Some Thoughts on IMWSome Thoughts on IMWAnd OpportunityAnd Opportunity

We represent a big area of the ANSS national program

Bob SmithUniv. of Utah

What We Are Up Against!What We Are Up Against!

$4.1B US, with only $0.2B in the Intermountain West

FEMA Annualized Earthquake Loss Estimate (2000)

IMW has twice the area of the west coast (lower 48) and some of the highest population growth centers in the entire U.S.

We need to just justify a proposal with consensus and as an integrated regional program within a ANSS national scheme.

Historic Seismicity of Historic Seismicity of the Intermountain Westthe Intermountain West

Properties:1. Nucleation at the mid-crustal

brittle-ductile transition,2. 45° to 70° dipping, planar dip-

and oblique-slip faulting,3. Fault-bounded sedimentary

basins,4. Large dynamic stresses and

large hanging-wall accelerations.

Working Model For Working Model For Normal-Faulting EarthquakesNormal-Faulting Earthquakes

What’s Driving Earthquakes What’s Driving Earthquakes Now!Now!

GPS velocity field (interpolated)

Deviatoric Strain-rate Tensor Field

We are different from CaliforniaIMW unique earthquake shaking scenarios need normal-fault/basin data that ANSS can provide.

(after Archuleta and Smith, 2006)

Need S-wave data of fault-bounded valleys forlocal site effects, attenuation, etc.

for dynamic groundshaking models withunexpectedly large PGAs and PGVs.

IMW NEHRP and ANSS Earthquake Research Needs

• Evaluate site-specific amplification on fault-bounded alluvial valleys and with appropriate stress drops and dynamic stress conditions.

• Incorporate local site conditions, Vs30, and directivity in hazard assessments and scenarios.

• Report earthquake catalogs using 3D velocity models.

• Acquire strong to weak-ground-motions and develop attenuation relationships for extensional regimes.

• Evaluate stochastic, characteristic, and cluster earthquake recurrence models.

• Understand the relationship of contemporary deformation to inter-seismic loading and post-seismic relaxation of active faults.

• Integrate seismic, geologic, and geodetic for time-dependent seismic hazards focusing on broader geographic, including need urban assessments.

• Take advantage of data acquired by EarthScope arrays, before they are gone!

• Understand the physics of lithospheric extension and the mechanisms of normal faults.

IMW & USArray Stations

Earthquake Monitoring of the eastern Intermountain West, 2006

Seismic Networks:- Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology- University of Utah Seismograph Stations- Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab- USGS Teton Network- United States National Seismic Network- Northern Arizona University

USArray Transportable Array Siting and Recon for the 2006-2008 Deployment

- Non Reconned- Reconned

USArray Array + Existing Networks,A Dense ArrayA Dense Array

- Non Reconned- Reconned

Integrated Intermountain Earthquake MonitoringAn Unprecedented OpportunityAn Unprecedented Opportunity

- USArray Seismographs

- GPS

- Regional Seismic Networks

Areas of possible TA adoptions (blue), 2006-2008,and ANSS Expansion (red)

A Partial Solution: Adoption of selected ANSS stations

ANSS broadband station with accelerometer

Initial Outlay: Low HighObtain a permit allowing for continued operations $0 500One time equipment purchase - either:

1) Adopter replaces sensors/DAS/solar/comms $0 02) Adopter provides sensors/DAS/solar/comms for TA install $10,0003) Adopt station as is:

STS-2 CMG-3T$16,000 $14,000 $14,000 $16,000

Comm and powerCell $5,000 5000 $5,000 5000

Accelerometer $3,000 3000 $3,000 3000Construction costs $5,000 10000Data logger $10,000 10000

Total adopt as is: $37,000 $28,500

Note: TA permits, excavates, constructs and installs at average $21,000 per site

Annualized outlay:Communications:

Monthly total: $10,000 $10,000Conditions:

1) Adopter must obtain a permit from the landowner for continued operation beyond the ANSS permit duration.2) Data from the station must be made publically available via the USGS database and IRIS DMC

A Partial Solution: Adoption of selected USArray stationsANSS has up to 80 of 400 existing instruments available and 60 have six channels for FBAs

Document by TA resulting from discussions of TA, USGS and NSF being prepared.

USArray Transportable Array Station Adoption

Initial Outlay: Low HighObtain a permit allowing for continued operations $0 500One time equipment purchase - either:

1) Adopter replaces sensors/DAS/solar/comms $0 02) Adopter provides sensors/DAS/solar/comms for TA install $10,0003) Adopt station as is:

STS-2 CMG-3Tsensor $16,200 $12,300DAS $9,200 $9,200Pwr & cables $2,250 $2,250Demob credit ($4,152) ($4,152)

$23,498 $19,598 $19,598 $23,498This is without accelerometers

Plus communications:Cell $1,400Radio to terminal $4,700 $1,400 6200Radio to VSAT $6,200Radio to internet $4,400

Plus solar powerYes $8,300 $0 8300No $0

Total adopt as is: $20,998 $38,498Note: TA permits, excavates, constructs and installs at average $21,000 per site

Monthly outlay:Permit $0 42Maintenance/repair/replacement $0 851Communications:

Cell 100Radio to terminal 100 $10 130Radio to VSAT 130Radio to internet 10

Monthly total: $10 $1,023Conditions:

1) Adopter must obtain a permit from the landowner for continued operation beyond the TA permit duration.2) Data from the station must be made publically available via IRIS DMC

Recommendations

Develop a unified plan (patterned after CISN) that documents a consensus of needs for all of ANSS-IMW with integrated recording and archiving.

Highlight the importance of IMW as a key element of the national ANSS network.

Point out the parallel science needs to improve earthquake science and the ANSS network.

Emphasize partnerships that can benefit ANSS with University matching funds and direct support, state funds, EarthScope, USGS, other agencies, etc.

Make explicit plans for new ANSS stations and for USArray adoptions.

Develop data access for non-seismological users: engineering-science and for general educational and outreach.

Catch 22 -- University faculty are restricted from making direct congressional contacts for lobbying purposes, particularly if funds are already being sought for parallel purposes.