The NEESgrid Experience: 2000 - 2003

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

The NEESgrid Experience:2000 - 2003

Tom Finholt

School of InformationUniversity of Michigan


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


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)


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.usc.edu/gees/RecentEQ/India_Gujarat/Report/Damage/Bhuj/Bardet_Feb18.html


Instruments Structural

– reaction walls– shake tables– field test

Geotechnical– centrifuges– field test

Tsunami– wave basins


Shake table: Nevada, Reno


Reaction wall: Minnesota


Centrifuge: UC Davis


Wave basin: Oregon State


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)


Practice survey: Data use

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Do you use data you collect? (2001)

Do you use data you collect? (2002)

Do you use data collected by othersworking with you? (2001)

Do you use data collected by othersworking with you? (2002)

Do you use data collected by othersindependent of you? (2001)

Do you use data collected by othersindependent of you? (2002)

Not usually or never

sometimes

usually or always


Practice survey: Collaboration2001 2002

Item Mean SD Mean SD

Number of collaborations you are currently involved with

2.5 6.1 2.3 4.7

Number of collaborations with remote participants

1.4 3.2 1.3 3.6

Number of collaborators on your primary collaboration

5.7 7.1 6.1 7.3

Number of collaborators from prior collaborations in primary collaboration

1.6 3.1 1.7 3.0


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)


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%)


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


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


NEESgrid – the collaboratory element of NEES

Primary– Shared instrument– Community data system

Secondary– Distributed research center– Virtual community of practice


Technology involved Globus/OGSA (USC ISI and ANL)

– GSI and Gridftp CHEF (Michigan) Telepresence systems (ANL) Data repository (NCSA) Deployment, operations, and support (NCSA)


What’s A Grid?

http://http://

http://http://

Web: Uniform access to documents

Grid: Flexible, high-performance access to resources for distributed communities

Sensors andinstruments

Data archives

Computers

Softwarecatalogs

Colleagues

Source: Harvey Newman, Caltech


NEESgrid High-Level Architecture

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

System Resources: Compute, Network, Data Storage, Testing Sites

Grid Resource Management Middleware

APIs Supporting Higher Level Information Services

Collaboration Services

Data & InformationServices

TelepresenceServices

Simulation & Analysis Services

Portal, Web and 3rd Party End User Interfaces

APIs, Tools and Libraries Supporting End User Interfaces


NEESgrid interface


System evolution Scoping study

– NCSA, ISI, ANL, UM Alpha 1.0

– demonstrated at UNR, November 2002– released February 2003

Alpha 1.1– released May 2003

MOST experiment– real-time control of reaction wall from numerical

simulation– UIUC and Colorado, July 2003


gx

Multi-Site, On-Line Simulation Test (MOST)July 2003

UIUC

Experimental Model

gx

f1

m1

NCSA Computational Model

m1

f1f2 f2

Colorado

Experimental Model

gx

SAC Consortium Benchmark Structure


Multi-Site, On-Line Simulation Test (MOST)

ColoradoColoradoExperimental Model

gx

f2m1, 1

F2

F1

e

gx

=

gx

f1, x1

UIUCUIUC Experimental Model

gx

m1

f1 f2

NCSANCSA

Computational Model

SIMULATIONSIMULATION

COORDINATORCOORDINATOR

NEESpop NEESpop

NEESpop

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


MOST Column Test Specimens

Illinois Test Specimen

Colorado Test Specimen


Challenges

Confused lines of authority

Cultural differences– Different jargon– Different world views


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

O rganization of the NEES Program , 2000-03

S ystem Arch itec tsC arl K esse lm an & Ian Fo s ter

C o m m un ity R eq u irem en tsT o m Fin ho lt

S im ula tionK im M ish

D eplo ym ent an d Tra in ingR an dy Bu tler

P ro jec t D irec torD an R eed

N EE S g rid

IT and N etw ork ingC h err i P ancake

B u s in ess P lanR o bert N igb or

C o llab o ra tory Vis ionS teve M ah in

E d uca tion an d O u treachS h aro n W o od

P ro jec t D irec torR o bert R e ith e rm an

N EE S C o n so rtium D eve lo pm ent

U C S an D iegoA n dré F ilia trau lt

B u ffa loM iche l Bru neau

N evad a , R enoIan Bu ck le

S h ake T ab les

B u ffa loM iche l Bru neau

U C B erke leyJack M oeh le

L ehighJ im R ic les

M inn eso taC ath y F ren ch

Illin o isA m r E ln ash ai

C olo radoB en so n Sh ing

R eaction W alls

U C L AJo h n W a llace

F ie ld T est

S tru ctu ra l S ites

R P IR icard o D ob ry

U C D av isB ru ce Ku tter

C entr ifug es

T exasK en Sto koe

B YU /U C SB /U S CL es Yo u nt

F ie ld T est

C o rn e llH arry S tew art

L ifeline

G eo tech n ical S ites

O rego n S ta teS o lo m o n Y im

W ave B as in

T su nam i S ite

N EE S Eq u ipm en t S ites

N SF NEE S pro g ramJo y P au sch ke , Pro g ram M anag er

BYU/UCSB/USCLes Youd

O rganization of NEES Consortium , 2003-2014

T B DExecu tive D irec tor

Ian Bu ck lePresid ent

B ru ce Ku tterV ice Pres id ent

R icard o D ob ry

A n dre Re inh o rn

K enn eth S tokoe

So lo m o n Y im

Eq u ipm ent S ite D irec to rs

Jam es W ig ht

H e lm u t Kraw in k ler

T h alia An agn os

In s titu tio n al Directo rs

R o bert N igb orSecre ta ry

G rego ry D e ier le in

Sh aro n W o od

In d iv id ua l Directo rs

C raig Co m artinT reasurer

K im M ish

C arl S tepp

B o ard -elec ted Directo rs

N EES Co n so rtiu m , In c.B o ard of Directo rs

O rganization of N EES C onsortium , 2003-2014

T B DE xecu tive D irec tor

M arc Eb erh ard

R o berto Leon

S h ir ley D yke

Jo An n Bro w n ing

E lec ted b y a ll ca tego ries

R o ss B ou lan g er

S tep hen M ah in

A n dré F ilia trau lt

D av id S and ers

Jo h n W allace

T B D

E lec ted by equ ip m en t s ites

T B D

T B D

B o ard ap po inted

S h ared Use Co m m ittee

Jacob o Bie lak

F in ley Ch arn ey

P h ilip L .-F L iu


T B D

T B D

T B D

B o ard ap po inted

D ata C o m m ittee

B o ard ap po inted

IT C om m ittee

B o ard ap po inted

E d u cation C om m ittee

T B D

T B D

T B D

B o ard A p po inted

T B D

T B D

T B D


N o m in atio n Co m m ittee

N E E S C o n so rtiumB o ard of Directo rs


Earthquake engineers – in Hofstede’s 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


Grid specialists – in Hofstede’s 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


Agreeing on termsTerm What grid specialists

heard What earthquake engineers heard

“user” HPC users

earthquake engineers

“community” NEES awardees broad array of earthquake engineers, including researchers and practitioners, in the diverse settings where earthquake engineering occurs (centers, under-represented institutions, under-resourced institutions)

“requirements” Description of high level system architecture

Description of detailed user requirements and their relationship to functional specifications


How earthquake engineers think

Customer Need

Customer Requirements

Requirements Analysis

Structure Design

Structure Construction

Structure Acceptance

Structure Operations

Customer Needs Assessment

Design, Engineering, and

Development

Deployment and Operations

Progress

Feedback


Prelim Analysis

START

Prelim Design

Prototyping

Proto Evaluation

System AnalysisSystem Design

EvaluationImplementation

More Iterations

How grid specialists think


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


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


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

SAP2000 model

Tele-observation


Prototype tool use

H.323 videoconferencing

Worktools

Placeware


Use of Worktools

Cumulative Frequency of Resources Uploaded to ES-TF Space

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Time

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

so

urc

es


Use of WorktoolsCumulative Frequency of Messages sent to ES-TF

Mailing List

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Time

Nu

mb

er

of

Me

ss

ag

es


Use of WorktoolsCumulative Frequency of Resources Uploaded to UR Workshop

0

10

20

30

40

Tim e

Nu

mb

er o

f R

eso

urc

es


Use of WorktoolsCumulative Frequency of Message sent to UR

Workshop Mailing List

0

10

20

30

40

50

Time

Nu

mb

er o

f m

essa

ges


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.com/


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.communitytechnology.org/nsf_ci_report/


Innovation

Extrapolation

Social &Technological

Forces•digital libraries

•computational grids

•video conferencing•electronic journals

•distance learning

•electronic commerce

•collaboratories

•community networks

•e-science

Innovation vs. extrapolation


Building it so they will come…

Give users objects to think with (scenarios, mock-ups, prototypes)

Be patient…let users convince themselves

Know where you’ve been (collect baseline data) and what’s changed (collect data as you go along)

The NEESgrid Experience: 2000 - 2003

Documents

Transcript of The NEESgrid Experience: 2000 - 2003