Transcript TIC Working Group E, Evolutionary System Architecture

TIC Working Group E
Evolutionary System Architecture
Walter Arabasz
&
David Oppenheimer
March 3, 2005
Working Group Members...










Walter Arabasz, Chair (Univ. of Utah, NIC & TIC)
Glenn Biasi (Univ of Nevada, Reno)
Ray Buland (USGS Golden & NEIC)
Art Lerner-Lam (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory & IRIS)
Phil Maechling (Univ. of Southern California & SCEC)
Tom Murray (USGS Anchorage & AVO)
David Oppenheimer (USGS Menlo Park, NIC & CISN)
Rick Schult (Air Force Research Lab, Hanscomb AFB)
Tony Shakal (California Geological Survey/Strong-Motion
Instrumentation Program & CISN)
Mitch Withers (Univ of Memphis & NIC)
Charge
•
Define an evolutionary path for transforming
existing elements of ANSS into a functional
nationwide system—with emphasis on steps that
can be taken in the near term (1-3 yrs), based on
realistic ANSS funding projections
•
Clarify key system performance goals [relevant to
system design] and characterize “where we are
now”
•
Account for geopolitical realities as well as
abstract ideals in designing an ANSS system
architecture
Presentation Outline

Guiding Principles (Baldrige and Road Map)

Review key system performance goals

Characterize “where we are now”

Discuss (in detail) 3 architectures for an
ANSS system

Recommendations
Baldrige National Quality Program


A NIST-sponsored program for a systems-level
approach to organizational excellence
Provides assessment, self-improvement, and
planning tools
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Leadership
Strategic Planning
Customer (and Market) Focus
Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge
Human Resource Focus
Process Management
Organizational Performance Results
Road Map for Partnership
How do we reconcile state/local ownership,
investment in, and ongoing support of
significant infrastructure for seismic
monitoring with the prescriptions of ANSS
decision makers?
Key System Goals








Rapid Parametric Information
Data Exchange
Information Distribution
Quality Control
Security
Public Archive
One earthquake, one report
Reliability
Where We Are Now
“20 Questions” distributed prior to WG-A,
but compared against proposed standards
 Report discusses survey and provides link
to all responses
 No seismic network meets proposed
standards
 Effort will be substantial to meet proposed
standards

Where-We-Are Now Findings







Standardization of algorithms lacking
Need for reconciliation of multiple reports
of earthquakes
Limited centralized waveform archiving
No standardized error estimates
Inadequate metadata
Uneven exchange of waveform data
between networks
Little strong motion processing
Where-We-Are Now Findings

No uniformity of magnitude calculation
 Moment tensor calculations produced
only by AEIC, CISN, and NEIC
 ShakeMaps produced only by PNSN,
CISN, Utah, and Nevada
 Parametric data publicly available only
from NEIC, AEIC, CISN, and Utah
Consider 3 ANSS Architectures

Decentralized
– Processing occurs at regional centers
– Product conflict resolved nationally
– Backed up by national facility

TIC Plan
– Like Decentralized but one center per region

Centralized
– All processing at a “national facility” or IPS
– Raw data (waveforms, picks) forwarded from data
concentrators
– Always authoritative, but backed up by regions
Decentralized Processing
OFR 02-92 Nomenclature
WEB
EQalert
Info outlet
Data processing
Concentrator
Waveforms
Products
ANSS
Central
Site
Archive(s)
EOC
OES
Regional
Seismic
Networks
WEB
Stations
EQalert
Pros






Similar to current
situation
Robust since data
close to processing
Autonomy fosters
local solutions
Primary role justifies
local funding
Local knowledge
utilized
Regional data sharing
sufficient to monitor
Cons

Facilities at risk from
earthquakes
 Difficult to standardize
data exchange
 Rules required to resolve
authoritative information
 Expensive to staff 7X24
 Difficult to integrate global
data sets into local archive
 Duplication of efforts
potentially wasteful
TIC Plan
OFR 02-92 Nomenclature
WEB
EQalert
Info outlet
ANSS
Central
Site
Data processing
Concentrator
Waveforms
Products
Archive(s)
Regional
Centers
EOC
OES
Stations
WEB
EQalert
Subregional
Seismic
Networks
Stations
Pros



Similar to
“Decentralized” model
Processing could be
performed in areas of
lower seismic hazard
Fewer units decreases
complexity of system
Cons



Similar to “Decentralized”
model
Potentially expensive to
establish new regional
centers, and given current
level of funding, unlikely to
receive much support
Uneven work loads from
region to region
Integrated Processing Service
OFR 02-92 Nomenclature
WEB
EQalert
Info outlet
Data processing
Concentrator
Waveforms
Products
continuous?
IPS
EOC
OES
ANSS Archive
IRIS, NCEDC,
and SCECDC
FEMA,
NOAA…
RSNs
NEIC
WEB
Stations
EQalert
Pros












Simplifies standardization and delivery
Comprehensive view of earthquake
Integrates global data for large US
quakes
Eliminates conflicting reports
Minimizes 7X24 cost
IPS could be located in area of minimal
seismic risk
Experienced staff respond
Local scientists unburdened from
technical response during crises
All products go into a central DBMS
Continuous waveform archive possible
Distribution of RT waveforms to R&D
groups
Single connection for Earthscope
USArray and PBO data streams
Cons










Data less robust due to long paths
Loss of local knowledge
Requires methodologies for
local/regional/global
Regional identity (funding?) diminished
Local incentive to invent diminished
Data analyst motivation diminished
Could take years to develop
Single point of algorithm, hardware, and
distribution failure
Transfer of software back to regional
networks disruptive
Full waveform exchange costly over
DTS; impacts campus traffic if over
Internet
WG-E Recommendations

Software management group (SMG)
(person?) should
– write guidelines for ANSS software
oversight with TIC/NIC review/approval
– develop specifications for next
generation of ANSS software
– include cost estimates and milestones
– address regional and global needs
– complete work by 10/31/2005 (?)
Recommendations continued

Software should
– be open source if possible
– evaluated in its full context of
development, ownership, and
maintenance
– permit centralized, decentralized, and
“hybrid” modes of operation. One size
does not fit all.
Recommendations continued

TIC should
– allow/invite comment on specifications
– have authority to modify specifications
based on comments
– ensure specifications have broad
political and technical support across
ANSS
Recommendations continued

ANSS management should
– review document in early FY06 &
allocate funding
– Invite universities to participate in
development of software projects
– Conduct a benefit-cost analysis in FY06
or FY07
– Adopt Baldrige National Quality
Program
Recommendations continued

ANSS management and principal
stakeholders should develop a standard
MOA that
– defines how partners will participate in ANSS
– considers political issues (regional/state/local,
centralized/decentralized/hybrid, “Road Map
for Partnership”)
– defines performance standards to be met
Recommendations (finally..)

Regarding OFR 02-92, WGE
– Abandon concept of one primary center
per ANSS region
Closing thoughts
WGE was unable to reach full
consensus on the end state.
Geopolitical realities are clearly a
paramount challenge
 Network operators are justifiably
concerned about self-preservation
 We have the opportunity to be
visionary
