Focus Group Implementation Interface Education Public Outreach SCEC/ITR Project SCIGN Coord. Com. Borderlands Working Group Diversity Task Force SCEC Community Development and Resources –SCEC scientists and students Implementation Interface –Scientists, engineers, practicing professionals, public officials, risk managers, business & industry Public Outreach –News media, civic groups and the general public Education –Students and educators at K-12 and College levels

24. 10/03/0324 E-Cube Collaboration Partners: Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS)Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) Goal: To develop a web-based Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes (E-Cube) Funding: $650K grant over 2 yrs from NSF/NSDL program (EHR Directorate)

25. 10/03/0325 Implementation Interface SCEC Director Board of Directors Science Planning Committee External Advisory Council CEO Planning Committee FARM Committee Geology Committee Geodesy Committee Seismology Committee Fault Systems Focus Group SHA Focus Group Ground Motion Focus Group Eqk Physics Focus Group Structural Rep. Focus Group Implementation Interface Education Public Outreach SCEC/ITR Project SCIGN Coord. Com. Borderlands Working Group Diversity Task Force

26. 10/03/0326 Current Implementation Activities

27. 10/03/0327 Special Projects SCEC Director Board of Directors Science Planning Committee External Advisory Council CEO Planning Committee FARM Committee Geology Committee Geodesy Committee Seismology Committee Fault Systems Focus Group SHA Focus Group Ground Motion Focus Group Eqk Physics Focus Group Structural Rep. Focus Group Implementation Interface Education Public Outreach SCEC/ITR Project SCIGN Coord. Com. Borderlands Working Group Diversity Task Force

28. 10/03/0328 SCEC/ITR Project Goal: To develop a Community Modeling Environment that can support system-level earthquake science – the SCEC Collaboratory Funding: $10M grant over 5 yrs from NSF/ITR program (CISE and Geoscience Directorates) Start date: Oct 1, 2001 NSF SCEC Institutions IRIS USGS ISI SDSC InformationScienceEarthScience SCEC/ITR Project

29. 10/03/0329 Pathway Instantiations SCEC Community Modeling Environment An information infrastructure for system-level earthquake science Knowledge Base Ontologies Curated taxonomies, Relations & constraints Pathway Models Pathway templates, Models of simulation codes Code Repositories Data & Simulation Products Data Collections FSM RDM AWM SRM Storage GRID Pathway Execution Policy, Data ingest, Repository access Grid Services Compute & storage management, Security DIGITAL LIBRARIES Navigation & Queries Versioning, Topic maps Mediated Collections Federated access KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION Acquisition Interfaces Dialog planning, Pathway construction strategies Pathway Assembly Template instantiation, Resource selection, Constraint checking KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION & REASONING Knowledge Server Knowledge base access, Inference Translation Services Syntactic & semantic translation Computing Users

30. 10/03/0330 Computational Pathways Intensity Measures Earthquake Forecast Model Attenuation Relationship 1 Pathway 1: Standard Seismic Hazard Analysis AWM Ground Motions SRM Unified Structural Representation Faults Motions Stresses Anelastic model 2 AWP = Anelastic Wave Propagation SRM = Site Response Model Pathway 2: Ground motion simulation RDMFSM 3 FSM = Fault System Model RDM = Rupture Dynamics Model Pathway 3: Physics-based earthquake forecasting Invert Other Data Geology Geodesy 4 Pathway 4: Ground motion inverse problem

31. 10/03/0331 IM Rup n,i Intensity-MeasureRelationship Earthquake-RuptureForecast Time Span Type, Level Source i Site OpenSHA A Community Modeling Environment for Seismic Hazard Analysis Pathway 1: OpenSHA Field, Jordan & Cornell, 2003

32. 10/03/0332 Pathway 4: Unified Approach to the Inverse of Regional Waveform Data for Source and Earth Structure Seismology Disciplinary Committee –Waveform data from regional earthquakes Structural Representation and Fault System Focus Groups –Model parameterization using Community Block Model Ground Motion Focus Group –3D waveform simulations SCEC/CME Project –Data and computational grids for inversion of large data sets

33. 10/03/0333 SCEC/CME Undergraduate Intern Program

34. 10/03/0334 Questions About SCEC’s Future As we reach the midway point of SCEC2, how should we focus our research program to achieve our key 5-year objectives? What are the best strategies to increase the funding for the interdisciplinary research that fuels the SCEC collaboration? In particular, where we will find the resources to pursue major initiatives in exciting areas like fault and rock mechanics, investigations of the southern San Andreas fault and the California Borderland, and the NGA project? How can SCEC work colleagues in N. California and elsewhere to advance earthquake science? How can SCEC improve its interface with the NSF earthquake engineering research centers and the NEES program? How should SCEC activities be coordinated with EarthScope activities? What SCEC initiatives should be put forward under the banner of EarthScope?

35. 10/03/0335 Summary SCEC provides Southern California with –a focus on the serious problem of urban vulnerability to earthquakes –a framework for coordinating the activities of many organizations representing different approaches to earthquake risk reduction –an engine for transforming raw earthquake information into useful knowledge and practical understanding –an organization effective in educating the public about earthquake hazards and risk reduction