SAFER Seismic EArly Warning For EuRope Seismic Early Warning Naples Bucharest Athens Istanbul Cairo Iceland Switzerland Greece The starting point The SAFER.

SAFERSeismic EArly Warning For EuRope

SeismicEarly

Warning

Naples

Bucharest

Athens

Istanbul

Cairo

Iceland

Switzerland

Greece

The starting point

The SAFER plan

Achievements

What next?

Future tasks

The agenda

Earthquake Early Warning

Seconds before the earthquake hits!

ProcessUnderstanding

Scientists

HazardAssessment

Scientists

RiskAssessment

Scientists,Engineers

SafeBuilding

Engineers

VariousGroups

KnowledgeTransfer

RapidEarthquakeInformation

Scientists,Engineers

Early Warning

Decision Makers,

Local Author.

RapidImpact

Assessment

Scientists,Engineers

The Disaster Reduction Chain Early warning is an important component!

SAFER Where did we start?

SeismicEarly

Warning

Bucharest

Istanbul

In seismic early warningEurope was far behindthe US, Japan, Taiwan

and Mexico!

Only Istanbul and Bucharesthad started to develop

EW-capabilities for their cities!

In particular,the shake map technologyhad not been implemented

in Europe!

What Did We Have in Mind?

Naples

Bucharest

Athens

Istanbul

Cairo

Iceland

Switzerland

Greece

Develop seismic early warning methods and capabilities for Europe Implement and test new methods in European test areas and -cities

Seismic EWSeismic EW - Probabilistic and Evolutionary Approach to - Probabilistic and Evolutionary Approach to Real-Time Distance, Magnitude and PGA (AMRA/SAFER)Real-Time Distance, Magnitude and PGA (AMRA/SAFER)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

a., b., c.: Real-Time distributions of source-to-site distance, magnitude, and PGA a., b., c.: Real-Time distributions of source-to-site distance, magnitude, and PGA

(at site); d. Lead-time map (when 4 stations have triggered) and real-time risk (at site); d. Lead-time map (when 4 stations have triggered) and real-time risk

reduction actions; e. Decisional rule based on PGA- and false alarm probabilities.reduction actions; e. Decisional rule based on PGA- and false alarm probabilities.

However:The problem of

large magnitudes(from the first seconds)!

Achievements:A New Concept

forRegional Early Warning

CNRS/SAFER- Achievements:Rapid Source Parameters Within Minutes

TIME

Earthquake origin time

Earthquake detection and localisation

"Early P-wave magnitude"A few seconds

Early warning

Global CMT solutions: > 1 hour

Moment magnitude Mw2 minutes

Rapid sourceparameters

Step 1

Focal mechanism15 minutes

Step 2

40 minutesSlip distributionStep 3

Earthquake detection and localisation„Early P-wave magnitude“

Achievements (GFZ):Rapid determination of the energy magnitude Me

The case of the great Sumatra earthquake

Me determination using (S-P) time windows for the 26 December, 2004 Sumatra earthquake. Already about 15 min after OT our procedure could have provided a

stable Me determination.More details can be found in Di Giacomo et al. (GRL 2008).

D. Di Giacomo, H. Grosser, S. Parolai, P. Bormann, and R. Wang

GEM

“Decentralized” versus “centralized” systems

Client station

A new technology for seismic early warning!

Basic Featuresself-organizing!decentralized!

low-cost!dense!

Achievements (GFZ/HU): People Centered Early Warning System Self Organizing Mesh Networks for Early Warning and Rapid Response

“People centered“ versus „one voice“

Actual

(Magnitude 6.3)

after D. Wald, USGS

6/4/09 7/4/09 8/4/09 9/4/09 10/4/09 11/4/09

BBC

dpa

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Rapid Damage and Loss AssessmentRapid Damage and Loss Assessment Time-Line of Information Availability on Death Toll DueTime-Line of Information Availability on Death Toll Due to the L`Aquila M=6.2 event on April 6th 2009to the L`Aquila M=6.2 event on April 6th 2009

First 12 hours:Death Toll < 50!

More rapid and more preciseimpact assessment

is needed!

Achievements (WAPMERR/NORSAR):

Achievements (test sites): Ground Shaking Intensity Can be Overlayed on Infrastructure!

RapidImpact

Assessment

Shake-Maps within a few minutes!(The Northridge Scenario)

Ground Shaking IntensityThe shake-map-technologyhas now been implemented

through SAFERin many places in Europe!

andreal-time damage assessment

is feasible,but needs more testing (GEM?)

New Application of Time-Dependent Hazard Assessment:

Near Real-TimeAftershock Forecasting

Combining Non-Stationary Statistics

with Physics of Earthquakes

Achievements (GFZ/ETH):

Achievements (NGI):

Early Warningfor

Earthquake Induced Landslides

Achievements: Visibility

American Geophysical Union (AGU), Dec 2007

European Seismological Comm. (ESC), Sept 2008

European Geosciences Union (EGU), April 2008

European Geosciences Union (EGU), April 2009

2nd International Workshop on Earthquake Early Warning, Kyoto, Japan, April 2009

Major Contributions to International Meetings

Dissemination

Public Relation

Achievements: Publications

International Journals: More than 30

Book on Early Warning (Springer)

Presentations: More than 100

Second Book (Springer) in Preparation

Special Volume in Geophys. Research Letters Special Issue of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (SDEE, in Preparation))

Further Achievements

Contracting many young scientists

Contributing to the networking between large European projects like NERIES, TRANSFER,…..

Forming a European Science Community in the field of Seismic Early Warning

FINAL DEADLINES

SAFER FINAL MEETING JUNE 3th-5th

END OF THE PROJECT JUNE 14th

DEADLINE FOR SUBMITING THE FINAL ACTIVITY REPORT AND FINANCIAL REPORT (INCLUDING AUDIT CERTIFICATES)

JULY 30th

PROPOSED SCHEDULE

REPORTS FROM WP LEADERS AND TEST SITE LEADERS JUNE 15th

FINANCIAL REPORTS AND AUDIT CERTIFICATES JULY 15th

SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL REPORT JULY 30th

SAFERFinal Deadlines and Proposed Schedule

Partner D Total Delivered Missing Percentage

GFZ 18 10 8 55,56%

AMRA 13 10 3 76,92%

UNIKARL* 7 7 0 100,00%

KOERI 4 1 3 25,00%

UBER 6 3 3 50,00%

INGV 6 5 1 83,33%

NOA 7 4 3 57,14%

NKUA 9 4 5 44,44%

CNRS** 1 0 1 0,00%

EMSC 2 2 0 100,00%

ETHZ 6 5 1 83,33%

NIEP 6 6 0 100,00%

NORSAR 7 6 1 85,71%

NGI 4 2 2 50,00%

IMOR 10 4 6 40,00%

WAPMER 2 2 0 100,00%

SELEX 3 2 1 66,67%

NRIAG 2 0 2 0,00%

KNMI 0 0 0  

CEDIM 2 2 0 100,00%

Berkeley 1 0 1 0,00%

TOTAL 116 75 41 64,66%

* del 2.17 and del.4.18 are identical

** CNRS has delivered its contribution to del.2,5 but the deliverable has not been completed yet

SAFERDeliverables

ReportAgendaVision