Themes by Tom Henyey

1
ThemesbyTom Henyey
2
Shared MindsbyMichael Schrage
3
Multidisciplinary Interaction
CollaborationCollaboration is one of the most
productive and important of all human
relationships.
4
Real Science- the science that matters, the
science that changes our views of reality -is
an elaborate and inherently collaborative process.
5
In collaboration you try to get a communal mind
going you want to get peoples minds to interact
as components of a larger mind.You get a
communal brain.What matters are not just the
individual talents. But the ability to integrate
them.Collaboration is the process of shared
creation.
6
Creatinga shared understandingis simply a
different task than exchanging information.
7
Collaboration is not the sum of individual
actionsrather collaboration must be greater
than thesum of the individual parts.
8
SCEC'S Master Theme

• The whole (Center) is greater than the sum of the
  individual parts (Investigators).

9
If we now return to Schrage's thesis that
collaboration must be greater than the sum of the
individual parts, thenCenter
CollaborationAnd thus one measure of our
success as a center is to look for evidence of
collaboration.
10
Evidence for Collaboration(Collaboration
Themes) Common Goal Master Model
11
(No Transcript)
12
Evidence for Collaboration Interactive
Opportunities Opportunities for Communication

• Working groups
• Workshops
• Symposia
• Field campaigns
• Annual meeting

13
Evidence for Collaboration Integration

• Phase I, II, and III reports
• Earthquake ground motion scenarios
• Los Angeles basin velocity model
• Southern California Integrated GPS network
• Workshops and symposia

14
Integration of GPS into Risk Estimation
15
Fence Diagram from the SCEC Seismic Velocity
Model of Southern California
16

• Top panel A sonogram type image originally
  for oil exploration made by recording signals
  from a vibrator moving along a north-south line.
  The vibrations reflect off buried structures
  which can be seen in the data when all
  seismograms are looked at together. Knowing the
  structures beneath southern California allows for
  better understanding of where earthquakes can
  occur, and how the ground will shake as a result.
  These data were used to construct the upper
  diagram showing that this was the causal fault
  for the 1987 earthquake.
• Bottom panel Diagram of sub-surface structure in
  southeast Los Angeles County. The relationship
  between the Whittier Narrows blind fault that
  warps the overlying strata, and the 1987 Whittier
  Narrows earthquake is shown.

17
Evidence for Collaboration Shared Facilities

• Data Centers (CIT, UCSB, UCSD)
• Santa Barbara Instrument Center
• SCIGN
• Post-Doctoral Fellows program
• Summer Undergraduate Intern program

18
GPS Velocity Map of Southern California
19
Evidence for Collaboration System-level
Science

• Seismic hazard models
• Fault system behavior (e.g., faults of Los
  Angeles)

20
(No Transcript)
21

• Top panel Surface projections of major fault
  systems of the Los Angeles area. Edges with
  triangles represent the tops of the fault
  planes solid if the fault breaks the surface
  and hollow if the fault is buried. The opposite
  edge of each fault system mapped above represents
  the bottom of the fault plane which is
  generally 10-15 km deep. Black areas are the
  surfaces which moved during earthquakes
  (including the black line on the near-vertical
  San Andreas fault). The magnitude listed is for
  a hypothetical earthquake which breaks the entire
  fault system.
• Bottom panel 51 potential moderate (M6.5-M6.8)
  earthquakes on the major fault systems. Numbers
  denote the recurrence intervals for earthquakes
  in each section.

22
Evidence for Collaboration Problem
IdentificationandConsensus Building

• Phase I, II, and III reports
• Focus on the Los Angeles basin
• SCIGN
• LARSE I and II

23
SCEC Phase III Report

• An investigation of how and if site effects can
  be accounted for in probabilistic seismic hazard
  analysis (PSHA) in southern California
• Conclusions
• 1) Detailed classification (beyond rock versus
  soil) is justified with the Wills et al.
  (2000) map.
• 2) Basin depth is a significant factor, even
  for PGA (but may be a proxy).
• 3) Uncertainty (sigma) remains high after site
  corrections.

24
Evidence for Collaboration Pooled Manpower
and Resources

• LARSE I and II
• Post-earthquake responses
• SCIGN

25
Los Angeles Regional Seismic Experiment

• Top panel
• Crustal structure image across the Los
  Angeles basin and San Gabriel Mountains from
  seismic transect.
• Bottom panel Interpretation of fault structure
  based on data from top panel.

26
Evidence for Collaboration Post-earthquakeRes
ponse

• Landers
• Northridge
• Hector Mine
• Turkey

27
Evidence for Collaboration Interdisciplinary
Education and Training

• Summer Undergraduate Intern program
• Post-doctoral Fellows and Graduate student
  programs at core institutions
• LARSE I and II
• Annual meetings and poster sessions
• Workshops

28
Evidence for Collaboration Partnerships, and
Links to Other Earthquake Information Providers
Research Entities

• With USGS
• With JPL/NASA
• With CDMG
• With PEER/CUREe
• With many through SCEC's Education and Knowledge
  Transfer program

29
Collaboration between Earth Scientists and
Engineers
30
Other Important Center Attributes

• Sustained scientific efforts
• Seeded occasional "risky" projects
• Addressed the same natural laboratory
• Open data policy
• Knowledge transfer activities
• Broadened graduate education

31
Collaboration Themes Summary

• Common goal
• Interactive communication opportunities
• Integration
• Shared facilities
• System-level science
• Problem identification consensus building
• Pooled manpower and resources
• Post-earthquake response
• Interdisciplinary education training
• Partnerships and links

32
I maintain that the evidence of successful
collaboration is overwhelming.Thus, according
to the premise thatCenter Collaborationwe
must declare that SCEC is, in fact, greater than
the sum of its parts, and a success!