Upload
nelson-melvyn-porter
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
The NEESgrid Experience:2000 - 2003
Tom Finholt
School 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.
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY 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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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)
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Instruments Structural
– reaction walls– shake tables– field test
Geotechnical– centrifuges– field test
Tsunami– wave basins
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Shake table: Nevada, Reno
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Reaction wall: Minnesota
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Centrifuge: UC Davis
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Wave basin: Oregon State
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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)
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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)
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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%)
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
NEESgrid – the collaboratory element of NEES
Primary– Shared instrument– Community data system
Secondary– Distributed research center– Virtual community of practice
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Technology involved Globus/OGSA (USC ISI and ANL)
– GSI and Gridftp CHEF (Michigan) Telepresence systems (ANL) Data repository (NCSA) Deployment, operations, and support (NCSA)
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
NEESgrid interface
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
MOST Column Test Specimens
Illinois Test Specimen
Colorado Test Specimen
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Challenges
Confused lines of authority
Cultural differences– Different jargon– Different world views
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
E lec ted b y a ll ca tego ries
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
E lec ted b y a ll ca tego ries
N o m in atio n Co m m ittee
N E E S C o n so rtiumB o ard of Directo rs
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Prelim Analysis
START
Prelim Design
Prototyping
Proto Evaluation
System AnalysisSystem Design
EvaluationImplementation
More Iterations
How grid specialists think
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Prototype tool use
H.323 videoconferencing
Worktools
Placeware
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
NEES MCU Usage
0
100
200
300
400
Jan
Feb
Ma
rch
Ap
ril
Ma
y
Jun
e
July
Au
gu
st
Se
pte
mb
er
Oct
ob
er
No
vem
be
r
De
cem
be
r
Jan
ua
ry
Feb
rua
ry
Ma
rch
Ap
ril
Ma
y
Jun
e (
est
)
Month
Po
rt H
ou
rs Commons
Michigan / USC
Total
Use of H.323 videoconferencing
UNR Demob c d
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
a NSF LAN meetings
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Use of H.323 videoconferencingGeneral vs. specific meeting topics, ES-TF sessions,
1/24/02 to 6/12/03
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
90
18
0
27
0
36
0
45
0
Time (in days since first ES-TF session)
Nu
mb
er
of
ES
-TF
se
ss
ion
s
Specific topic
General topic
Total
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Use of H.323 videoconferencingSession leadership, ES-TF sessions, 1/24/02 to 6/12/03
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 90 180
270
360
450
Time (in days since first ES-TF session)
Num
ber
of E
S-T
F se
ssio
ns
Total
ES-led
SI-led
Cancelled
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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/
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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/
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
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)
SCHOOL OF INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN