The NEESgrid Experience: 2000 2003

1
The NEESgrid Experience2000 - 2003

• Tom FinholtSchool of InformationUniversity of
  Michigan
• This work was supported primarily by the George
  E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering
  Simulation (NEES) program of the National Science
  Foundation under award number CMS-0117853.
  Support was also provided by the National Science
  Foundation through the ITR program under award
  number IIS-0085951.

2
Outline

• The earthquake engineering community
• The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake
  Engineering Simulation
• NEESgrid the collaboratory element of NEES
• Challenges Successes
• The field of dreams

3
The earthquake engineering community

• Research
• University-based
• Funded by NSF and industry
• Focus on simulation
• Physical models (e.g., reduced scale specimens)
• Numerical models (e.g., finite element analysis)
• Practice
• Professional firms
• Structural engineering (e.g., earthquake
  remediation)
• Formulation of uniform building codes
• Lifelines (e.g., ensure survival of roads,
  gaslines, power distribution)

4
Bhuj, India. One of the towers of this apartment
complex totally collapsed,and the central
stairway leaned on another building of the
complex. Photo courtesy of Dr. J.P. Bardet,
University of Southern Californiahttp//geoinfo.u
sc.edu/gees/RecentEQ/India_Gujarat/Report/Damage/B
huj/Bardet_Feb18.html
5
Instruments

• Structural
• reaction walls
• shake tables
• field test
• Geotechnical
• centrifuges
• field test
• Tsunami
• wave basins

6
Shake table Nevada, Reno
7
Reaction wall Minnesota
8
Centrifuge UC Davis
9
Wave basin Oregon State
10
Survey methods

• Technical surveys
• Response from fourteen of fifteen sites
• Practice survey (2002)
• Administered to 444 engineers
• 187 responses (42)
• 11 non-NEES equipment sites
• 9 women
• 56 students
• 39 from Year 1 (26 repeat response rate)

11
Practice survey Data use
12
Practice survey Collaboration
13
George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation

• NSF Major Research Equipment and Facility
  Construction award (MRE)
• 82 million, 2001-04
• 10 million for system integration (NCSA, ANL,
  USC-ISI, Michigan, Oklahoma)
• 2 million for consortium development (CUREE)
• 60 million for new equipment sites
• 3 shake tables (Buffalo, Nevada-Reno, UCSD)
• 2 centrifuges (RPI, UC Davis)
• 5 reaction walls (Berkeley, Buffalo, Colorado,
  Illinois, Lehigh, Minnesota)
• 3 field test (Texas, UCSB/USC/BYU, UCLA)
• 1 lifeline (Cornell)
• 1 tsunami (Oregon State)

14
(No Transcript)
15
NEES expectations

• Community survey (2002)
• Stratified on region (six regions CA, NW, SW,
  MW, SE, NE) and sub-field (e.g., structural,
  geotechnical etc.)
• EERI membership roll and key tsunami mailing
  lists as sampling frame
• n 361 (99 responses 27)
• Workshop survey (2002)
• Registered participants in nineteen of the twenty
  regional workshops
• The survey administration was not ready for the
  first workshop held in Charleston, SC
• n 287 (260 responses 91)

16
Summary of survey results

• Workshop and community respondents share
  consensus about NEES expectations
• but level of agreement is much higher among
  workshop respondents
• Access to experimental data is paramount
• and is more important than access to
  experimental facilities for both workshop and
  community respondents
• Producing standard data formats is a critical
  goal
• Workshop respondents skewed toward academic,
  structural earthquake engineers

17
Why is NEES exciting?

• Funding
• scientists recruited through the NEES equipment
  site program and through the NEES grand challenge
  program
• Recognition
• innovative system
• highly visible to earthquake engineering and
  computer science communities (e.g., SC 2002 demo)
• Novel capabilities
• first operational use of Globus/OGSA technology
• hybrid operations -- combining numerical and
  physical simulations

18
NEESgrid the collaboratory element of NEES

• Primary
• Shared instrument
• Community data system
• Secondary
• Distributed research center
• Virtual community of practice

19
(No Transcript)
20
Technology involved

• Globus/OGSA (USC ISI and ANL)
• GSI and Gridftp
• CHEF (Michigan)
• Telepresence systems (ANL)
• Data repository (NCSA)
• Deployment, operations, and support (NCSA)

21
Whats A Grid?
http//
Web Uniform access to documents
http//
Software catalogs
Grid Flexible, high-performance access to
resources for distributed communities
Computers
Sensors and instruments
Data archives
Colleagues
Source Harvey Newman, Caltech
22
NEESgrid High-Level Architecture
Portal, Web and 3rd Party End User Interfaces
APIs, Tools and Libraries Supporting End User
Interfaces
Collaboration Services
Data Information Services
TelepresenceServices
Simulation Analysis Services
APIs Supporting Higher Level Information Services
Grid Resource Management Middleware
System Resources Compute, Network, Data Storage,
Testing Sites

• Capabilities
• data, simulation, collaboration, visualization,
  telepresence
• validated and improved via EA demonstration
  scenarios and delivered via
• APIs and tools for users
• services and interfaces at equipment and resource
  sites
• management services for operation

23
NEESgrid interface
24
System evolution

• Scoping study
• NCSA, ISI, ANL, UM
• Alpha 1.0
• demonstrated at UNR, November 2002
• released February 2003
• Alpha 1.1
• released June 2003
• MOST experiment
• real-time control of reaction wall from numerical
  simulation
• UIUC and Colorado, July 2003

25
Multi-Site, On-Line Simulation Test (MOST)July
2003
SAC Consortium Benchmark Structure
26
Multi-Site, On-Line Simulation Test (MOST)
UIUC Experimental Model
Colorado Experimental Model
SIMULATION COORDINATOR

• UIUC MUST-SIM
• Dan Abrams
• Amr Elnashai
• Dan Kuchma
• Bill Spencer
• and others
• Colorado FHT
• Benson Shing
• and others

NCSA Computational Model
27
MOST Column Test Specimens
Illinois Test Specimen
Colorado Test Specimen
28
Challenges

• Confused lines of authority
• Cultural differences
• Different jargon
• Different world views

29
Confused lines of authority

• NEES program (2000-2004)
• NEESgrid, system integration
• NEES Consortium Development
• 15 equipment sites
• NEES Consortium (2003-2014)
• Board and Executive Committee
• Standing Committees

30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Earthquake engineers in Hofstedes scheme

• Power distance
• Hierarchical
• Bias toward seniority
• Individualist
• My lab is my empire
• Solo PI model
• Masculine
• Adversarial
• Competitive
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Highly skeptical of new technologies
• Extremely risk adverse

34
Grid specialists in Hofstedes scheme

• Power distance
• Egalitarian at development level
• Bias toward talent
• Collectivist
• Use the Internet to create worldwide communities
• Project model
• Masculine
• Adversarial
• Competitive
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Extremely open to new technologies
• Extremely risk seeking

35
Agreeing on terms
36
How earthquake engineers think
Customer Need
Customer Requirements
Structure Design
Structure Construction
Structure Acceptance
Structure Operations
Customer Needs Assessment
37
How grid specialists think
38
Successes

• Scientific
• First teleobservation of shake table (November
  2002)
• First data saved to repository (November 2002)
• Community
• NEES Consortium incorporated (January 2003)
• First NEES Consortium meeting (May 2003)
• Use of prototype tools
• Future
• MOST experiment, July 2003
• Operational collaboratory October 1, 2004

39
NEESgrid November 2002 Demonstration

• Earthquake simulation at UNR early adopter site
• biaxial shake table with cameras and
  instrumentation
• 40 scale model of a two span bridge
• concrete slab over steel girders
• Bridge model instrumented with sensors
• strain gauges, load cells, displacement,
  acceleration

40
NEESgrid November 2002 Demonstration

• CHEF-based collaborative framework
• Electronic notebook for data recording
• Experiment management tools
• data and metadata
• Streaming data and video
• teleobservation of experiment
• data channels from sensors
• Data analysis and visualization

Tele-observation
SAP2000? model
41
Prototype tool use

• H.323 videoconferencing
• Worktools
• Placeware

42
Use of H.323 videoconferencing
NSF LAN meetings
b
c
d
a
UNR Demo
a initial ES-TF meeting b ES-TF meeting time
changed c succession to new ES-TF chair d
change to biweekly ES-TF meetings
43
Use of H.323 videoconferencing
44
Use of H.323 videoconferencing
45
Use of Worktools
46
Use of Worktools
47
Use of Worktools
48
Use of Worktools
49
The field of dreams
I was sitting on the verandah of my farm house in
eastern Iowa when a voice clearly said to me, If
you build it, he will come. Ray Kinsella in
Shoeless Joe, by W.P. Kinsella
Image source http//www.fieldofdreamsmoviesite.co
m/
50
Building it so they will come

• Balance contributions (pp. 50-51 in the Atkins
  report)
• Weight domain science too heavily?
• Overemphasize procurement of existing
  technologies
• Computer scientists become viewed as merely
  consultants and implementers
• Weight computer science too heavily?
• End user needs insufficiently addressed
• Emphasis on novelty at the expense of usability
  and stability

Source Atkins report --http//www.communitytechno
logy.org/nsf_ci_report/
51
Innovation vs. extrapolation
Innovation

• computational grids

• e-science

Social Technological Forces

• collaboratories

• distance learning

• community networks

• electronic commerce

• digital libraries

• electronic journals

• video conferencing

Extrapolation
52
Building it so they will come

• Give users objects to think with (scenarios,
  mock-ups, prototypes)
• Be patientlet users convince themselves
• Know where youve been (collect baseline data)
  and whats changed (collect data as you go along)

53
(No Transcript)