Attendees
John Aho, CH2M HILL
Bob Chaney, Alaska Science and Technology Foundation
Elmer Marx, Alaska Dept. of Transportation
Dave Norton, Alyeska Pipeline
Helen Liu, University of Alaska Anchorage Engineering Dept.
Vince McCoy, Municipality of Anchorage
Rod Combellick, Dept. Geological & Geophysical Survey
Roger Hansen, Alaska Earthquake Information Center, UAF
Bob Scher, R&M Consultants
Niren Biswas, Geophysical Institute, UAF
Tom Murray, Alaska Volcano Observatory, USGS
Bob Page, USGS
Chris Roach, Alyeska Pipeline
Paul Whitmore, West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center
Scott Simmons, ADES
Kent Lindquist, Alaska Earthquake Information Center, UAF
General Items
a) Purpose of the conference call: Discuss the deployment of ANSS supplied seismographs available in FY2001 (10) and those that may be available in FY2002 (30).
b) New Advisory Committee Members: Elmer Marx, Rod Combellick, Peter Haeussler.
c) Future Meeting Dates: Working Group on February 22. John Aho will be in Barrow and will attempt to call in for the February 22 meeting. Working Group meeting in mid-March. Advisory Committee meeting will be scheduled after the Working Group meeting.
d) Current strong motion seismograph locations: Roger Hansen e-mailed a list to Working Group and Advisory Committee members.
e) ANSS strong motion seismograph deployment: There will be approximately 10 instruments immediately available to (1) Enhance the current networks and (2) Show other areas of Alaska that this is a statewide program.
f) General items: we must keep in mind that this is a statewide program.
Roger e-mailed a map, but not everyone received it. He will re-send it.
Tom Murray informed the group that the Congressional budget process for 2002 is progressing nicely. Information on funding may be available within two months. We will then have an indication of what the President thinks about ANSS.
The ANSS National Management Plan final draft is out for review. Costs for structural, and free field, instrumentation are currently budgeted as though installation costs are equal. This is incorrect. The instrumentation of buildings can be up to five times more expensive than free field instrumentation.
Discussion regarding Cosmo Senior Advisory Committee meeting last week centered around strategy need for spending the funding. We need to pick our targets for structural instrumentation carefully. There is a strong feeling that target structures should be mid to high rise structures. Cosmos might initiate workshop efforts to develop strategies.
Niren would like to know what happened to the data from the previous workshop on bridges. What information is available to discuss strategy?
Dave Cole and John Aho helped write open file report 88-278 in the 1980's. John will duplicate the report and distribute it to the committee members. The report needs to be updated. John Aho requested volunteers for a committee to review the open file report 88-278 Report on Recommended List of Structures for Seismic Instrumentation in Alaska with the idea of developing a priority list of structures for possible strong motion instrumentation. John will contact Mehmet Celibi to solicit his input. He mentioned to John at a recent meeting that he would be interested in assisting us in this effort.
Elmer Marx noted that ASCE journals publish one or two papers a year in which structural instrumentation is a topic.
Bob Page will send John a copy of the open file report 00-157 Seismic Instrumentation of Buildings dated April 2000 to use in the structures sub-group. John will distribute it to committee members.
The initial instrument deployment will be free field instruments.
Reminder of ANSS instrument target numbers for Alaska: 2001 - 10 existing; 2001 - 30; 2003 - 50; 2004,5,6 - 70.
Instrument Location Suggestions
Paul Whitmore: Upgrade field sites. Not necessarily strong motion. Five sites may be upgraded broad bands. Six others are listed in his memo. Tom Murray would be willing to collate with others regarding the estimates. They are low by a factor of two. Bob Page desires to place the instruments in all active regions, not remote areas.
Elmer Marx: Would like to see the instrumentation put in areas that are high risk; then evaluate. Start small and work up. (Tok, Seward, Delta, Adak)
Peter Haeussler: Not present. Peter would like to see one on the NW side of the Cook Inlet.
Helen Liu: Agrees with Biswas. She also discussed a FEMA program for which UAF has received a $100,000 matching grant. UAA needs to take part in this.
Vince McCoy: Support starting local and then branching out. There are several buildings in Anchorage that have strong motion instrumentation; e.g. Alyeska Pipeline Building, Marriot, City Hall, Pink Building. There may be more. We do not have a list of types, but most are digital. All new buildings greater than 6 stories and/or 60,000 sq. ft. Require instrumentation. Vince will get information on known monitored buildings to the group.
Roger Hansen/Kent Lindquist: 1. We should supplement existing network with new sites. 2. Need real-time communication. Then look at a few sites outside of Anchorage. (Valdez) Need real-time shake maps.
Jeff Freymueller: Roger presented Jeff's views. Anchorage first and Valdez. Then consider places where we think earthquakes will happen. (South of Kodiak, Aleutian Chain)
Bob Scher: Anchorage area first. The outlying regions such as Upper Cook Inlet and South Coastal regions for this year. Need five or six in Anchorage to spread coverage; then one or two in Kodiak; then PWS and across to Yakutat. Yakataga and Middleton Island have analog instrumentation; Sitka has real-time; permission to place in Larsen Bay. Subsurface array - a reasonable time-frame is 2003.
Niren Biswas: Prioritized ten. (6 analog sites; 2 relocate; 2 new sites) Then looked at coverage that we have now; then goal of providing shake map. Sites D & E are serious as far back as 1964. Bootlegger Cove. Need denser coverage in Anchorage area. 1. It will take time to get permission; 2. We do have some coverage in Anchorage. It is logical to replace the analog with digital instrumentation as conversion is extremely difficult. All federal buildings have digital coverage now. Are there USGS funds available to help replace the analog with digital in Anchorage?
Tom Murray: Impressed with SMA1 locations already in place. This is a statewide program and there are already some in place in Anchorage. Biswas reminded the group that analog must be replaced with digital.
Charles Cobb: by Tom Murray Have a list of ten dams including Salmon Bay, Fort Know tailings, Red Dog tailings, etc.
Bob Page: Niren covered some of the recommendations. ANSS is a multi-year project. Suggest starting in Anchorage and get shake maps developed. Should upgrade/replace analog with digital communications in Anchorage as a primary building block for the first year. The second year when more instrumentation is available, should replace analog stations with digital ones state-wide. In the third year, we should do additional structures to complement the existing coverage (Fairbanks, Coastal cities) . Regarding near source ground motion, we need to determine what is Alaska's unique benefit to the rest of the country. Acquire information that cannot be gotten anywhere else (e.g. communities on fjords, frozen/thawed ground, seasonal fluctuations, structures unique to Alaska, etc.). USGS may have resources to replace a couple of analog instruments. In California, most analog have been replaced with digital; Hawaii and Utah need to be replaced with non-ANSS funds.
Chris Roach/Alyeska Pipeline: There is some instrumentation along the pipeline corridor from Prudhoe to Valdez, but unsure of the locations. The corridor needs to be evaluated to determine what the needs are, areas with no coverage or in need of coverage. There are eleven remote analog monitoring stations located at the pump stations 1, 4-12, and the Valdez terminal. They are mounted on concrete block at grade, free-field. ANSS equipment would be used to augment information. Two needs: 1. timely response information on magnitude and location; 2. Data out of network to compare to design criteria. Chris Roach will email John the information mentioned at this meeting.
Rod Combellick: Agree with the approach to balance Anchorage and expand from there to get good near source digital motion data. This will help to determine the geology of potential areas. Site factor maps require lots of instruments in a small area. A good area would be the corridor from Delta to the Canadian border as railroads and gas pipeline are both being considered. Development will parallel the Denali Fault. High site response factors - Bootlegger Cove - Difficult to find sites with power and communities. Would like to see instrumentation at Lower Ship Creek, Valdez, Lower Chester Creek, Arctic Valley area. Has a handle on Anchorage shake maps.
John Aho/CH2M HILL: John would like to form a structural sub-group to review the open file reports and help prioritize areas. If anyone is interested being a part of a structural sub-group, please contact John Aho.
Bob Chaney: Is the data from Alyeska Pipeline periodically available?
Consensus: First ten placed in the Anchorage area. Enhancing the Anchorage area network is appropriate as a first step. If we can get two or three more, they can be placed in selected high risk areas.