2011 Annual Report Volume 2

Appendix | Table of Content 

Chapter 1 Reference 

[1.1-‐1.6] A. Metric Definitions ....................................................................................................................... 3 

[1.3, 4.2.20] B. WEI Assessment Results .............................................................................................................. 8 

[1.4] C. EOT Strategic Plan ..................................................................................................................... 22 

[1.5] D. 2011-‐12 Highlights Booklet ....................................................................................................... 34 


[2.2] E. Strategic Plan ........................................................................................................................... 100 

[2.5.2] F. 2nd Workshop on China-‐U.S. Collaboration Final Report ....................................................... 124 

[2.5.4] G. 9th International Conference Keynote Speech ....................................................................... 142 

[2.5.7] H. Canadian Seismic Research Network Memorandum of Understanding ................................. 148 

[2.5.7] I. Joint CSRN-‐NEES Workshop Agenda ....................................................................................... 150 

[2.6] J. NEEScomm Management Community Plan ............................................................................. 152 

[2.6.1] K. Governance Board Minutes .................................................................................................... 154 

[2.6.4] L. PAC Reports ............................................................................................................................. 162 

[2.9] M. Purdue University NSF Site Visit Review and Responses ....................................................... 196 

[2.10, 5.3.7] N. University of Minnesota NSF Site Visit Review and Responses .............................................. 202 

[2.11. 5.3.7] O. University of Nevada Reno NSF Site Visit Review and Responses .......................................... 222 


[3.10.3] P. ACI Publication NEEShub Advertisement ................................................................................ 238 


[4.2.1] Q. Discover Engineering Family Day Assessment Results ........................................................... 240 

[4.2.1] R. IRIS Letter of Support .............................................................................................................. 254 

[4.2.3] S. Quake Summit 2011 Summary ................................................................................................ 256 

[4.2.19] T. REU Longitudinal Assessment ................................................................................................. 274 

[4.2.20] U. WEI Assessment Results ....................................................................................... See Appendix B 

[4.2.20] V. WEI Online Continuing Education Course Press Release ........................................................ 280 

[4.2.25] W. Battle Ground Middle School Memorandum of Understanding ............................................ 283 

[4.2.25] X. Klondike Middle School Memorandum of Understanding ...................................................... 285 

[4.2.28] Y. Congressional Hazards Caucus Comments .............................................................................. 287 

[4.2.28] Z. NSTA Program ......................................................................................................................... 289 

[4.2.28] AA. NSTA Assessment Data ......................................................................................................... 291 

[4.2.28] BB. NSF Follow-‐Up Letter ............................................................................................................ 295 

[4.2.31] CC. Geo-‐Strata Issue .................................................................................................................... 297 

[4.2.31] DD. ENR Article ............................................................................................................................ 299 

[4.2.31] EE. WLFI Adams Interview Transcript .......................................................................................... 303 

[4.2.32] FF. Sciencecenter Letter of Support ............................................................................................ 305 

[4.2.34] GG. EOT Management Protocol .................................................................................................. 307 


[5.3.3] HH. Site Usability Study IRB Exemption Approval ....................................................................... 311 

[5.3.7] II. University of Minnesota NSF Site Visit Review and Responses ............................ See Appendix N 

[5.3.7] JJ. University of Nevada Reno NSF Site Visit Review and Responses ....................... See Appendix O 


[6.2] KK. Vision Report ......................................................................................................................... 333 

[6.3] LL. Work Breakdown Structure .................................................................................................. 345 

[6.3] MM. IRB Documentation ............................................................................................................. 347 

NN. Personnel Biosketches ......................................................................................................... 363

Metric Definitions | A 

NEEScomm Annual Report 2011-12 | Page 3 | Appendix :: Volume 2

| Metric Definitions 

METRICS 

# of active NEEShub users 

(quarter) 

Metric Definition 

Users:=Sum of Registered Users2, Unregistered Interactive Users3 and Unregistered 

Download Users4 

2. Number of Users that logged in. User registration assigns a unique login to each 

individual user. 

3.Number of Unregistered Users, identified by unique hosts/IPs, that had an active 

Session 10 without logging in. Does not include known web bots/crawlers. 

4. Number of Unregistered users, identified by unique hosts/IPs, that had an active 

session of less than 15 minutes without logging in and downloaded a non-‐interactive 

resource such as PDF or podcast. Does not include web bots/crawlers. 

Also, note 10 about an active session: Begins when an IP is active on the site for at 

least 15 minutes. Ends when inactive for more than 30 minutes, including time spent 

viewing videos. 

# of NEEShub accounts (quarter) 

# NEEShub Simulation Users 

(quarter) 

Data Capture: 

1) Navigate to Explore -‐-‐> Usage Metrics 

2) On the Overview tab, click the hyperlink for 'By Quarter' 

3) Click the 'Show data for:' drop down box to the desired quarter 

4) Scroll down to Table 4: User statistics by registered/unregistered 

5) Total Users is the metric value 

Simulation Users: Number of Registered Users that ran one or more simulation runs 





4) Scroll down to Table 1: User statistics 

5) Simulation Users is the metric value 

# of Download Users (quarter) Download Users: All Unregistered users, identified by unique hosts/IPs that 

downloaded a non-‐interactive resource such as PDF or podcast. Does not include 

known web bots/crawlers. 





4) Scroll down to Table 1: User statistics 

5) Download Users is the metric value 

New and Returning visitors 

(quarter) 

WebEx Usage for NEES 

community (quarter) 

# participants attending events 

sponsored by NEES (quarter) 

People attending open houses, workshops, technical meetings, webinars, etc. 

sponsored by NEES. Include events at sites, as well as those sponsored by 

headquarters based upon Site Quarterly Activity Reports and NEEScomm worksheet 


METRICS 

(not implemented) 


# of community contributions by 

Resource Type (quarter) 

1) Run NEEShub report for date range (beginning of quarter to end of quarter). 

Download as csv, save into an .xlsx 

2) Data includes all resource types. Data should include NEEShub overall resources as 

well as resources that were contributed only within a group 

3) Sort data by resource type then subtotal by type selecting Count to be added to the 

Resource type column 

4) Provide counts for all Resource types: 

Active Documents 

Computational Models 

Historical Documents 

Learning Objects 

Multimedia 

Publications 

Tools 

# New Formal Partnerships 

(MOU's, Letter of Intent) for 

quarter 

NEEShub user community 

satisfaction (as of point in time) 

NEEShub user community 

demographics (cumulative) 

# of active NEEShub users 

(quarter) 

# of Project Warehouse Landing 

Page Unique Views (quarter) 

Partnerships defined as entities with whom NEEScomm has a formal MOU, Letter of 

Commitment, or Collaboration Agreement. 

NA 

NA 

Use Google analytics for quarter date range for the main project warehouse page to 

determine unique views. 

1) Follow link to Google analytics http://www.google.com/analytics/ 

2) From main page select 'View Reports' for nees.org (high traffic line item) 

3) On dashboard page, change date range in upper right portion of screen 

4) Scroll down to Content Overview topic box, click on /warehouse link 

5) On Content Detail screen for /warehouse, use Unique Views as metric value (make 

sure date range is still correct) 

# of Project Warehouse Unique 

Page views 

Use Google analytics for quarter date range for the main project warehouse page to 

determine unique page views 

1) go to Google Analytics page for nees.org 

2) select data range 

3) select Content, then Site Content, then All Pages 

4) in search box, type /warehouse 

5) metric is "Unique Pageviews" 

Top 5 Projects Viewed (quarter) 


METRICS 

# of Databases Unique Views 

(quarter) 

# Project Warehouse Files 

downloaded (quarter) 

# Project Warehouse Files 

uploaded (quarter) 

Total number of NEES, Shared 

Use, and Other Projects 

(cumulative) 


Use Google analytics for quarter date range to determine unique views. 

1) Follow link to Google analytics http://www.google.com/analytics/ 

2) From main page select 'View Reports' for nees.org (high traffic line item) 

3) On dashboard page, change date range in upper right portion of screen 

4) Select Content from left nav, then Top Content 

5) Use Filter Page: containing with 'dataview/spreadsheet' to get Databases traffic 

6) Pull Unique Page views as metric value (make sure date range is still correct) 

NEEShub Projects defined by the following: 

1) NEES -‐ The research is fully funded through the NSF NEES Research program. 

2) Shared-‐Use -‐ The research maybe funded through a different NSF program or 

directorate and an Equipment Site Utilization Form (ESUF) was signed. 

3) Other -‐ The research is conducted outside of the NEES support framework 

4) Demo -‐The project is created for getting familiar with NEEShub 

5) Internal -‐ The project is created for internal to NEES needs. 

For this metric, we will include all open and completed projects in categories 1, 2, and 

3 

Total number of NEES and 

Shared Use Project by Curation 

Status (cumulative) 

# of Enhanced Projects 

(cumulative) 

User satisfaction of NEES 

experimental sites and support 

This metric is defined as the number of all projects that are complete (i.e. Reported % 

of Total Project Progress in the QAR equals 100%) and that are marked as "CURATED" 

-‐ this is the state in when a project can be considered "complete and closed" 

In NEEShub, navigated to Project Warehouse/Enhanced tab and counted number of 

projects shown on this tab 

This survey will be sent to NEES researchers annually. The survey is distributed to all 

researchers (NEESR and non-‐NEESR shared-‐use) that are listed in the site AWPs. The 

survey is meant to capture the impression of the researcher regarding their 

experience at the specified NEES site to-‐date. The survey responses are on a scale 

from 1-‐5, 5 being the best. The number reported is the average of all received 

surveys. Survey responses will be collected by Ann Zimmerman, U. Michigan. The 

data will be sent to Scott Newbolds. 

# of Weighted Projects 

Completed (Sites) 

Utilization 


sponsored by NEES 

# of programs engaging 

practitioners 

# of practitioner participants in 

above programs 

This metric is a measure of research project progress. A weighting system has been 

developed to account for larger projects at a site in order to account for the additional 

time and effort involved in such projects. The project weight is a multiplier to the 

percent project completion that is reported by the sites quarterly. The metric is the 

cumulative percent project completion of all projects listed in the site AWPs. 

Meetings, webinars, workshops, seminars, that engage practitioners in knowledge 

transfer. Much of this goes on at the sites. 

Practitioners participating at meetings, webinars, workshops, seminars, that engage 

practitioners in knowledge transfer. Much of this goes on at the sites. 


# of Outreach activities 

administered by sites and 

Ambassadors 

# of UG and Grad related 

education materials 

developed/contributed for the 

NEESacademy 

# of K-‐12 related education 

materials 

developed/contributed for the 

NEESacademy 

# of new Professional 

Development EOT related 

contributions to the 

NEESacademy 


sponsored by NEES 

Total # of Publications resulting 

from NEES work 

# of Research Highlights 

published 

Publication Database updates 

(by refereed journal publication 

and other publication) 

Safety Reportables 

% Actual Spend of Annual 

Budget 


This is the number of activities that take place at sites and at remote locations, but 

administered by sites (or ambassadors). This does not include workshops or webinars 

that are counted elsewhere. Reported by ambassadors management (for non-‐sites) 

and by site managers for sites. 

This includes any materials included into NEESacademy that were developed by NEES 

or by another group targeting UG and Grad students. This means it has been deemed 

acceptible educationally and included in NEESacademy. 


or by another group targeting K-‐12 students. This means it has been deemed 

acceptible educationally and included in NEESacademy. 


or by another group targeting practitioners. This means it has been deemed acceptible 

educationally and included in NEESacademy. 

Google Scholar Alerts on the keywords "NEES earthquake" and "NEES Tsunami" will be 

obtained; the received entries will be added to the NEES citation database. 

Periodically (approximately once every two months) a Google Scholar search will be 

done on the same keywords over the past two years to check if all entries are already 

in the database. There will be a link in the citation database for the user to report 

additional entries. Users are encouraged to request corrections of existing entries via 

the 'Support' button. 

Research highlights as collected by the EOT team from the NEES sites and reseachers 

This metric includes the number of OSHA recordable injuries that have been reported 

by the sites. In general, an OSHA recordable injury is an occupational injury or illness 

that requires medical treatment more than simple first aid. (More specifics are 

provided in 29 CFR Part 1904.) Any injury that is defined as an OSHA recordable injury 

must be reported by the university to OSHA. As such the requirements are known to 

each university and use of this definition as a metric provides a uniform basis for 

reporting injuries. 

The amount of cumulative expenses year for NEES (NEEScomm + sites) divided by 

annual budget for same. 


WIE Assessment Results | B 


Abstract 

Online modules for Wood Design courses through NEESacademy 

The Wood Education Institute is developing a series of rich-media based learning modules to 

provide tools for teaching wood design. The modules that have been completed are intended for 

undergraduate programs. The modules currently under development target graduate level and 

continuing education study in wood design and focus particularly on the Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation (NEES) related wood research efforts as part of a collaborative effort in 

engineering education. This paper describes the intent of these materials, pedagogical 

approaches for integrating them into university level courses, and results of a benchmark study 

of the material’s use in a blended learning experience for undergraduate students at Cal Poly 

Pomona and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo universities. A survey instrument was used to capture 

students’ perceptions of the learning modules from several dimensions including: relevance of 

content to career interests, relevance to course content, pedagogical approach, and usability. The 

survey results suggest that overall students had a positive experience with the learning modules. 

They appreciated the functionality that allowed them to control the pace of the content delivery 

and felt the materials were a strong contributor to their ability to use the knowledge as part of 

their class activities. While the majority of the comments were positive, there was data to 

suggest that the module content was too voluminous for the length (and pace) of the course and a 

shorter module length was preferred. 

keywords: civil engineering education, design, learning systems, multimedia, distance learning, 

blended learning, wood design, wood, online module, wood education, NEESacademy. 

Introduction 

Wood is one of the oldest, environmentally sustainable construction materials. Approximately 

90% (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1994)[1] of all residential and 11% 

of non-residential (USDA Forest Service, 2008) [2] structures in the United States are built using 

sawn lumber and engineered wood products. 1 These modern engineered wood systems require 

specialized design and materials’ specification knowledge. However, contrary to the public need 

for education in this area, a significant number of Civil Engineering programs do not offer a 

course on wood design, offer it as a part of another course, or, in some cases, offer it biannually, 

tri-annually, or sporadically. The report (Barnes 2007) [3] presented at the 2007 NCSEA Annual 

Conference on US higher education institutions that offer degrees in Civil Engineering 

demonstrated this educational deficiency. This was further supported by an informal survey 

conducted by the Wood Product Council in 2007 as well as numerous comments by the 

participants of the 2008 Structures Congress “Wood Engineering Challanges in a New 

Milenium: Research Needs” Pre-Congress Workshop. These reports, surveys, and workshops reaffirm 

concernes voiced by the wood industry leadership regarding the lack of wood design 

education in Civil Engineering programs. A recent survey (Cramer, 2011)[4] indicated that 

slightly over 50% of Civil Engineering programs offer a wood design course. In contrast, steel 

1 Engineered wood products, or manmade wood, are wood products that are manufactured using combination of wood or wood fibers or other 

wood ingredients and resin. Commonly available engineered wood products include: plywood, oriented strand board (OSB), Glued Laminated 

(Glulam) beams and columns, laminated veneer lumber (LVL), cross-laminated timber (CLT) and etc. 


and concrete design courses are offered with regularity at almost every university and are either 

part of a core curriculum or regularly offered electives. In addition to pointing out the 

deficiencies, the survey suggested the likely reasons for Universities not offering wood design 

courses. These reasons are summarized as: a lack of faculty or expertise in the area, budget and 

faculty load issues, and a general belief that wood design is too similar to steel and concrete and 

thus does not justify separate course. The lack of available expertise and faculty in the area of 

wood engineering can be traced to historically limited US research opportunities related to wood 

design. This, over time, has produced a scarcity of university faculty interested and proficient in 

wood engineering. Consequently, the US lags behind Canada and Europe in wood design 

innovation and availability of human resources to effectively teach the subject. 

Recently, in the United Kingdom, a 9-story wood building was constructed using crosslamintaed 

timber, an engineered wood material that has been used in Europe for the last 15 years 

but has yet to make it into standard construction practices in the US. 2 There has been a growing 

world recognition of the sustainability of wood as a structural material and also its carbon 

negative impact on the environment. Canada with its vast forestry industry and wood resources is 

actively leading the efforts in promoting what they refer to as worldwide “Culture of Wood”. In 

2009, British Columbia adopted Wood First Initiative: Wood First Act (2009 Legislative 

Session: 1st Session, 39th Parliament, 2009)[5]. This initiative requires that wood is considered 

as the primary building material in all new publicly-funded buildings in accordance with 

applicable building codes. This first step in Canada’s fascilitation of the wood use action plan is 

also spilling into the United States. The Northwest states are debating similar initiatives and the 

State of Oregon attempted, although unsuccessfully, to adopt similar legislature in 2011. 

In February of 2008, the Wood Products Council (WPC), a cooperative venture of the major 

wood associations in North America in partnership with research organizations and government 

agencies, launched WoodWorks. This initiative was designed to support the use of wood in nonresidential 

building applications. The WoodWorks initiative was formed with the intent to 

provide a one-stop access to the widest possible range of information on the use of wood in nonresidential 

structures to design professionals. 

In July of 2008, WoodWorks announced an educational partnership with California State 

Polytechnic University Pomona and provided a seed investment grant to fund and create Wood 

Education Institute (WEI) program. This pilot program is a virtual learning model intended to 

assist in offering wood education for undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education 

programs nationwide. At the time of authorship of this paper the WEI has (1) developed a 

significant portion of the educational content that focuses on undergraduate programs interested 

in offering a course in wood design; (2) started development of modules targeting graduate 

students in cooperation with NEES related wood research educational outreach efforts; and (3) 

began development of a hybrid course with12-weeks of 100% online activities and a in person 

two-day weekend hands-on workshop as part of a continuing education program for practicing 

professionals. 

2 The ANSI manufacturing standards for this material has been adopted by the industry in 2011 and design guidelines will likely be adopted in 

2013 


For delivery of the completed modules, the WEI began a cooperative project with NEES 

(Network of Earthquake Engineering Simulations) to host the WEI developed courseware on 

their NEESacademy powered by the NEEShub infrastructure. Starting in late 2010, the intent of 

the collaboration was to apply developed methodologies to the NSF sponsored NEES Education 

Outreach and Training (EOT) programs. In the spring quarter of 2011, the pilot program was 

launched using Moodle, an open-source learning management system, housed and maintained by 

NEES (www. nees.org). The pilot program, using the online course content provided by WEI, 

launched the hybrid /blended timber undergraduate design courses at two separate universities as 

a first step toward implementation on a broader scale. 

This introductory paper outlines the WEI framework as a work in progress vision consisting of a 

Virtual Classroom, Virtual Laboratory, and Virtual Studio as three pillars of the Virtual Learning 

Environment. At the time of the authorship of this paper, the Virtual Classroom model has been 

launched and student assessment has been conducted at California Polytechnic State Universities 

at both Pomona and San Luis Obispo. Presented herein are details of the WEI framework, the 

pedagogy of the packaged curriculum with the available online streaming teaching modules, 

details of the launched pilot program, and students’ perceptions of the pilot program course 

content and its delivery through the NEESacademy powered by NEEShub. 

Wood Education Institute 

The Wood Education Institute (WEI) was established to address the growing need to educate 

undergraduate and graduate engineering students and the design professionals about issues and 

opportunities in designing architectural structures with wood materials. 

The primary goals of WEI are to: 

Improve education related to effective use of wood as structural material. 

Establish and maintain an inclusive model of cooperation between industry design 

professionals and universities. 

Develop state-of-the-art virtual learning model for engineering education. 

Develop and implement entrepreneurial (self-sustaining) model for WEI operation. 

The WEI presently maintains an Advisory and Development Board. Both boards composed of 

engineering educators, design professionals, and industry representatives. The list of 

participating individuals and the entities is available on the WEI website (WEI, 2010) [6]. The 

primary role of the Development Board is to create educational content in a modular format 

allowing flexible packaging of wood design content into a variety of course offerings (e.g. 

professional development modules and higher education courses). 

Virtual Learning – The WEI Framework 

Approach 


The learn-by-doing 3 approach to engineering education practiced by the Cal Poly University, San 

Luis Obispo and Pomona are currently done in a traditional classroom environment consisting of 

lectures, lecture notes, homework, exams, and testing/design lab activities. An early WEI 

challenge was to develop a model that can replicate the learn-by-doing classroom success in an 

online or hybrid learning environment while effectively addressing the needs of civil engineering 

education. A three prong approach was selected to engage students in a learning sequence of 

reviewing materials in preparation for hands on testing or design exercises. The three prongs 

consisted of the Virtual Classroom, Virtual Laboratory, and a Virtual Design Studio (Figure 1). 

Each prong of the approach utilizes various methods of instruction to support learning with 

understanding. The Virtual Classroom provides rich media productions to familiarize students 

with basic facts and concepts associated with wood design. Traditional classroom lectures 

extend these lessons through didactic teaching and discussion with students to support their 

conceptual understanding. Virtual Laboratories engage learning in experiments were they use 

what they know to predict, observe an experiment in action, then explain results. The final 

application of their knowledge is tested in a Virtual Design Studio. It is here where students 

combine learned skills and apply their knowledge to various realistic design conditions. 

Figure 1 – Virtual Learning Environment 

3 The term “learn-by-doing” is used by California State Polytechnic Universities to describe hands-on learning pedagogy. This terminology is 

incorporated into university vision and core values and is representative of the universities’ culture. 


Virtual Classroom 

The proposed Virtual Classroom content described in this paper could either be used to refine the 

activities of a traditional classroom by introducing digital media into the instructional sequence 

or be offered as a fully integrated virtual learning environment. 

In the context of a fully integrated learning environment, it is proposed that the students be 

required to: 

(1) Complete reading assignments 

(2) Participate in the assessment of the assignments 

(3) Proceed to viewing lecture content consisting of a rich-media Web-based 

asynchronous presentation, similar to what is being offered in growing number of 

educational webinars 

(4) Take a short online quiz focused on key concepts to be learned 

(5) Participate in forum discussions where areas of difficulties are identified and 

discussed 

(6) Complete homework assignment graded by the course instructor or facilitator 

(7) Participate in the final assessment. 

Most of the pedagogical components of this process are fairly standard and can be developed 

individually by the educator facilitating the Virtual Classroom. However, the rich-media content 

of the subject matter is the most complex, time consuming, and expertise sensitive component. 

The WEI has developed approximately 15 hours of rich-media content divided into 30-60 minute 

modules. Each module provides a piece of conceptual knowledge associated with wood design. 

The modules are narrated streaming slides that introduce key concepts, vocabulary, illustrate 

difficult concepts using animations, and contain fully worked out examples. The modules are set 

up to allow students, at any time, to stop and go back or forward to review the material. The 

primary focus in the Virtual Classroom environment at this point, is to develop basic skills and, 

knowledge that prepare students to deepen their conceptual understanding in the Virtual Lab and 

Design Studio. This combination aligns well with the How People Learn Framework. 

(Bransford et al 2000)[7]. Figure 2 illustrates the screen shots of sample modules. Note that the 

students have access to the text associated with each slide and also can navigate to any slide in 

the presentation at any time. 

Figure 2 – Screen examples of WEI modules on various topics 


Virtual Laboratory 

One of the challenges of the Virtual Learning environment is the lack of access to “hands on” 

laboratory experiments. This creates a void in ability to achieve desired academic outcomes for 

classrooms that depend on a laboratory component. Currently, the Civil Engineering program at 

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo relies on laboratory hands on experiences to augment classroom 

lectures. However, the program at Cal Poly Pomona does not require a laboratory component for 

this course. The basic concept of the Virtual Laboratory is meant to bring laboratory experience 

to students where access to a traditional physical laboratory is not available. 

The Virtual Laboratory components are comprised of four experiments identified as representing 

the basic laboratory experience necessary to complement classroom activities in wood 

engineering. Several hours of video footage were taken during live student laboratory sessions 

and were used in the creation of these Virtual Laboratories. 

The format of the Virtual Laboratory (regardless of the experiment) is consistent. Each 

experiment follows the same methodology, has the same appearance, and is consistent with the 

WEI learning objectives. In each laboratory, at a minimum, there are the following sequentially 

ordered student/web site interactions: 

Introduction: This section includes supporting information and reasons for the experiment, 

the description of the experiment, details regarding the experiment to be conducted, and 

student learning objectives that are to be satisfied upon completion of the experiment. 

Background and Pre-Test: Background reading (consistant with that required by the 

Virual Classroom component) is required prior to starting the experiment. Each 

experiment is part of the larger learning objectives and chronologically coincides with 

assigned educational modules and reading material. Prior to the begining of the 

experiment, the student is required to pass a pre-test to verify their readiness to conduct the 

experiment. This pre-test is outside of the Virual Classroom environment and is specific to 

the labratory experiment. This pre-test includes questions about general knowledge as well 

as calculations to predict outcomes from the experiment. The main purpose of the 

background and pre-test is to ensure that the student has sufficient physical understanding 

of the experiment to calculate the experimental outcomes using the engineering principals. 

Physical Experiment: After succefully passing the pre-test, the student is taken to the 

main experiment page. This page contains video clips of actual experiments conducted in 

the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo laboratory as well as real time data collection. The video is 

an edited compilation of footage showing the overall experiment, close ups of the failure 

location, and a live speaker highlighting the key concepts consistant with the learning 

objectives of the expermiment. The student is responsible for collecting pertinent data as it 

is presented in the video of the laboratory experiments (similar to the note taking 

requirements of the students that were part of the actual labratory). The data is collected in 

the form of note taking during the video. A screeen shot from the virtual lab module 

related to wood beam testing is shown in Figure 3. It is divided into four windows: the test 


sequence window, the load-deformation curve window, the actual test video window and 

an annimated replication of test window. 

Figure 3 – Screen Shot of a Virtual Lab Module 

Post-Test: Using information learned from the experiment, students will be asked to 

answer a number of questions pertaining to both the experiments and the experimental 

outcomes. The post-test will serve as a measure of the students’ synthesis of the required 

learning objectives. 

At the time of authorship of this paper, the Virtual Laboratory is under development with two 

virtual lab modules completed and two more partially completed. These modules are not yet 

available to the public. 

Virtual Design Studio 

Another critical component of traditional engineering education, that is a major challenge for the 

Virtual Environment, is the hands-on design experience. The Virtual Design Studio is intended 

to provide students with the opportunity to apply learned skills and knowledge in a “near” real 

life design environment. This particular element of the studio would require access to Computer 

Aided Design (CAD), Building Information Model (BIM), and design and analysis software. 

This phase of the project is still in conceptual stages and its implementation relies heavily on 

technology developments and the delivery method selected. The following is a visionary 

description of the student’s experience. 

The studio experience will include a combination of mini-case studies, writing of state-of-the-art 

knowledge papers, and partial and/or full design of a structural system based on architectural 

plans. The mini-case studies will require evaluation of a specified component of a structural 

system of a wood building or bridge. The students will be required to prepare a report and an 

accompanying short presentation that will be available for sharing online with the class. The 

state-of-the-art knowledge paper will require the students to perform literature research and 


synthesize it into a short document. This document will be made available to others in the 

course.. The final component of the studio will require students to perform a design of a 

structural system from a set of architectural drawings. The project will include preparation of 

structural calculations, development of structural plans, sections and elevations, and design and 

detailing of key connections. 

Content Delivery and Creation Technology 

The technology used to construct these environments is a critical ingredient to successful 

implementation of the WEI Virtual Learning Environment. The technology can be categorized 

into two groups: content creation and content delivery (Figure 3). The software for creating richmedia 

content components is standardized on various Microsoft and Adobe products (such as 

PowerPoint, Word, Flash, Premier, Photoshop, and Illustrator). However, the software for 

combining these into a rich-media Web-based content has a limited number of choices. Adobe 

Presenter and Connect were selected primarily for their simplicity and availability. The 

enterprise level products by other companies offer long-term comprehensive solutions, but 

require significant initial investment. The ongoing changes in technology will present issues with 

long term maintenance and compatibility of the content. For example, the iPad and iPhone 

phenomena and its incompatibility with Flash have created challenges in delivery flexibility. 

Figure 4 – Technology components (content creation and delivery) 

NEESacademy powered by NEEShub and Moodle 

The content hosting and delivery of the WEI modules for the virtual classroom initially presented 

a significant challenge because of a lack of delivery options. However, NEES has developed a 

cyber-infrastructure designed to support the research community’s ability to share resources and 

build new knowledge through data sharing. This infrastructure proved to be symbiotic with the 

needs of the WEI. NEES adopted an open source solution called HUBzero[8] to create NEEShub 


which now powers their website presence nees.org [9]. One of the adaptations includes the 

construction of the NEESacademy designed by the NEES Education Outreach and Training 

(EOT) Team. They developed a mechanism to support online courses to support workforce 

development in academic and industrial settings. They integrated the open source course 

management system, called Moodle, into the NEEShub architecture creating an import delivery 

system in their NEESacademy. This capability provided an excellent solution to distribute the 

WEI learning modules. The screen shot of the NEEShub courseware entry point and the first 

page of the online modules access are shown in Figure 5 and 6 respectively. 

Figure 5 – Wood Education Institute Screen 

Figure 6 - Wood Education Institute/Woodworks Modules Screen 


Student evaluation of Learning Modules 

The Virtual Classroom portion of the Virtual Learning Environment was evaluated in a web 

assisted and hybrid course offerings at two universities over a period of three quarters (10 weeks 

each). Participants in these course were third and fourth year students in mandatory courses in 

Civil Engineering (N=79 total). The courses were designed as a blended learning experience 

which used the WEI learning modules as a pre-lecture activity designed to prepare students for 

more in-depth learning experiences in the classroom and physical design studio learning 

environments. The major target for evaluation in this study was on student’s perception of the 

modules as a learning tool. A student self report survey was developed to target four major 

dimensions of the learning modules including: 

1. Educational content – four items measured students’ interest and perceived value of the 

content of the modules toward their current and future goals. 

2. Educational Approach – four items measured students perceptions of the value of the 

modules toward achieving the course goals. 

3. Evidence of Learning – contained six items to measure students’ perceptions of how 

well they learned the content to perform various tasks in the course (quizzes, 

comprehending lecture, design project, etc.). 

4. Usability – two items measured students’ perceptions on how easy it was to use 

NEEShub and the learning modules. 

The designers of the WEI content had specific aspects of the learning experiences that realted to 

these dimensions. A simple Likert scale was provided for students to rate how much they agree 

with the statements’ alignment with their experience. For example, a general statement was 

asked “I had a positive experience with WEI modules” to which the students could rate as either 

strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree. Appendix A contains the actual items. 

Students were also given the opportunity to share their thoughts through several open ended 

questions soliciting what they found useful, needing improvement, and their own 

recommendations for improvement. 

Students were asked to complete the survey at the end of the course. Participation in the survey 

was both anonymous and voluntery. The survey completion rate was 80%. 

Results 

The major goal of this study was to capture students’ perceptions of their learning experience 

with WEI learning modules in the Virtual Classroom. Figure 7.1-4 summarize students’ 

rankings of various aspects measured in each of the four dimensions of the student survey. 


Educational Content 

Educational Approach 

Course Relevant 

To Interests 

Time Versus Benefit 

Resources And 

Tools Relevant To 

Interests 

Supported Goals 

Positive 

Experience 

0 20 40 60 

Confident With 

Ability To Use 

Concepts 

Using Modules 

Made Course More 

Educational 

Generate 

Questions That 

Guided Thinking 

0 20 40 60 

Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 

Evidence of Learning 

Modules Aligned Well 

With Lectures And Labs 

Have Trouble Interpreting 

WEI module Ideas 

Confident In Ability To 

Use Concepts 

WEI Modules Easy To 

Use 

Usability 

Online Quizzes Identify 

Areas Of Learning 

Assignments Increased 

Awareness Of Practical 

Concepts 

NEESorg Easy To Use 

Better Comprehend 

Topics Relating To Wood 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

0 10 20 30 40 

Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 

Figure 7 - Summary of results from student survey 


The open response questions were analyzed using a simple open coding method. Each response 

by the students was given a short description label identifying the general category of the 

response. Then a simple frequency response of these categories was used to provide a short 

summary of general issues and opportunities that students shared on the survey. 

Almost all students reported having a positive experience with the WEI modules used in the 

course. The “Disagree” assessment appears to emerge primarily from technical difficulty with 

accessing the materials. This is seen through associations with the usability result which were 

also very favorable. More specifically, the majority of students agreed that their experience with 

the WEI modules: 

Aligned well with their interests and career goals 

Contained relevant content to the course and was beneficial and worth their time 

Materials stimulated their question asking 

Materials prepared them to participate in design activities (with knowledge and 

confidence) to apply what they learned. 

From the qualitative results, one positive aspect of the learning modules was the ability to 

regulate the learning pace. The ability to pause, rewind and review multiple times put important 

controls into the students’ hands. Similarly, students remarked that the dynamic visual effects 

provided an additional layer of information making it easier to comprehend the materials. The 

major drawback identified by students was the amount of content covered in the modules. They 

identified this hindrance to their learning with the module and recommended shortening the 

modules. 

Conclusion 

The virtual delivery of educational material is the next major revolution of the information age 

and it has already started. Webinars are being offered on variety of subjects and many reputable 

universities are either offering, or experimenting with offering, a variety of programs/courses 

partial (hybrid) to fully online. The progress in e-book technology and proliferation of electronic 

pads and the growing acceptance of digital information models for design and construction are 

rapidly changing the flow of information in design. The educational process needs to keep up 

with these changes and explore the opportunities they present for higher education. The 

realization of the WEI vision as outlined in this paper is still in the early stages. This 

introductory paper provided a work in progress summary of the WEI efforts thus far. 

Blended courses in undergraduate Timber Design have been offered at two Universities with the 

completed modules integrated into the instructional process. Student survey results suggested 

that overall; these modules were effective in disseminating the requisite material and were 

positively rated by the students. After some additional refinement, these packaged modules will 

become available for public access to engineering educators with the intent to assist 

undergraduate programs interested in offering Timber Design in development of their own 

courses or providing opportunity for students to take courses online offered through WEI. The 

developed WEI modules are currently being assembled into a 12 week hybrid course to provide 

continuing education opportunity for the practitioners wishing to learn (or review) the 


undergraduate level material. At the graduate level, advanced topics modules are being 

developed and the WEI module approach is also being used to develop advanced content as an 

integral part of an educational outreach component of a particular NEES/NSF supported wood 

research project. The availability of content for undergraduate, graduate and continuing 

education programs to the academic community is intended to help to improve engineering 

education related to wood design, disseminate wood related research findings in an educational 

format and hopefully increase the usage of this sustainable material in the engineering practice. 

Acknowledgement 

This project is supported byWoodworks and NEES. WoodWorks is an initiative of the Wood 

Products Council, which is a cooperative venture of all the major wood associations in North 

America, as well as research organizations and government agencies. 

NEES Operations is managed through a cooperative agreement between the National Science 

Foundation and Purdue University for the period of FY 2010-2014 under NSF Award (0927178) 

from the Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) Division. The findings, 

statements and opinions presented in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent those of the National Science Foundation or Wood Products Council. 

References 

[1] 2009 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 39th Parliament. (2009). Bill 9 - 2009, Wood First Act. BC Legislature. 

[2] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1994). Alternative Framing Materials in Residential 

Construction: Three case studies. Upper Marlboro, MD: NAHB Research Center. 

USDA Forest Service. (2008). . Madison, WI 53726-2398: USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 

[3] Barnes, C., (2007). “The Changing Face of Structural Engineering Education.” NCSEA 2007 Annual 

Conference. Available from National Council of Structural Engineers Associations. 

[4] Cramer, S., Weat, D, (2011). “Education in Wood Structural Design: Who needs it?”. STRUCTURE Magazine., 

June 2011, p5. 

[5] 2009 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 39th Parliament, 2009. 

[6] WEI Advisory, Development Board and Participating Universities. 

(Jan 3, 2012) 

[7] Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. ed (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and 

School: Expanded Edition. Washington DC, National Academy Press. 

[8] McLennan, M., Kennell, R, (2010), HUBzero: A Platform for Dissemination and Collaboration in 

Computational Science and Engineering. Computing in Science & Engineering 12(2), 48 – 53 

[9] Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) website. [URL] nees.org. Last viewed January 2012. 


EOT Strategic Plan 2010-‐2014 | C 


EOT Strategic Plan 

NSF accepted and approved, March 19, 2012 

INTRODUCTION 

NEES Education, Outreach, and Training (EOT) 

Strategic Plan 

(FY 2010-2014) 

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation was developed as a national 

resource for advancing knowledge and research methods to reduce earthquake losses and develop resilient 

communities. Critical elements of success for this network include the workforce that transforms ideas 

into innovative designs and researches fundamental problems that influence these designs. Generating 

public interest and awareness in the field is a first step in bringing new research and development talent 

into the community. The second is developing that talent through formal educational methods. Finally, 

working with practitioners to refine and adopt these innovations is a critical element in assuring the 

impact of the Network. These elements all require education, outreach and training for multiple 

stakeholders and the collaborative efforts of the entire NEES community. 

The NEES Strategic Plan (FY 2010-2014) identifies five major aims of NEES [Community (C), Research 

(R), Knowledge Transfer (KT), Workforce Development (WD), and Public Awareness (PA)]. Each aim 

leads to a specific set of actions the NEES community should engage in to support the success of the 

network. Each aim contains one or more outcomes that define the Vision, Mission, and Goals of the 

NEES community. This NEES EOT Strategic Plan identifies goals and outcomes to assist the NEES 

Community in identifying critical directions associated with EOT responsibilities, and to help set 

priorities for resource allocation necessary to achieve the aims of the larger NEES Strategic Plan. 

NEEScomm EOT leadership recognizes that not all NEES facilities have the same capabilities, skill or 

resources to accomplish the full range of activities within the scope of the NEES EOT strategic plan. 

However, each NEES site does possess a unique set of equipment and talent that has the capability to add 

to the overall mission of NEES EOT and truly demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the 

parts. Therefore, as an integral part of the NEES EOT community, each NEES site is expected to 

contribute to the total EOT effort within their capability and resources allocated through their annual 

work plan and supplemental funding for special, broader impact projects that are larger in scope and have 

significantly more impact on meeting the mission of NEES. 

This strategic plan presents a general approach for achieving the NEES EOT mission. The strategic plan 

begins with a brief description of the primary stakeholders and their needs along with common definitions 

and principles that guide the EOT community’s decision making. Next the major legacy programs are 

outlined. The goals and preferences are described with a brief rationale for their significance followed by 

an outline of major projects associated with achieving that goal. Finally metrics are provided as a highlevel 

evaluation instrument to track the impacts these programs have toward achieving the major 

outcomes. 

MISSION AND VISION 

The mission of NEES Education, Outreach, and Training is to support the development, 

1 




The NEES EOT vision is to become the primary resource for learning about earthquake engineering 

2 




engineering concepts. Outreach to practitioners facilitates transfer (i.e. dissemination, adoption, and 

use) of new developments (knowledge) produced by NEES research. 

The purpose of Training is to increase learners’ ability to use tools, resources, and data associated 

with NEES facilities and cyberinfrastructure (e.g. NEES.org and the NEESacademy). 

A high-quality and effective EOT program engages stakeholders both locally and worldwide. Single 

research sites and NEESR researchers can connect with stakeholders in their local geographic area in 

outreach programs that introduce NEES or more sustained education activities that promote learning 

of science, engineering, and research. With the coordination and support of NEEScomm, EOT efforts 

can engage learners world-wide using NEES cyberinfrastructure, national media exposure, 

international conventions and multi-lateral agreements between countries. 

Regardless of the event location, EOT Activities can be grouped into 8 unique categories that serve 

one or more of the stakeholders and can be classified along the continuum from a local event to a 

network event, depending on its audience. These activities are defined as follows: 

• Tours/Open houses/Equipment Demo: a tour of the lab to individuals, groups, or as part of a 

campus-wide event opening facilities to the general public or demonstration of equipment to 

individuals or groups for the purpose of training, recruitment, learning, or showcasing 

capabilities. 

• Professional Development: training specific individuals or groups to use the equipment, data or 

capabilities of the equipment or network tools including educational tools. This would include 

webinars, seminars, workshops and research experience for teachers (RET). 

• Informal Education: a trip to and/or demonstration or display for educational or informational 

purposes either at a school or other public place. This includes school visits, after school 

programs, display booths, museum displays, etc. 

• Media: published or broadcast media, usually in video format, for general dissemination. This 

includes media coverage such as news broadcasts or featured stories in public broadcast 

productions. It can also include video contributions to NEESacademy or NEEShub. 

• Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU): sponsor/support/host an REU student, student 

symposium or meeting of students engaged in the REU program. 

• Learning Object: a learning activity using NEESacademy resources or tools. Learning objects 

are core building blocks for an undergraduate, graduate, or K-12 curriculum materials delivered 

on NEESacademy. 

• K-12 Camp: 2 or more days of activities for K-12 students emphasizing one of the STEM 

disciplines with an emphasis on engineering principles. 

• Presentation: a presentation or demonstration at a conference or other professional event to 

highlight research, lab capabilities, or specific activities. This would also include presentation of 

papers at a convention, symposium or talks and speeches focused on NEES activities. 

GUIDING VALUES AND PRINCIPLES 

Guiding NEES EOT efforts are the values and principles that are essential to achieving the vision, 

mission, goals, and activities of the larger Network, including: 

• The development and dissemination of EOT programs is a network-wide enterprise that relies on 

groups and individuals to contribute and administer resources and activities associated with 

Education, Outreach, and Training. 

3 




• Programs must be founded on a systemic view of the major needs of all the stakeholders and the 

relationship between these needs. 

• A successful EOT program builds on resources that have been developed by the NEES community 

and strategic partners. 

• The design and dissemination of EOT programs is founded on proven methods for implementing 

effective learning experiences. 

• The entire NEES community has a responsibility to contribute to the overall success of the NEES 

EOT effort, regardless of the level of activity. 

LEGACY PROGRAMS 

In support of the EOT mission and vision, the NEES EOT community will provide a coordinated effort of 

education, outreach and training opportunities for its stakeholders that will achieve broad impact for 

NEES, now and in the future. The highest priority outcomes are focused on NEES EOT Legacy Programs 

to include: 

• NEESacademy: An advanced cyberinfrastructure that provides a unique interactive and dynamic 

online destination for education, outreach and training. This virtual institution is critical to 

disseminating information and providing effective learning experiences for various education, 

outreach and training programs and is a repository for exemplar curriculum and professional 

development programs 

• NEES REU program: NEES’ Research Experiences for Undergraduates is a dynamic 10-week 

summer research program for upper division undergraduate students interested in civil, electrical or 

computer engineering, and other fields related to seismic risk mitigation. The 200+ alumni of this 

program are an important contribution to educating the next generation of engineers. 

• Formal Education Materials: Formal learning institutions are central to developing the next 

generation workforce capable of succeeding in a STEM discipline such as earthquake engineering. 

New pedagogical methods and materials for engineering education are increasing the potential for 

learning in K-12 and higher education institutions. Curriculum and learning materials will illustrate 

the potential of earthquake engineering as a context for learning and the benefits of the 

NEESacademy to support learning. Initially serving hundreds of learners, these programs are 

critical to the goal of work force development and instrumental in demonstrating new methods for 

learning and instruction using the NEESacademy and the NEEShub cyberinfrastructure. 

• Informal Education: Informal settings such as museums offer untapped potential for communicating 

social, cultural and scientific information, correcting misconceptions and transforming attitudes and 

cognitive skills toward STEM concepts. Learning is voluntary and self-directed in such informal 

settings. Curiosity, discovery, free exploration and the sharing of experiences with companions drive 

it. Three planned museum exhibits, which will serve millions of visitors, are critical to raising public 

awareness of NEES, earthquake and tsunami mitigation, and engaging the future STEM workforce. 

• Outreach Activities: The NEES EOT community has a responsibility to provide outreach 

opportunities for stakeholders that are in close proximity to NEES research sites and other highly 

public events. These activities engage families, K-12, and higher education learners to increase their 

awareness and interest in the STEM areas; practitioners to inform them of new developments through 

NEES research; and the general public to inform them of research advances, showcase research 

4 




will be achieved. The attached Gantt chart provides a detailed illustration of how these initiatives build 

on each other over the next three years. 

GOALS AND PRIORITIES 

To achieve the NEES EOT goals, we will build on the strength of existing programs at equipment sites 

and partner universities, solicit contributions to NEESacademy, and add improvements where possible 

through sharing and networking among the sites facilitated by NEEScomm EOT coordination. 

Over the next three years the NEES EOT community will target the Legacy Programs and their 

associated stakeholders. All efforts will contribute to the five strategic aims of NEES as stated in the 

NEES Strategic Plan: Community (C), Research (R), Knowledge Transfer (KT), Workforce Development 

(WD), and Public Awareness (PA). Each of five specific EOT goals described below is mapped to NEES 

strategic aims. 

Goal 1 – Gather, develop, and coordinate quality education activities to be used at sites, schools, and 

public venues to develop learners’ interest and awareness of earthquake engineering and science and 

the value of NEES. (C, WD, PA). Legacy program: NEESacademy. Stakeholders: K-12, Higher 

Education 

Rationale: Over the past decade sites and researchers have developed curriculum materials and shared 

them through digital libraries. However, a critical analysis of the material content and relevance to NEES 

has not been achieved. In addition, none of these materials are in a form that can be easily shared within 

NEES or beyond. Therefore, a development program is needed to identify relevant resources, refine these 

resources to ensure their chances for broader impact, and integrate them into the NEESacademy for broad 

dissemination. 

Outcome: A set of at least four classroom-tested K-12 modules that are aligned with national math and 

science standards. These modules will be evaluated for their impact on learning as well as issues and 

opportunities for classroom and cyber learning experiences. The final modules and their assessment 

methods will be available to stakeholders through NEESacademy. 

Priorities will be placed on: 

• Resource Development: Develop learning resources (documents, multimedia) and tools 

(simulations, animations) for NEEShub 

• Learning Object Development: Develop and test learning objects for science, engineering and 

outreach events; 

• Learning Module Development: Develop effective learning modules for challenge-based 

inquiry for classrooms. 

• Learning Architecture: Develop an effective organizational framework for the NEESacademy 

that provides easy search and access to learning modules. 

• Partnerships with Formal and Informal learning institutions: Establish partnerships with 

associations interested in using materials with their learners to increase potential for broader 

impacts. 

Implementation: 

Content will focus on four topic areas associated with the science and engineering relevant to 

earthquake engineering. The NEESacademy learning experiences for general public and K-12 

stakeholders is organized around these topics – 

5 




1. Earthquake ground motion (“Make Your Own Earthquake”) 

2. Soil Response and ground failure (“Help Me I’m Sinking”) 

3. Structural dynamics and performance (“Build It Better”) 

4. Tsunami causes, impacts and protection (“Survive The Wave”) 

These topics have high potential for linking into fundamental concepts of science, engineering, and 

technology defined in state and national standards and are excellent precursor skills to 

engineering/systems thinking. Development priorities will be placed on hands-on activities and 

materials that align with science and math (and engineering) standards in the following areas: 

• The generation of earthquakes and properties of earthquake waves. 

• Material properties of soils and their effects on the propagation of energy produced by an 

earthquake to the foundations of structures. 

• The causes and consequences of liquefaction. 

• The characteristics that define the dynamic behavior of simple structures and the effects of 

earthquakes on structures. 

• The effects of tsunamis on the built environment. 

• Making design decisions to improve the resilience of structures to earthquake and tsunami 

damage. 

• Physical and computational models supporting engineering decision making and scientific 

inquiry into how things work. 

The selection of materials will be based on their appropriateness, quality for achieving learning 

objectives associated with standards and potential for use by educators and instructors. Material will 

be derived from activities carried out at NEES sites through K-12 summer camps and teacher 

workshops, and REU students developing activities through their summer experience. This core set 

of learning materials will go through a critical review by experts within the EOT community and 

NEEScomm EOT. Reviewers will evaluate the content focus, assessment methods, and instructional 

quality of the resources. NEES will also partner with K-12 teacher professional development 

associations to engage teachers in using, reviewing, and collaborating on development of NEES EOT 

curriculum. 

Initial testing of materials will be conducted in schools local to NEEScomm headquarters and schools 

local to NEES facilities. The materials will be implemented with teachers and assessments of 

students learning will be conducted to evaluate the instructional potential of the learning materials. 

Once tested, materials will be available through NEESacademy. 

The materials hosted in NEESacademy will be used by affiliates of NEES established through a 

partnership program. Individuals and groups working within the NEES EOT community will make 

connections with schools local to the sites and establish agreements with them to use these materials 

and/or participate in local outreach (see Goal 2). Also, the NEEScomm EOT team will seek national 

partners who can facilitate with teacher professional development and dissemination of these 

materials. 

Goal 2 – Increase public awareness of earthquake engineering and science and the value added by 

NEES. (KT, PA), Legacy Program: Outreach, Informal Education. Stakeholders: Researchers, 

Practitioners, and General Public 

6 




conducted to support their well being. Further, outreach activities provide the opportunity to engage their 

curiosity and learn more about the natural and engineered world. 

Outcome: Communicate a consistent message about NEES research and its importance to society along 

with learning about basic engineering and science concepts. Successfully reaching a large audience will 

require a suite of publications, multimedia materials, and activities used by NEEScomm, equipment sites, 

researchers, partners and NSF to increase awareness of NEES contributions to reducing losses from 

earthquakes and tsunamis. 

Priorities will be placed on the following activities: 

1) Publications 

• Annual Highlights Brochure: Glossy brochure produced annually that summarizes highlights of 

NEES research, IT development, and education. 

• NEEShub research publications archive: Archive through the NEEShub citation database 

information about articles in research journals and conference proceedings, 

• Disseminate NEES news: Disseminate information about articles in newspapers and practitioner 

magazines to increase the exposure to NEES research and its outcomes. 

2) Events 

• High impact public information events: Attend selected high visibility public outreach events to 

engage teachers, students, and the general public in activities that raise awareness about 

earthquake loss mitigation and NEES outcomes. Support sites in developing materials for local 

outreach activities. 

• Professional meetings: Attend several professional meetings each year attended by large numbers 

of practitioners to inform practitioners of NEES research and opportunities. 

3) Programs 

• Ambassador and student program: Engage students at selected universities around the country in 

delivering outreach activities to K-12 students and the general public. 

• Supplemental materials for museum displays: Develop follow-on materials in NEESacademy for 

displays under development at science museums. 

• News broadcasts and television documentaries: Coordinate, disseminate, and archive (in both 

NEESacademy and the NEES YouTube Channel) information about local and national television 

broadcast and video promotions of projects to increase the exposure to NEES research and its 

outcomes. 

Implementation: NEES equipment sites and universities are best suited to reach the general public 

through specific outreach activities they conduct locally. In addition, local media has a significant impact 

on the general public through directed interviews with local experts during newsworthy events and 

regional disasters. NEEScomm EOT will support sites with their local outreach and in their work with 

the local news media in their community. In addition, NEEScomm will coordinate Network EOT 

outreach. 

Goal 3 – Increase and train the research workforce involved in earthquake engineering and science. 

(R, WD), Legacy Program: REU, NEESacademy. Stakeholders: Higher Education and Researchers 

Rationale: Effective and efficient use of the research sites requires a well informed user group 

(researchers and their graduate students). Effective training can prevent costly delays and inefficient use 

of the facilities. Therefore, systematic training of users is critical to the successful operation of the NEES 

sites. Also, bright young research talent needs to be developed and mentored toward leadership of the 

NEES research community. These leaders need to represent a diverse population of learners and 

disciplines to increase the potential for innovative methods and solutions to earthquake experimentation 

7 




and engineering. Without an explicit effort, the development of this talent could be slow or work decline 

over the years. A concerted efforts need to be maintained to achieve high quality research potential. 

Outcomes: This goal targets two distinct stakeholders and outcomes to support their needs. NEESR 

researchers and their team will be well-trained users of the sites and the NEES cyberinfrastructure. 

Second, NEES seeks to increase the number of undergraduates entering STEM careers, particularly 

earthquake engineering. 

The priorities for this goal include: 

1) Training 

• Training materials: Deliver materials to support use of the NEEShub and/or to help 

researchers effectively use NEES facilities. These will be archived in the NEESacademy. 

• Training workshops: NEEScomm and sites will deliver workshops to support researchers in 

using the equipment at the sites and the tools and resources on NEEShub. This includes 

continued efforts in our Research to Practice Webinars, NEEShub boot camps for developing 

researchers and expanding the use of the Project Warehouse. 

2) Undergraduate Pipeline 

• Research Experiences for Undergraduates: Deliver an REU program involving a diverse 

(disciplinary, gender, and ethnicity) cohort of students engaged in research at multiple NEES 

sites and mentored by active NEES researchers with at least 200 alumni by 2014. 

• Online curriculum for learning: Develop and share online curriculum to support inquirybased 

learning at both the K-12 and higher education level. 

3) Develop partnerships with undergraduate and graduate instructors to identify, develop, and 

disseminate appropriate materials for undergraduate and graduate engineering education. 

Implementation: Area experts from NEES facilities or researchers conducting training workshops are 

developing training materials on an ongoing basis. Sites with similar research equipment can use this as 

an opportunity to collaborate and run joint training workshops. Training materials will be archived in 

NEESacademy. In addition, NEESacademy is used to archive and disseminate materials for and to link 

participants in the geographically distributed NEES REU program. Building on a pilot online delivery of 

a wood design course, other online topics related to earthquake engineering will be developed. 

Goal 4 – Inform practitioners of latest innovations and involve them in the research process. (CR, R, 

KT), Legacy Program: NEESacademy, Stakeholders: Practitioners 

Rationale: The rapid and effective adoption of new knowledge developed through NEES research is 

critical to the NEES mission to save lives. Delays in sharing this knowledge will result in inefficiencies 

of this national resource and potentially lead to loss of lives. Therefore, effective and high impact 

methods must be implemented to accelerate the research to practice. In addition, issues and opportunities 

perceived by practitioners as important need to make their way into NEES community’s research agenda. 

Outcome: NEEScomm will increase participation of practitioners in NEES through engagement in 

webinars, meetings, and professional development to support development of improved codes and 

application of state-of-the-art design and construction for safe civil infrastructure. 

Priorities for this goal include - 

• Webinars: Quarterly webinars will highlight NEES research projects and findings relevant to 

current practice. Webinars will be archived for future viewing for professional development 

or higher education learning goals. 

8 




• Annual meeting: The annual meeting provides a venue for the NEES community to share 

special interests with colleagues and provide for the interaction of researchers, educators, and 

practitioners. Areas of interest could include research, operations, information technology, 

research to practice and EOT. 

• Certified Continuing Education: Provide continuing education credits for practitioners who 

participate in online learning resources through partnerships with other organizations such as 

EERI 

• On-line professional development curriculum: NEESacademy will host a continuing 

education learning modules, leveraging the NEEShub architecture. The initial course in 

collaboration with the Wood Education Institute delivers online self-paced curriculum for 

wood design. 

• Advanced models for on-line professional development. Develop NEEShub architecture to 

allow for NEES to deliver advanced models of distance learning. 

Implementation: NEEScomm and NEESR researchers will collaborate with strategic partners to 

facilitate planning, implementation, dissemination, and archival of these priority projects. NEEScomm 

EOT will use the capabilities of the cyberinfrastructure and NEESacademy to coordinate the majority of 

this effort. Content will come from various equipment sites and researchers. 

Goal 5 – Foster a coordinated EOT program and an engaged NEES EOT Community. (C, R, KT, WD, 

PA), Legacy Program: NEESacademy, Local Outreach Activities, Informal Education; Stakeholders: 

Rationale: Broad and effective impact requires input from a multidisciplinary team of NEES EOT 

affiliates who are geographically distributed. Fourteen different NEES facilities each share similar needs 

for their Annual Work Plans. Distributing the EOT program across the network maximizes the potential 

for identifying innovative approaches to problems shared by the sites. Further, leveraging each other’s 

strengths and access to a unique populations lead to higher impact of the network. In addition, each 

NEESR project has an educational component supporting the broader impact efforts of their research 

projects. Helping PI’s centralize the dissemination of these resources potentially amplifies their impact. 

Coordination between proposals could also amplify each proposal’s potential for broad impact. 

Outcome: Coordinated network-wide participation of sites in EOT efforts and researchers engaged in 

delivering high quality broader impacts as described in their proposals. 

Priorities that NEEScomm will pursue towards this outcome are: 

• Annual EOT Workshop: Participants in the Annual EOT Workshop will exchange new 

discoveries and best practices, and provide input into future directions of the EOT program. 

• Monthly EOT Meeting: Site EOT personal and NEEScomm EOT will participate in monthly 

teleconference meetings to facilitate coordination and sharing of ideas, work on networkwide 

EOT initiatives, and support development of local EOT efforts. 

• Supplemental Funds for Network-wide EOT: Sites will compete for funds to develop 

network-wide EOT programs and activities that support the EOT strategic plan. 

• Site Visits: NEEScomm will visit sites on a regular basis to review and discuss the local EOT 

activities. 

Implementation: The success of Goals 1 through 4 depends heavily on the active engagement of the sites 

in the development of EOT activities and communicating those activities to NEESR researchers at the 

sites and throughout the network. NEEScomm facilitated coordination gives the sites multiple 

9 




opportunities to work with each other to share successes and collaborate on activities that contribute to the 

overall mission of NEES EOT. NEEScomm supports: 

• Coordination of activities among the sites. 

• Collaboration with sites to enhance and leverage local EOT activities. 

• Collaboration with NEESR researchers to coordinate educational programs in their NEESR 

proposals. 

METRICS AND MEASURE OF IMPACT 

The coordination of EOT activities across the sites and through the network falls under the purview of 

NEEScomm. As part of NEEScomm’s management strategy, it collects and analyzes metrics from the 

individual sites and collectively, as performance measurements of the Network. These management tools 

have been reviewed by both the Strategic Council and the Governance Board and approved for use by 

NSF. These metrics are gathered quarterly, reviewed by the Strategic Council and submitted to NSF as 

part of the quarterly and annual report in the form of the Balanced Scorecard. They are also distributed 

to the NEES equipment sites for them to determine where, in conjunction with NEEScomm site visits, 

monthly EOT teleconferences, and the NEES annual meeting, improvements can be made to provide for 

increased quality, delivery and excitement of NEES EOT activities. Targets associate with these metrics 

are reviewed annually and can be found on the NEES balanced scorecard. 

Education 

• Number of undergraduate and graduate related education materials developed/contributed to the 

NEESacademy 

• Number of REU activities/students 

• Demographics of REU participants 

• Success of REU alumni (long term tracking) 

• Number of K-12 related education materials developed/contributed to NEESacademy 

• Number of Publications resulting from NEES work 

• Number of NEES Highlights published annually 

Outreach 

• Number of outreach activities administered by the sites and NEES sponsored organizations 

• Number of participants attending the above activities 

• Number of media events produced and an estimate of the viewing audience. 

Training 

• Number of programs engaging practitioners 

• Number of practitioner participants in above programs 

• Number of new professional development EOT related contributions to the NEESacademy 

10 




NEES$EOT$Strategic$Plan$ 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Beyond$2014 

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 

NEESacademy 

Develop Learning Series Template 

Develop Virtual Poster Session 

Rework Professionals Landing Page 

Refine Teacher Landing Page 

Develop Professional Development for Ed. Page 

Review and refine Major Landing Page 

Moodle Assessment links 

Certification programs (payment methods) 

Content available to stakeholders 

REU Program 

Submit international REU proposal 

Recruit and mentor 20 to 25 students 

Write renewal proposal for domestic REU 

Formal Educational Materials 

Geotechnical modules 

Pilot modules at RPI & SMU 

Additional universities use modules 

Higher Educaiton 

Develop Dynamics modules (vibrations) 

Pilot Test Higher Education 

Wood Education Institute 

Pilot course at two universities 

Additional universities use course 

K-12 curriculum 

Develop materials 

Pilot course at Indiana schools 

Present materials at national conferences 

Adopt and use materials at 20 schools 

Teacher development activities 

Funding Options 

Apply for TUES funding 

Informal Education 

Terry Lee Wells Nevada Discovery Museum 

Develop Exhibits 

Operate Exhibits 

Sciencenter Traveling Exhibit 


Submit NSF Informal Science Proposal 

Exhibits Prototypes at Sciencenter 

Exhibits Tour to Museums and Libraries 

Children's Museum Indianapolis 


Operate Exhibits 

Host companion material in NEESacademy 

Oureach Activities 

Annual Meeting 

NEES Activitiy Highlights 

NEEShub Publications Archive 

Quarterly NEES/EERI webinars 

Coordination of site outreach activities 

11 


2011-‐12 Highlights Booklet | D 


NEES Activity 

Highlights 

2011-2012 

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation 


NEES Activity Highlights 

2011 - 2012 

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network forEarthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) 

207 S. Martin Jischke Dr. 

West Lafayette, IN 47907 

Phone: (765) 496-6180 

Fax: (765) 496-6097 


Contents 

Research 

24 Highly Ductile Pipelines Reduce Earthquake Risk 

CORNELL UNIVERSITY; RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 

26 

Bridge | UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

Unique Six Degree-of-Freedom Hybrid Testing Methodology Demonstrated on Curved 

08 

Resilient Self-Centering Steel Plate Shear Walls 

UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO 

28 

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 

Designing Structures to Resist Tsunami Borne Debris Impact 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

Smart Devices: Next Generation Adaptive Seismic Protection Systems 


An Innovative Pipe Climbing Robot for Post-Earthquake Damage Inspection 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY 

Bacteria for Stabilizing Liquefi able Soils: A Sustainable Technology 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 

Could California’s Levees Break? NEES@UCLA Simulates an Earthquake to Find Out 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 

NEES@UCLA Assists in Post-Earthquake Investigations in Christchurch, New Zealand 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 

30 Magneto-Rheological Fluid Damper Research 

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

32 

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO 

Seismic Performance of Horizontally Curved Bridges 

34 

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 

Generating Tsunami Leading Waves and Studying Resulting Runup 

36 


Landslide Tsunami Waves in Various Topographic Scenarios 

38 


Interaction with Ocean Swell Waves May Reduce Tsunami’s Destructive Power 

20 

Research and Education | UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA 

Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction Experiment Captures Valuable Data Set for 

40 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN 

Shaking Municipal Solid Waste Landfi lls 

22 

Systems | UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO 

Earthquake Testing of a Building Fully Outfitted with Nonstructural Components and 


Contents 

Education, Training, and Outreach 

Cyberinfrastructure 

42 Howard Ambassadors Inspire Future Tsunami Experts 

NEESCOMM; OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; HOWARD UNIVERSITY 

52 

Functionality | OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 

NEES 3D Data Viewer Links Up with Google Sketchup to Improve Versatility and 

44 

NEESCOMM 

NEES Research Experiences Introduce New Talent to Profession 

Facilities 

45 

NEESCOMM 

NEES Graduate Research: A Stepping Stone to a Research and Teaching Career 

46 


Mentoring the Next Generation of NEES Researchers 

48 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA 

NEES Equipment Sites Reach Out to International Collaborators in ESG Research 

50 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN 

Earthquake Engineering Graduate Students Support K-12 Education at NEES@Texas 

54 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA 

UCSB Garner Valley Installs Unique Cross-Hold Array Experiment 

56 

Multi-Axial Subassemblage Testing Facility | UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 

Researchers Advance Knowledge of Structural Performance and Resilience at NEES 

Research Highlight 

EOT Highlight 

Cyberinfrastructure Highlight 

Facilities Highlight 

58 

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO 

Laboratory Expansion at the University of Nevada, Reno Enhances NEES Capabilities 

60 

Centrifuge Experiments | RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 

Centrifuge 2D Shaker System Upgrade Improves Quality of Earthquake Replication in 

62 CITATIONS 



The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation (NEES) with its 

network of 14 advanced laboratories connected 

by a cyberinfrastructure that fosters collaboration 

in research and education is a critical contribution 

of the National Science Foundation to the 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

(NEHRP) through the NEES Operations 

Award (CMMI-0927178). Since officially opening 

its doors to the earthquake research community 

in 2004, over 300 multi-year, multi-investigator 

projects have been completed or are in progress. 

NEES laboratories and cyberinfrastructure are 

used for research conducted or funded by federal, 

state, and local agencies. They also support 

investigations by private industry, and foster collaborations 

with international researchers under 

the partnerships that NEES has cultivated with 

research facilities and agencies in Japan, Taiwan, 

Canada, and China. Because NEES laboratories 

are available to investigators throughout the USA, 

researchers located at colleges or universities 

remote from the NEES sites have led 80% of the 

projects funded by NSF under the NEESR program. 

NEES users are producing many advances 

in earthquake engineering and a wealth of experimental 

data. The NEES work has been cited in 

over 1,700 publications. 

The NEES platform for collaboration, NEEShub, 

provides access to the NEES central data repository 

(Project Warehouse). The Project Warehouse 

serves as a source of data for a growing number 

of NSF-funded (CMMI and other) experimental 

research projects and projects that are based 

on data analysis alone. Today, 173 NEESR and 

Shared-use projects, and over 1Million files are 

stored in the NEES Project Warehouse. During 

2011, Project Warehouse content was accessed an 

average of 3,907 times per month. It is clear that 

the use of the NEES cyberinfrastructure by the 

earthquake engineering community is growing. 

From the release of the NEEShub in July 2010 

until May 2012, Google Analytics recorded more 

than 1.7 million pageviews from 184 countries 

with 100,00+ unique visitors. The NEEShub also 

hosts tools for data visualization, analysis, computational 

simulation, education, collaboration, 

and a rich set of resources aimed at disseminating 

new earthquake engineering knowledge as well 

as educating the next generation of researchers 

and practitioners. Over the past year, over 30,000 

users have accessed the resources provided in the 

NEEShub. 

A 2011 survey indicated that more than 559 graduate 

students, including 191 Ph.D. recipients have 

been trained through participation in research 

conducted at the NEES laboratories. NEES is 

helping to build the workforce needed to discover 

and implement research findings and many of 

those receiving Ph.D.s now hold faculty positions 

at major research universities worldwide and 

are NEES researchers. The very successful NEES 

REU program has sponsored 144 students during 

its first 6 years, of which 50% female and 80% 

under-represented students are pursuing graduate 

degrees in engineering. From our longitudinal 

study, over 32% have earned their PE, 63% either 

obtained their MS or are currently working on it, 

and 47% are working in an engineering field. 

This document summarizes 28 highlights and 

offers a window to the amazing research and educational 

efforts the NEES community involving 

the NEES laboratories and cyberinfrastructure. 

Enjoy! 

Julio A. Ramirez, PhD. 

NEEScomm Center Director, 

Network Chief Offi cer 

Message From the Director 

PG 

7 



PG 

8 

Resilient 

Self-Centering Steel 

Plate Shear Walls 

The newly developed Self-Centering Steel Plate 

Shear Wall (SC-SPSW) is a robust, ductile, and 

easily repairable seismic load resisting system for 

buildings. In contrast with today’s typical seismic 

force resisting systems, the SC-SPSW limits 

damage to easily replaced elements and provides 

post-earthquake recentering of the building. The 

system can reduce downtime and repair costs in 

buildings following earthquakes and contribute to 

a reduction in overall earthquake losses. 

The Steel Plate Shear Wall is a relatively new Lateral 

Force Resisting System (LFRS) recently incorporated 

in North American seismic design codes. 

The system, comprised of a steel boundary frame 

with post-tensioned beam-to-column connections 

and a steel infill plate provides substantial 

strength and stiffness compared to other structural 

systems, which makes it appealing to structural 

engineers. 

Current practice in earthquake engineering is to 

design seismic force resisting systems for collapse 

prevention, achieved by dissipating seismic energy 

through structural yielding and damage, with 

little attention paid to providing post-earthquake 

ease of repair. This results in damage and permanent 

deformation of the components and overall 

system, making repair expensive following even 

moderate earthquakes. The building is unlikely 

to return to a plumb condition following a significant 

earthquake, and easy component replacement 

is not a design consideration for SPSWs or 

other common LFRSs. 

The SC-SPSW limits yielding and damage to the 

sacrificial and easily replaced infill plates and 

achieves frame re-centering using the stored elasticity 

in the pre-tensioned boundary frame. This 

allows a more rapid and cost-effective return to 

occupancy of the building by reducing the effort 

necessary to repair the building and by ensuring it 

is plumb following an earthquake. 

p Top 

Quasi-static test set-up 

The project has also teamed with Seattle-MESA 

(Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Achievement) 

to develop an internship program in structural 

engineering for high school students from 

under-represented groups. Three to four students 

have been selected during each year of the project 

to participate in research activities in structural 

engineering at the University of Washington 

where they work with faculty and graduate and 

undergraduate student researchers. Students who 

participate in the program gain research experience, 

learn about civil and structural engineering, 

and receive mentorship. Thus far 100% of the students 

who have participated in the program have 

entered college immediately after graduating from 

high school. 



u 

Right 

Photo 

Frame 1 specimen 

Graph 

Base-shear 

vs. story 

drift plot 

for a typical 

Self-Centering 

Steel Plate 

Shear Wall 

(SC-SPSW) with 

key events 

denoted 

PG 

9 


Smart Devices: The Next Generation Adaptive Seismic Protection Systems 

PG 

10 

Smart Devices: 

The Next Generation 

Adaptive Seismic 

Protection Systems 

An innovative adaptive seismic protection system 

combining fluid viscous dampers and a new device 

called the Negative Stiffness Device (NSD) 

was tested in a three-story building on the shake 

table at the University of Buffalo NEES laboratory. 

The NSD essentially “mimics” structural weakening 

known to reduce damaging seismic forces 

and dispacements but without inelastic excursions 

and permanent deformations. When coupled with 

supplemental dampers for displacement control, 

the main structural system experiences reduced 

accelerations, reduced displacements, and reduced 

base shear. 

Incorporating NSDs significantly reduces the 

amount of energy transmitted to the structure so 

that the structure suffers little or no damage and 

remains serviceable even after a strong earthquake. 

The NSD is designed to act as a nonlinear 

elastic device that mimic’s yielding in the primary 

structure (while the primary structure remains 

nearly elastic), deflecting energy from the primary 

structure. Simultaneously supplemental damping 

controls the associated deformations, thus significantly 

reducing the response and damage to the 

primary structure. Additionally, since the NSD is 

a passive device and has only components made 

of mild steel, it is very cost-effective and easy to 

install. The system can be used in new buildings 

as well as for retrofit situations. NSD is the first 

practical negative stiffness device implementable 

in large structures (a patent application is in progress). 

Design of a conventional structure is based on the 

philosophy that the structure should not collapse 

but may sustain damage in the aftermath of strong 

ground motion, reducing its serviceability and 

functionality. This performance level is achieved 

by designing the structure to be ductile, allowing 

the structure to yield when subjected to strong 

ground motions, leading to damage in the form 

of stiffness and strength degradation, increased 

interstory drifts, and permanent deformations. 

Rather than allowing the structure to be damaged 

through yielding of the structural framing system, 

the approach investigated in this project is to 

emulate yielding by adding an adaptive negative 

stiffness provided by the Negative Stiffness Device. 

The “apparent yielding” can be emulated in a 

structural system by adding the NSD and shifting 

the “yielding” away from the main structural system 

- leading to the new idea of “apparent weakening.” 

When the negative stiffness is added to 

the main structure at levels smaller than the actual 

yielding of the structure, simulating “yielding” or 

an “apparent weakening,” the main structure remains 

elastic, ensuring structural stability at all 

displacement amplitudes. The combined NSDstructure 

system has a re-centering mechanism 

that minimizes permanent deformation in the 

composite structure-device assembly (unless the 

main structure itself yields). 


t Left Series 

Experimental results show 

force-displacement response 

of the fi rst story of the threestory 

fi xed-base structure 

when subjected to Newhall 

Earthquake 

q Left 

Shake-table testing of a 

three-story fi xed-base 

structure with NSDs in the 

fi rst story 

Right 

Shake-table testing of a 

three-story base isolated 

structure with NSDs at the 

isolation level 

Smart Devices: The Next Generation Adaptive Seismic Protection Systems 

PG 

11 


An Innovative Pipe Climbing Robot for Post-Earthquake Damage Inpsection 

PG 

12 

An Innovative Pipe 

Climbing Robot for 

Post-Earthquake 

Damage Inspection 

Researchers at San Jose State University have developed 

a unique robotic system that can climb 

2”-6” diameter vertical pipes and perform pipe inspection 

tasks after earthquake. The system contains 

both climbing and rotating mechanisms and 

sensors to allow both interior and exterior defects 

in all areas on the pipe to be detected. 

Currently, pipe inspection is performed manually 

which is less reliable and accurate, and limited 

by accessibility, visibility, lighting condition, 

and risky environments. An automatic pipe inspection 

robot would provide a safe, accurate, and 

reliable means for pipe defect detection, and prevent 

secondary disasters after earthquakes, such as 

fires, explosions, water damage, and environmental 

pollution due to broken pipes. 

Earthquake damage analysis has revealed that 

more than 75% of damage losses are due to nonstructural 

building elements, including the utility 

piping. Utility pipes carry water, natural gas, 

waste, and telecommunication and power cables. 

The integrity of these nonstructural components 

is important to the operation of residential, hospital, 

military, and industrial facilities. During 

earthquakes, utility piping can rupture and break 

due to shaking, permanent ground displacement 

(such as faulting, landsliding or liquefaction), the 

relative movement (shear) between floors, or collapsing 

building structures. The immediate inspection 

of utility pipes after earthquake is critical, 

not only to maintain normal functions of various 

life support facilities, but to prevent fires, explosions, 

and contamination from broken gas, water, 

or sewage lines; and to avoid important data loss 

from power outages. The societal and economic 

problems caused by these damaged pipes can be 

significant. 

A robotic system was developed that can climb 

vertical pipes with 2”-6” diameters in residential 

houses or commercial buildings and perform 

defect detection. A sensor system (with a digital 

camera and a magnetic sensor array) is integrated 

into the robot and is used to perform non-destructive 

inspection. The system can detect interior and 

exterior defects in pipes of any material (e.g., steel, 

copper, PVC). The system is a lightweight, compact 

design, with low power consumption; the entire 

system weights less than 15 lbs and operates 

on batteries. It can climb at a speed of 20 inches/ 


t Left 

Professor Winncy Du 

and her students 

at San Jose State University 

developed a pipe climbing 

robot for post-earthquake 

utility pipe inspection 

u Right 

Gripper arm allows the robot 

to climb up and down pipes 

ranging from two to six 

inches in diameter, and to 

overcome obstacles 

like fi ttings, fl anges, 

and junctions along the pipe 

minute, and rotate at 6 RPM. The system can accurately 

detect a variety of defects (e.g., hairline 

cracks, dents, kinks) within pipes. 

A prototype has been built and has successfully 

demonstrated the climbing and rotating functions, 

as well as detecting various defects in variety 

of pipes with different materials. 

An Innovative Pipe Climbing Robot for Post-Earthquake Damage Inpsection 

PG 

13 


Bacteria for Stabilizing Liquefiable Soils: A Sustainable Technology 

PG 

14 

Bacteria for 

Stabilizing 

Liquefiable Soils: 

A Sustainable 

Technology 

Researchers at the NEES Geotechnical Centrifuge 

at the University of California, Davis developed 

a new, innovative method that uses a natural 

biological process to stabilize liquefaction-prone 

sandy soils that support structures. This research 

is leading the development of a rapidly emerging 

field, Bio-Mediated Soil Improvement, which 

seeks to harness naturally occurring biogeochemical 

processes to improve the engineering properties 

of soil. A series of centrifuge tests at the NEES 

facility assessed the extent to which resistance to 

liquefaction triggering is improved by a particular 

bio-mediated method called microbially induced 

calcite precipitation (MICP). 

Numerous opportunities exist in both new construction 

and in rehabilitation of existing infrastructure 

to use natural, more sustainable methods 

to meet society’s infrastructure needs. Field trials 

are currently underway, and industry is considering 

this new technology for their projects. Implementation 

of bio-mediated technologies would 

reduce the use of energy and cement in construction, 

thereby reducing its carbon footprint. 

Soil liquefaction is an important seismic hazard 

that has caused extensive damage to buildings, 

bridges, dams, wharves, and lifelines in past 

earthquakes. Buildings founded on sand that liquefies 

during an earthquake will experience a sudden 

loss of support. This can result in significant 

and irregular settlement of the building, causing 

cracking of foundations and damage to the building 

structure itself. The 2011 Christchurch earthquakes 

caused significant liquefaction, leading to 

fracture of pipelines that left the residents without 

running water or sewer services. 

Over $7 billion of ground improvement work, 

where soil is improved to support new or existing 

infrastructure, occurs each year. Most current 


t Left 

3-D rendering 

of X-Ray CT scan 

of bio-cemented sand 

Yellow is calcite 

Red is particles 

Blue is void space 

u Right 

Top 

Image of calcite 

cemented sand 

grains with 

upclose image 

of bacteria, 

impression of calcite 

Bottom 

Image of 

centrifuge 

model ready 

for testing 

technologies are energy and cement intensive, resulting 

in a relatively large carbon footprint. The 

new biologically-driven soil improvement processes 

use bacteria to control and regulate natural 

processes, such as the precipitation of calcium, to 

improve soil properties, and as a result are less energy 

and carbon intensive. The MICP technology 

uses naturally existing bacteria for the process, and 

in this case only requires the addition of calcium 

and nutrients. The precipitated calcium effectively 

cements sand particles together, which results in a 

sandstone-like material. 

 

 

 

 

Bacteria for Stabilizing Liquefiable Soils: A Sustainable Technology 

PG 

15 


Could California’s Levees Fail? 

Could California’s 

Levees Fail? 

NEES@UCLA Simulates an 

Earthquake to Find Out 

NEES@UCLA, part of a team headed by UCLA 

earthquake experts Scott Brandenberg and Jonathan 

Stewart, employed mobile field shakers to 

simulate earthquake effects on a model levee. This 

experiment studied the seismic fragility of levees 

in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, critical 

components of California’s water system. 

Seismic vulnerability of levees, especially the underlying 

soft peat soils, is not well understood. Yet 

the potential impact of earthquake damage to levees 

is enormous. Knowledge gained from this research 

will help guide decision-making at the state 

and federal levels for the seismic safety of levees in 

the Sacramento Delta and elsewhere. 

PG 

16 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta provides water 

to irrigate San Joaquin Valley through the federal 

Central Valley Project, and sends fresh water to 23 

million people, primarily in the Los Angeles region 

through the State Water Project, designed and 

operated by the Department of Water Resources. 

These two systems depend on 1,100 feet of levees 

built against the Delta’s natural propensity for 

flooding. The levees are old — many of them were 

built as far back as the mid-19th century — and 

rather primitive — big mounds of packed-down 

silt, clay, sand and peat. 


Could California’s Levees Fail? 

Even a moderate earthquake in the Sacramento 

Delta region, on the eastern margin of the San Andreas 

fault system, could cause multiple levee failures. 

A flood in the 441,000-acre Delta wouldn’t 

just be a deluge by local rivers. The big problem is 

that enough water would flow in to suck saltwater 

in from the San Francisco Bay and contaminate 

land and water. The fresh water supply would be 

wiped out. Water delivery to Los Angeles could be 

halted for as long as 28 months, some experts say. 

And agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley — often 

called “the food basket of the world” — would be 

wiped out. 

The research team constructed a model levee in 

the Delta on native soft peat soil, the weakest link 

in the levee structure chain. To conduct large-scale 

earthquake testing, researchers used the NEES@ 

UCLA Earthquake Engineering Mobile Laboratory, 

which includes large shakers, instrumentation, 

and a mobile command center. Failure-level 

shaking was performed to measure levee fragility. 

The unique field testing capabilities of the NEES@ 

UCLA facility made this project possible. In addition 

to the design and construction of the levee 

model by the investigators, many person-months 

of effort went into the project-specific design of 

the shaker and instrumentation, all supported by 

NSF through NEES. 

p Top 

The fi eld test setup 

on Sherman Island, 

with a 100,000-lb 

eccentric mass shaker 

atop the level model 

t Left 

The fi eld testing team, 

led by Prof. Scott 

Brandenberg (far left), 

in front of the levee model 

Very soft peat soil 

lies below, which is only 

rigid during the 

dry season 

PG 

17 


Post-Earthquake Investigations in Christcurch, New Zealand 

NEES@UCLA 

Assists in 

Post-Earthquake 

Investigations in 

Christchurch, New 

Zealand 

PG 

18 

NEES@UCLA staff and equipment traveled to 

Christchurch, New Zealand in July, and then again 

in September 2011 to gather quantitative data on 

the shaking of modern buildings during strong 

aftershocks of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes 

that damaged much of the city. High-resolution 

monitoring systems were installed in damaged 

buildings, uniquely recording building response 

to many large aftershocks. This effort was part of 

two NSF RAPID projects that targeted two types 

of buildings: damaged precast concrete (Phase I) 

and a base-isolated building (Phase II). 

The two precast concrete buildings studied in 


t Left 

The 9-Story Ibis Hotel, 

one of the precast 

concrete buildings 

monitored by 

NEES@UCLA in 2011 

u Right 

Acceleration and 

displacement sensors in the 

foreground, base isolator in 

the background, under the 

Christchurch 

Women’s Hospital 

Phase I are of interest because they were both recently 

constructed and both had moderate structural 

damage. This is important to the earthquake 

engineering research community and the precast 

concrete industry in the United States because 

of similar construction and designs. The Christchurch 

Women’s Hospital studied in Phase II is a 

very new base-isolated structure. The data generated 

from large aftershocks is being used to assess 

the real behavior of this structure and compare it 

with the modeling assumptions used in its seismic 

design. 

Christchurch, a robust city of about 400,000 people, 

was hit very hard by the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. 

Much of the downtown core was heavily 

damaged and must be demolished. Because such 

a strong earthquake was not expected, there were 

no measurements of earthquake shaking in buildings. 

The two NSF RAPID projects included the 

direct measurement of building shaking in aftershocks. 

For the first phase of this NEES effort, the postearthquake 

structural state of the buildings was 

determined by means of collecting ambient vibration 

and aftershock data from the buildings. 

NEES@UCLA installed high-resolution monitoring 

systems in the buildings to record both ambient 

vibrations and aftershock response. Sensors 

were strategically distributed to capture the modes 

of vibration and concentrated at the foundation to 

capture soil-structure interaction. Instruments 

and data were retrieved in September 2011, with 

over 30 aftershocks recorded in addition to extensive 

ambient vibration data. 

The instrumentation is capable of real-time observation 

of the building response measurements. 

For the second phase, aftershock responses are 

being recorded automatically over a period of 

months, and ambient vibrations are being recorded 

periodically. These records are being used to assess 

the behavior and to develop mathematical models 

of the seismically-isolated Christchurch Women’s 

Hospital, including soil-foundation-structure interaction 

effects and the effects of inter-structural 

coupling. As of February 2012 more than 200 significant 

aftershocks had been recorded; these data 

already show some unexpected features of the soilfoundation-isolator-structure 

system response. 

A side benefit was the robust collaboration between 

researchers and engineers in the United States and 

New Zealand. There was excellent collaboration 

between faculty, staff, and students at University of 

Canterbury (New Zealand) and Duke University, 

University of California, San Diego, and UCLA 

(United States). 

Post-Earthquake Investigations in Christcurch, New Zealand 

PG 

19 


Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction Experiment Captures Valuable Data Set 

PG 

20 

Soil-Foundation- 

Structure-Interaction 

Experiment Captures 

Valuable Data Set for 

Research and 

Education 

Two experimental soil-foundation-structure-interaction 

(SFSI) structures installed side-by-side 

at the NEES@UCSB Garner Valley field site are 

fully instrumented to record their response to ambient 

earthquakes. The larger frame is identified 

as the SFSI and the smaller one is affectionately 

called “MiniMe.” 

The SFSI experiments are very significant because 

they record in situ response of structures 

to earthquakes. While experimental shake table 

and laboratory testing research is advancing our 

understanding of the response of structures and 

components to fixed base excitation, the “truth” 

of structural response is found in these in situ recordings. 

The Garner Valley project, a joint collaboration 

between NEES@UCSB and NEES@ 

UCLA, is unique in its ability to record field data 

of structural response. 

A mobile shaker is installed on the roof of the SFSI. 

The shaker is run every night and the response 

of the SFSI is recorded. Running this experiment 

daily has provided a valuable data set that 


documents the change in structural behavior with 

changes in the environment such as temperature 

and ground water level. The structures have been 

configured with and without bracing for comparison 

of response. 

Animations of the response, which will be a great 

asset in teaching seismology and structural engineering, 

are found at http://vimeo.com/34233690. 

To the best of our knowledge, these are the first 

animations to show the response of structures to 

earthquakes, using recorded data. Many features 

of structures that are covered in theory in engineering 

classes can be seen in these animations. 

For example, in the unbraced SFSI frame, the roof 

of the structure resonates in response to the base 

excitation. In the braced MiniMe structure, it is 

possible to see the greater deflection in the “soft” 

direction, which is the longer side of the rectangular 

structure. Features of earthquakes are also visible 

in these animations, such as the initial vertical 

motion from the P-wave followed shortly by the 

larger horizontal motions of the S-wave. 

The SFSI facility was designed to study the passage 

of waves through the soil column below the 

structure, up through the foundation and into the 

structure. Often the observations of ground shaking 

recorded on the foundation of structures are 

not the same as those recorded on open ground 

due to the interaction between the soil and foundation. 

Understanding these interactions at a relatively 

simple site using a simple structure is a primary 

purpose of this facility. The test structures 

are instrumented with accelerometers, rotational 

velocity sensors, strain gauges, pressure cells, and 

uplift displacement sensors. These field studies of 

structural frames with and without diagonal bracing 

demonstrate the importance of bracing and 

the primary effect of horizontal accelerations during 

earthquakes. 

t Left 

SFSI test structure 

q Below 

SFSI test structure and 

“MiniMe” (left); 

Animiation Captured 

for still shot (right) 

Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction Experiment Captures Valuable Data Set 

PG 

21 


Building Fully Outfitted with Nonstructural Components and Systems 

PG 

22 

Earthquake Testing of a Building Fully 

Outfitted with Nonstructural 

Components and Systems 

For the first time ever, a full-scale, 5-story reinforced concrete building outfitted 

with a broad array of nonstructural components and systems (NCSs) was tested 

at the University of California, San Diego in spring 2012. The building included 

a fully functional elevator, prefabricated metal stairs, partition walls, 

ceilings, synthetic stucco and precast concrete cladding exterior facades; as 

well as mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and medical equipment. 

The building-nonstructural system was subjected to simulated 

earthquake shaking, first while supported on rubber isolators and subsequently 

while fixed to the base of the world’s largest outdoor shake 

table. This project, coined “BNCS” (Building Nonstructural Components 

and Systems), brings together a consortium of over 45 industry 

sponsors from around the world, state and federal government 

funding entities, and four universities, to collaborate with NEES. 

The unified goal of this multi-disciplinary group is to minimize 

future earthquake-induced losses associated with damage to 

nonstructural components and systems. 

To perform their intended function, buildings are outfitted 

with a broad range of items, none of which contribute 

to the buildings primary load bearing resistence. These 

items, termed nonstructural components and systems 

(NCSs) in the design literature, encompass more than 

80% of the cost of construction of a modern building. 

Over the past three decades, the majority of earthquakeinduced 

direct losses in buildings have been attributed 

to damage to these non-load bearing elements. This 

project will improve seismic design methodologies and 

construction practices for these important components, 

leading to increased confidence in their performance 

and functionality during future earthquakes. 


NCSs may be broadly categorized as mechanical, 

electrical and plumbing systems; architectural components; 

and building contents. Many of the NCSs 

included in this test program have never been tested 

at full-scale, in a dynamic building environment as 

proposed in this program; including in particular the 

fully functional elevator, prefabricated metal stairs, 

partition walls, ceilings, synthetic stucco, and precast 

concrete cladding exterior facades. 

Complicated by the many configurations, detailing 

variations and connection types to the building, the 

design of NCSs largely rests outside of the building 

structural engineers’ domain. Rather it is supported by 

mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and other engineering 

specialties and associated construction trades. In 

many instances however, few to no seismic engineering 

standards exist. This largely stems from lack of 

knowledge of their behavior during earthquake motions. 

This landmark project is developing improved analysis 

and design tools for nonstructural components 

and systems with the goal of minimizing future earthquake-induced 

losses to society-at-large associated 

with damage to these highly vulnerable, yet critically 

important items supporting the functionality of buildings. 

t Left 

Structural skeleton 

during facade 

installation 

[North and 

West Elevation] 

u Right 

Completed Building 

facade 

[West and 

South Elevation] 

Building Fully Outfitted with Nonstructural Components and Systems 

PG 

23 


Highly Ductile Pipelines Reduce Earthquake Risk 

Highly Ductile 

Pipelines Reduce 

Earthquake Risk 

u Right 

Test basin 

surface 

after test 

PG 

24 

Large-scale and centrifuge tests with equipment 

at the NEES research facilities at Cornell University 

and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), 

respectively, have shown superior performance 

of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines 

under abrupt ground rupture caused by earthquakes. 

Guided by the NEES research, engineers 

in Christchurch, NZ and Los Angeles, CA are using 

HDPE pipelines to reduce earthquake risk in 

water supply systems. 

After the 2010 Darfield earthquake, pipelines 

damaged in areas of liquefaction were replaced 

with HDPE pipelines. These HDPE pipelines performed 

well in two subsequent earthquakes when 

subjected to liquefaction-induced lateral movement 

of more than 2 m. The Los Angeles Department 

of Water and Power (LADWP) is preparing 

to install HDPE pipelines in the Elizabeth Tunnel, 

which carries all Los Angeles Aqueduct water 

across the San Andreas Fault. The HDPE pipelines 

can deform without damage under fault deformation 

that partially ruptures and offsets the tunnel, 

thereby providing an alternate flow path. 

Pipelines composed of HDPE are highly ductile 

and can deform without damage to accommodate 

substantial ground deformation caused by 

fault rupture, soil liquefaction, and landslides. 

The deployment of HDPE pipelines at locations 

of earthquake-induced ground rupture improves 

water supply and critical infrastructure performance, 

thereby reducing fire risk, providing water 

for drinking and medical purposes, and enhancing 

community resilience. The NEES research also 

improves the design and construction of lifelines 

affected by landslides not triggered by earthquakes, 

such as mining, extraction of subsurface 

fluids, and underground construction. 

Liquefaction in Christchurch provides first time 

confirmation during actual earthquakes that 

HDPE pipelines can accommodate severe, permanent 

ground deformation, which is recognized as 

the most serious source of seismic pipeline failure. 

This field experience confirms NEES experimental 

findings, and provides real-world proof for 

the owners and operators of underground infra- 


structure of HDPE’s capacity to perform well under 

substantial ground failure conditions. The use 

of HDPE, therefore, provides protection against 

large ground movements, and can be used to reduce 

earthquake risk in lifeline systems. In Christchurch 

the deployment of HDPE pipelines is being 

used to improve substantially the performance 

of water and wastewater systems. In Los Angeles, 

HDPE pipelines are being used to reduce the seismic 

risk to the Los Angeles Aqueducts at the location 

where they cross the San Andreas Fault. 

q Below 

Test basin 

at surface level 

Highly Ductile Pipelines Reduce Earthquake Risk 

PG 

25 


Unique Six-Degree-of-Freedom Hybrid Testing Methodology 

PG 

26 

u Right 

Small scale bridge piers in 1/5 scale 

wall facility during hybrid testing 

Unique Six 

Degree-of-Freedom 

Hybrid Testing 

Methodology 

Demonstrated on 

Curved Bridge 

Through sophisticated control and interaction of 

advanced testing equipment and software tools at 

the Illinois NEES facility, called “hybrid testing,” 

researchers from the University of Nevada, George 

Washington University, and the University of Illinois 

have conducted a landmark hybrid experiment 

on the response of a curved reinforced concrete 

bridge to earthquake loading. The three-pier 

small-scale hybrid test with six degree-of-freedom 

control is the first of its kind. The capabilities 

proved through this test pave the way for several 

future hybrid tests, at Illinois and elsewhere. 

In the past, laboratory facilities have not been 

capable of performing complete system tests of 

this type or magnitude. Many assumptions made 

in past experimental testing have been removed, 

and thus these results more closely reflect the true 

behavior of structures subjected to actual earthquakes. 

The tests being conducted at NEES@Illinois 

are unique and provide new understanding 

of the seismic response of bridge piers under the 

multi-directional loading typical of earthquakes. 

Specifically, this hybrid test has demonstrated that 

U.S.-code compliant bridge piers can be susceptible 

to failure due to interaction of earthquake 

loads. 

The accurate testing of the seismic response of 

large scale infrastructure such as bridges is often 

limited by the lab space and budget available for 

conducting a realistic test at a single research facility. 

The use of hybrid testing (combining multiple 

experimental facilities and computational components 

in the same test) allows researchers to conduct 

investigations that remove these barriers to 

perform more accurate investigations of structural 

behavior than previously possible. By leveraging 

the strengths of multiple physical and computerbased 

systems, researchers can physically examine 

the most important parts of a structure and 

model the behavior of the rest of the system on a 

computer. This allows for time and cost savings, 

while still accounting for the complexity of the entire 

structural system. The curved bridge tested in 

this scenario has all degrees of movement modeled 

and controlled, with no assumptions made to 

simplify the laboratory component of the test. For 

these reasons, the results reflect what the true behavior 

of a similar structure would be if subjected 

to earthquake shaking in the field. 


t Left 

Failure due to combined shear 

and torsion application in 

preliminary study 

u Right 

Small scale fabrication 

of RC pier reinforcement 

q Below 

Initial spalling of 

small scale 

concrete pier 

Unique Six-Degree-of-Freedom Hybrid Testing Methodology 

u Right 

Portable LBCB 

experimental setup 

with piers, controls, 

and communication 

PG 

27 



PG 

28 

Designing Structures 

to Resist Tsunami 

Borne Debris Impact 

Using a pendulum test fixture and the high-rate 

data acquisition capabilities of the George E. 

Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering 

Simulation (NEES) facility at Lehigh University, 

researchers slammed full-scale shipping containers 

and utility poles against a testing wall to gather 

data about the impact forces of tsunami borne debris. 

Results from these unique tests, along with 

simulations carried out at the University of Hawaii, 

are being used to specify modeling parameters 

for smaller scale (1:5) in-water tests at the 

NEES Tsunami Wave Basin at Oregon State University 

in summer 2012. 

Logs, telephone poles, and shipping containers, 

which will float even when fully loaded, hit 

structures as they are pushed around by tsunami 

waves. Their impact poses a significant threat to 

residential and commercial buildings, evacuation 

shelters, and critical port facilities such as 

fuel storage tanks in the tsunami inundation zone. 

Building code provisions are not well-developed 

to handle typical tsunami-driven debris. Testing 

and simulation results will help engineers better 

understand structural design loads for tsunami 

(and flood) driven debris impact. This will lead to 

resilient evacuation shelters in coastal regions and 

safe design and placement of critical facilities in 

inundation zones. The knowledge can be extended 

to applications in flood zones and other regions 

where debris flow impacts may be likely. 

Many coastal regions in the U.S. are at-risk of tsunami 

inundation, some of which are densely populated. 

More resilient infrastructure is essential 

to lessening devastation and facilitating rebuilding 

of the stricken communities. If inundation 

occurs before evacuation can be accomplished, 

vertical evacuation shelters are likely the most 

effective solution to ensure survival of local inhabitants. 

These structures must be designed and 

constructed to ensure that they perform their intended 

function. Proper structural design is only 

possible with a conservative but realistic estimation 

of forces generated from the tsunami event. 

Methods have been developed for the determination 

of forces associated with the fluid effects of 

the tsunami, but the 2011 Tohoku Japan event 

demonstrated that impact from debris must also 

be considered in design. 

This research program, a collaboration of faculty 

at University of Hawaii, Lehigh, and Oregon State 

University, will enhance understanding and prediction 

of the physics behind large-scale structural 

impact on the built environment. Provisions 

in current design codes and guidelines are based 

on simpler impact models that do not necessarily 

reflect the physics. The effect of the fluid during 

the impact events is a relative unknown, and the 

current research project will reveal how the flow 

field affects the structural impact. 

Researchers will develop methods to determine 

the forces generated when debris impacts structures. 

This knowledge will give structural engineers 

the ability to ensure that structures designated 

as evacuation shelters are capable of resisting 

the potential loads. Furthermore the research will 

help city planners in identifying where to place 

critical structures relative to potential debris fields. 


p Top Photos 

In-air 

imapact 

setup 

u 

Right Charts 


Top 

Gravity waves 

induced by the 

container 

Bottom 

Forces generated 

by impact of 

debris 

PG 

29 


Magneto-Rheological Fluid Dampers Research 

PG 

30 

Magneto-Rheological 

Fluid Damper 

Research 

Advancing Real-Time Hybrid Testing Capabilities 

For the first time, a geographically-distributed 

real-time fully dynamic experiment was successfully 

conducted using multiple equipment sites 

in the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation (NEES). The realtime 

hybrid test included two controllable 200 kN 

Magneto-Rheological (MR) fluid dampers, one 

located at Lehigh and the second at the University 

of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, implemented to 

reduce the seismic response of a simulated 3-story 

building model. 

The tools developed and validated in this project 

can be used to conduct future tests leveraging 

multiple equipment sites, such as shake table and 

large-scale test facilities, within the distributed 

NEES. This capability will allow researchers to 

conduct larger and more complex experimental 

verification of seismic protective systems, thus 

more rapidly advancing the state of knowledge 

and acceptance of new concepts in seismic hazard 

mitigation. 

NEES consists of fourteen shared-use equipment 

sites located throughout the U.S. Among them is 

a variety of state-of-the-art test equipment, including 

large-scale hybrid test facilities, shaking 

tables, geotechnical centrifuges, a tsunami wave 

basin, as well as field equipment and an information 

technology infrastructure linking these sites 

over high-speed Internet. The National Research 

Council recently identified research activities, involving 

tests at multiple equipment sites, as a major 

focus of the geographically distributed NEES 

collaboratory. Geographically distributed testing 

will allow NEES to conduct more complex experiments 

and simulation tests simultaneously across 

multiple equipment sites. 


Magneto-Rheological Fluid Damper Research 

In the field of earthquake engineering, and more 

generally in structural dynamics and control, experimental 

verification is critical. For large structural 

systems, full-scale experimental tests may 

not be economically or practically feasible. Testing 

at multiple geographically distributed laboratories 

can optimize the use of distributed resources 

found in the NEES equipment facilities. 

The major challenge with geographically distributed, 

or multi-site, real-time hybrid simulation is 

the accommodation of large communication time 

delays present in sending data over large distances 

– including the Internet. Leveraging multiple 

equipment sites for dynamic tests conducted in 

hard real-time (where 1 second of the test is conducted 

in exactly 1 second) was made possible 

by addressing a number of challenges due to the 

hard real-time nature of the experiment and the 

inherent and unpredictable network delay associated 

with geographically distributed testing. This 

research provided a framework, sensitivity analysis, 

and series of tests conducted between the University 

of Connecticut, University of Illinois, and 

Lehigh University that demonstrated and verified 

the potential of geographically distributed testing. 

t Left Photos 

MR damper at Illinois (left) and MR 

damper at Lehigh (right) participate 

in single experiment, and rely on 

Internet communication to provide 

feedback and control 

p Above Photo 

Lehigh actuators attached to two 

MR dampers 

PG 

31 



PG 

32 

u Right 

A fi sh-eye view of the curved 

bridge spanning all four shake 

tables 

Seismic Performance 

of Horizontally 

Curved Bridges 

The NEES Site at the University of Nevada, Reno 

(NEES@UNR) recently concluded experimental 

seismic testing of a three-span curved bridge. The 

2/5-scale model was 145 ft long with an 80 ft radius 

at the centerline, and it spanned across four 

shake tables in the laboratory. The superstructure 

consisted of three steel girders and a 12 ft wide 

concrete deck, which rested on two steel abutment 

towers and two reinforced concrete columns. This 

specimen was designed by a team of eight graduate 

students under the supervision of Ian Buckle, 

Ahmad Itani and David Sanders. In addition to 

receiving NEES shared-use support, the project 

was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration 

with supplemental funding from Caltrans. 

Six different configurations of the bridge were 

tested to examine specific components, including 

column design (with and without conventional 

columns), abutment design (with and without a 

backwall behind the abutments), seismic isolation 

(with and without response modification devices), 

and the effects of live load (with and without 

trucks on the superstructure). The design earthquake 

for each configuration was kept constant 

and was based on the Sylmar record of the 1994 

Northridge earthquake. 

A benchmark bridge (conventional columns/ 

bearings with no abutment backwall) was tested 

first and used as a baseline to compare the results 

of each subsequent configuration. The single column 

bents had a cap beam that supported the conventional 

steel bearings (effectively creating a pin 

connection at the bents) while there were sliding 

bearings at the abutments. The abutments were 

restrained in the radial direction with sacrificial 

shear keys calibrated to fracture at 75 percent of 

the design earthquake, at which point the bearings 

were free to slide in any direction. The columns 

were 24 inches in diameter with a two percent longitudinal 

reinforcement ratio. 

Preliminary results indicate that each variation 

used in the remaining five experiments reduced 

deformations in the bridge and visibly reduced 

damage to the columns. For example, the use of 

lead rubber isolators at all support locations (Test 

#4) reduced column cracking, minimized rebar 

yielding, and eliminated concrete spalling. Furthermore, 

the addition of trucks (Test #2), an 

abutment backwall (Test #5), and rocking columns 

(Test #6) caused the shear keys to fracture 

at earthquake amplitudes higher than 75 percent 

of the design earthquake; this indicates that, in 

each case, the radial shears were less than in Test 

#1 when the keys failed as intended during the 

75 percent design earthquake. This suggests that 

many steps may be taken to reduce damage in horizontally 

curved bridge during large earthquakes. 

The data from this project will provide new insight 

on the behavior of curved bridges under 

earthquake loading. As far as can be determined, 

experimental seismic studies of curved bridges 

have not previously been conducted at this scale 

with this degree of complexity. It is therefore believed 

the results of this research will be instrumental 

in developing comprehensive guidelines 

for their safe and economical design. Despite the 


t Left 

The photos illustrate the 

difference in using 

conventional bearings (left); and 

lead rubber isolation 

bearings (right) 

Table 

Six different confi gurations of the 

bridge and the outcomes 

of each test 


widespread use of curved bridges in freeway interchanges 

and high degrees of curvature in tight 

locations (particularly in inner city areas), there 

are no seismic design provisions specifically for 

curved bridges in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. 

The data from this project will therefore 

provide not only new insight into their behavior 

but also the knowledge from which to develop design 

specifications for consideration by the AAS- 

HTO Subcommittee on Bridges. 

Second, the highly-skilled personnel at NEES@ 

UNR provided the necessary expertise for scheduling, 

safety, shake table operation, and logistics to 

ensure safe and on-time completion of the project. 

Finally, cyberinfrastructure tools, such as data collection 

systems, data viewing software, and video 

capture and broadcasting equipment, were provided 

by the facility to ensure appropriate data acquisition 

and storage both during and after each 

experiment. 

The NEES Network played an instrumental role in 

the implementation and success of this research 

project in many ways. First, the state-of-the-art 

laboratory, equipped with four large NEES shake 

tables, was essential for testing a bridge of this size. 

PG 

33 



PG 

34 

Generating Tsunami Leading Waves and Studying Resulting 

Runup in the NEES Large Wave Flume 

Culminating a significant upgrade to the NEES 

Tsunami Research Facility at the Oregon State 

University O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory, 

researchers have successfully developed algorithms 

to control the long-stroke piston-driven 

wavemaker to generate tsunami-like waves. Installed 

in the NEES@OSU Large Wave Flume in 

2009, the long-stroke piston-driven wavemaker 

provides improved capabilities over the previous 

flap-type wavemaker as it can generate controlled 

long waves, allowing researchers to study coastal 

impacts, including runup heights and inundation 

areas, caused by tsunami waves. 

Leading tsunami waves, unlike wind generated 

waves, are very long waves. Tsunami damage is 

caused primarily by the onshore current (flood- 


u q 

t Left 

Large-Scale 

NEES 

Wave Flume 

Right and 

Below 

Rendering of 

wavemaker 

mechanism 

ing) associated with the long duration leading 

waves. The new long-stroke wavemaker provides 

researchers opportunities to investigate many of 

the unanswered questions about tsunami impacts 

by collecting scientific data for more realistic laboratory-generated 

tsunami leading waves. 

On March 11, 2011 an earthquake of magnitude 

8.9 M w struck offshore of the Oshika Peninsula of lenge for the tsunami research community, who 

Tohoku, Japan. The estimated wave height at Miyako 

City, Iwate prefecture, was 38.9 m. Like the solitary wave theory. One reason that the solitary 

currently interpret the existing results based on 

2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the damage by surging 

water was far more deadly and destructive for the leading tsunami wave in laboratory studies 

wave has been used in the past as the surrogate 

than the actual earthquake. The Japanese Police is that most existing wave flume facilities cannot 

Agency confirmed more than 15,000 deaths and generate the very long waves that represent leading 

tsunami waves. 

3,300 people missing. The estimated $122 billion 

economic impact included both immediate losses, 

such as the suspension of industrial production The new wavemaker allows the generation of 

in many factories, and the longer term cost of rebuilding. 

NEES Large Wave Flume a powerful research tool 

a wider range of long waves, which makes the 

in coastal engineering. The Large Wave Flume 

Better understanding of the tsunami run-up and (104m x 3.7m x 4.6m, L x W x H) is one of the 

back-wash processes is needed to mitigate tsunami 

hazard. During the last forty years, solitary (4m) not commonly available. A recent project by 

largest of its kind and has a long paddle stroke 

waves have been used as surrogate leading tsunami 

waves in laboratory studies. Data from the to focus on the run-up of various forms of long 

researchers from Cornell University was the first 

2004 Indian Ocean tsunamis, however, show that waves in a large-scale facility. The large set of experimental 

runup data obtained can be used to 

the length and time scales for the solitary wave are 

too small in comparison with those of real tsunamis. 

This discovery poses a fundamental chaltory 

validate numerical results or small-scale labora- 

experiments. 


PG 

35 


Landslide-Generated Tsunami Experiments Demonstrate Large Runups 

PG 

36 

Landslide-Generated Tsunami Experiments 

Demonstrate Large Runups in Intuitively Unexpected Location 

Researchers studying the propagation of landslide-generated 

tsunamis around conical volcanic 

islands used the novel pneumatic landslide tsunami 

generator developed at the NEES facility at Oregon 

State University to launch three-dimensional 

granular landslides off a 10-m diameter 1.85-m 

tall steel cone. Source and runup scenarios based 

on real world events were physically modeled in 

the Tsunami Wave Basin. Landslide characteristics 

were measured using a stereo particle image 

velocimetry system for three-dimensional surface 

reconstruction, above and underwater cameras, 

and acoustic multiple transducer array to scan 

the slide deposit. Tsunami waves and runup were 

measured with resistance wave gauges and above 

water cameras. 

Experiments demonstrated that the tsunami wave 

generation and the edge wave propagation around 

the island collide in the back of the island, resulting 

in potentially devastating localized runup amplification 

at an intuitively unexpected location 

where residents may therefore be unprepared. 

The experimental data provides new insights to 

validate and advance three-dimensional numerical 

landslide tsunami and prediction models, and 

ultimately save lives. 

Landslide generated tsunamis can occur in confined 

water bodies, at islands, continental shelves 

and coasts where the wave can travel both in offshore 

and along the shore directions. Tsunamis 

generated by landslides can have extremely high 

amplitudes, locally exceeding 100 m and runup up 

to more than 500 m near the slide impact as was 

seen in Lituya Bay, Alaska in 1958. 

Past tsunami research has focused primarily on 

tsunami generation with solid block landslides and 

wave propagation across open oceans. Limited research 

has been performed on tsunami generation 

by granular landslides in three dimensions, complex 

wave interactions due to the effect of topographies, 

and near- and far-field wave runup. Over 

the last two years, a series of physical experiments 

have studied tsunami generation by landslides in 

different topographic and bathymetric configurations: 

far-field propagation and runup, a narrow 

fjord and curved headland configurations, and a 


conical island setting representing landslides off 

an island or a volcanic flank collapse. 

The landslide tsunami generator consists of a 

sliding box filled with up to 1,350 kg of naturally 

rounded river gravel which is accelerated by 

means of four pneumatic pistons down a slope, 

launching the granular landslide towards the water 

at velocities of up to 5 m/s. As the slide impacts 

the water, a crater forms due to water displacement 

and waves propagate radially from the 

generation zone. Water displaced from the initial 

impact of the slide creates the first wave crest. The 

water crater creates the first trough, and the crater 

collapse with an uprush of water creates a second 

crest. This research enhances knowledge, understanding, 

and modeling of landslide-generated 

tsunamis towards mitigation of the deadliest nontectonic 

tsunami hazard. 

t Left Series 

Researchers 

load gravel and 

launch the deformable 

landslide into the 

tsunami wave basin 

u Right Series 

Impact of 

three-dimensional 

granular deformable 

landslide at 

water surface 

Landslide-Generated Tsunami Experiments Demonstrate Large Runups 

PG 

37 



PG 

38 

Interaction with 

Ocean Swell Waves 

May Reduce 

Tsunami’s 

Destructive Power 

In one of the first laboratory experiments that 

models the tsunami as part of the oceanographic 

environment, rather than as a singular event, researchers 

at Texas A&M University investigated 

whether ocean swell waves can affect some of the 

characteristics of tsunamis, particularly at landfall. 

In laboratory experiments at the NEES Tsunami 

Wave Basin at Oregon State University the tsunami 

broke farther offshore when swell was present. 

Previous laboratory studies of tsunami impact on 

coastal infrastructure have treated the tsunami as 

a solitary singular event. Modeling the interaction 

of the tsunami with other wave phenomena in the 

ocean changes the location of tsunami breaking, 

which has an effect on the destructive power of a 

tsunami and which in turn can alter design criteria 

for coastal structures and infrastructure. 

Nearly a million people in the U.S. live in areas 

most vulnerable to a significant Pacific Ocean tsunami. 

Laboratory studies of tsunami impact on 

coastal infrastructure in these regions comprise a 

significant portion of U.S. tsunami research. These 

laboratory studies have generally represented the 

tsunami as an isolated “hump” of water (the “solitary” 

wave), which has been a long-accepted model 

for a tsunami wave far away from its generation 

source. In this manner, the landfall of a tsunami is 

considered a singular event, with no connection 

at all to other ever-present features of the coastal 

ocean (waves, tides and currents, for example.) 

In contrast, photographic observations, satellite 

images, and numerical model calculations of the 

2004 Indian Ocean tsunami reveal that undulating 

waves (“dispersive” waves) appear to make landfall 

on the coastline prior to the tsunami itself. These 

dispersive waves are generated by the tsunami, but 

are much shorter in length than the tsunami; in 

fact, they appear to have many of the same geometric 

characteristics as ocean swell waves. One 

consequence of the similarity between dispersive 

waves and ocean swell waves is that they can readily 

“interact”; the characteristics each set of waves 

can undergo change (height, length, direction, 

propensity for breaking) in the presence of the 

other set of waves. 

As any wave, whether solitary or not, approaches 

the shoreline, it will “break”; the forward part of 

the wave will steepen and the wave crest will (in 

this case) overturn and impact the wave at its base. 

Once the wave breaks, its energy will begin to decrease. 

As the broken wave streams toward shore, 

friction with the bottom will remove more energy 

from the wave, reducing some of the destructive 

impact of a tsunami on the coast. The farther offshore 

a wave breaks, the greater the distance it 

travels as a broken wave, thus experiencing more 

friction with the sea bottom and reducing its impact 

on the coast. The primary outcome from the 

work thus far is that the location of breaking of the 


t Left 

Comparison of locations of 

tsunami breaking: 

Overhead photo of tsunami breaking 

with swell present (left); and 

without swell 

present (right) 

u Right 

Time series and time-frequency 

spectrum from wavelet transform; 

Red areas denote high energy. Tsunami 

only (top) and tsunami with 

swell (bottom) 

tsunami in the laboratory is farther offshore when 

swell is present than when it is not. We hypothesize 

that this can be explained by the “interaction” 

between the tsunami and the surrounding swell, 

leading to a change in the tsunami’s breaking characteristics. 

The laboratory research for this study was conducted 

at the NEES Tsunami Wave Basin (TWB), 

in the O.H. Hinsdale Laboratory at Oregon State 

University. This NEES facility has the ability to 

generate sizeable tsunami waves in addition to 

regular and irregular waves, with sufficient control 

to generate both in sequence. 


PG 

39 


Shaking Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Shaking 

Municipal 

Solid Waste 

Landfills 

PG 

40 

Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are environmentally–sensitive, 

engineered facilities that 

can have adverse effects on the environment and 

public health should failures occur during an 

earthquake. Furthermore, their repair is costly. 

Using large mobile shakers available at the NEES 

facility at University of Texas, researchers have 

generated the first field data on the nonlinear dynamic 

properties of MSW that will allow engineers 

to more reliably assess how MSW landfills 

will perform during future earthquakes. 

Although characterization of MSW is difficult, 

primarily because of the variability of the material 

and the time-dependent change in its properties, 

it remains a critical task. This investigation has the 

potential to transform seismic engineering practices 

in landfill design by providing a new methodology 

for field testing of solid waste, validating 

the applicability of large-scale laboratory testing 

of MSW, generating much needed field and laboratory 

data, and developing recommended methodologies 

for the performance of seismic analyses 

of MSW landfills. This field testing of MSW has 

generated an unprecedented dataset that is critical 

in understanding the seismic response of MSW 

landfills. 

Recent U.S. earthquakes such as the 1994 Northridge 

Earthquake highlighted the seismic vulnerability 

of MSW landfills. Excessive movement 

during shaking may damage the landfill’s containment 

or cover system or cause stability failures. 

The impact of such failures on the environment 

can be devastating. Engineers’ understanding of 

the dynamic properties of MSW, albeit critical, is 

rudimentary and lacking. 

Researchers from the University of Michigan, 

California State University - Los Angeles, and 

Geosyntec Consultants have been able, for the 

first time, to generate field data on the dynamic 

properties of MSW not just at small strains, but 

at larger strains, similar to those that are expected 

during a major earthquake. As part of this project, 

researchers are performing extensive field and 

large-scale laboratory testing to evaluate both the 

linear and the non-linear dynamic properties of 

MSW as well as the factors that affect its behavior. 

Presently, tests have been conducted at a landfill 

in Texas using the Tri-axial mobile shaker (T- 

Rex) and the Thumper mobile shaker available at 

NEES@UTexas. 

The tests performed at a landfill in Austin, Texas 

allowed for the optimization of the testing methodology 

for subsequent testing at landfills in California, 

scheduled for the summer of 2012. The 

research team has tested MSW at three different 

locations, and although the waste was variable, the 

results were found to be surprisingly consistent. 

The researchers observed that although MSW is 

a variable material, it becomes more uniform at 


t Left 

Non-linear dynamic testing 

using T-Rex at a landfi ll in Austin, 

Texas (far left); 

Evalutation of linear dynamic properties 

of MSW 

q Below 

Sampling for large-scale 

laboratory testing (top); 

and in-situ measurement 

of unit weight 

of MSW (bottom) 

Shaking Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

different scales. MSW was found to be anisotropic, 

that is, its stiffness is not the same in all directions. 

Using the mobile shakers, the research team 

was able to shake the waste at large strains and 

observe how the stiffness of the material reduces 

with increasing strain. Similarly to soils, MSW 

loses some of its stiffness as the induced strain increases. 

However, this first dataset indicates that 

this reduction in stiffness with increasing strain 

is generally not as high as that observed for most 

soils. More data from additional landfills will be 

generated in summer 2012 and will allow the researchers 

to generalize their conclusions. MSW 

tested by the shakers, was excavated, characterized 

and brought back to the laboratory facilities at the 

University of Michigan to perform large-scale laboratory 

testing. 

PG 

41 


Howard Ambassadors Inspire Future Tsunami Experts 


PG 

42 

In its second year of a collaboration with 

NEEScomm, the Howard University Ambassadors 

Program engages a diverse group of engineering 

students to work with many underrepresented 

K-12 students in the Washington DC area. 

The ambassador program, under the direction of 

Dr. Claudia Marin, provides on an opportunity to 

reach underrepresented students in the metro area 

while developing Howard engineering students as 

they lead outreach activities. NEEScomm provided 

Howard University Department of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering with a 16-foot miniwave 

flume developed at the NEES@OSU site to 

use in outreach activities, including the popular 

Discover Engineering Family Day each spring at 

the National Building Museum in Washington, 

D.C. 

The Discover Engineering Family Day brings over 

9,000 students each year and a long line to the 

NEES booth in anticipation of designing and testing 

a model structure. Ambassadors from Howard 

University rotate through the booth activities, 

introducing NEES, tsunamis, and earthquake 

engineering; working the wave flume; and helping 

children with their structures. After a group 

shout of “Future Engineers!”, the students dive into 

their Legos allotment to build a structure and then 

test it in the mini-wave flume against the tsunami 

wave generated by the ambassadors. As they leave 

the booth, students complete an assessment to 

share their new knowledge and excitement about 

the engineering profession. 

As a result of this activity and others like it, not 

only are participants excited about the field of 

engineering, but also Ambassadors have become 

interested in participating in undergraduate research 

on tsunami related issues. For example, 

several students participated abroad this past 

summer on tsunami related research. One student 

presented a tsunami-related research paper at a 

professional meeting. These examples illustrate 

how the Howard Ambassador program is a win 

for everyone involved! 


http://www.coas.howard.edu/images/hulogo/ 

howard_university_wordmark150x61.jpg 


“Often as engineering students we 

forget why we’re doing what we do, but the 

Ambassador Program at Howard University 

with the Tsunami Protection Team reminded 

me of that. A child told me during the 

activity, “Who knew engineers helped 

everybody?” I replied ‘Yea, we do!’” 

Kandace, Ambassador 

Howard University 

t Left 

At the 2012 Discover Engineering 

Family Day, a boy scout 

watching his Lego structure 

survive a tsunami wave (left); 

An ambassador providing the 

countdown for the next wave 

(right) 

p Above 

Overhead photo of the NEES 

booth with Ambassadors working 

with students at each station 

u Right 

Ambassador placing a Lego 

structure into the 16-foot mini 

wave fl ume 

PG 

43 


NEES Research Experiences Introduce New Talent to Profession 

NEES Research 

Experiences 

Introduce New Talent 

to Earthquake 

Engineering 

Profession 

The NEES Research Experiences for Undergraduates 

(REU) program is a dynamic 10-week summer 

research program for upper division undergraduate 

students interested in civil, electrical, or 

computer engineering, and other fields related to 

seismic risk mitigation. It has served 144 students 

since the summer of 2006, with another 32 students 

preparing for summer 2012. Typically between 

five and eight NEES sites host cohorts of 

two to five students in any given summer. 

The 2011 REU program culminated with the Young 

Researchers Symposium August 19-20, 2011 in 

Southern California. Twenty-eight students and 

10 REU administrators and mentors met at UCLA 

on August 19 for a tour of the NEES@UCLA facilities 

and presentations by faculty and graduate 

students on recent research projects. This was followed 

by a tour of the Los Angeles International 

Airport Theme Building where NEES@UCLA had 

performed on-site testing to validate analytical 

models. Engineers involved in the project were on 

site to discuss the project and answer questions. 

On August 20, Sandy Seale of University of California-Santa 

Barbara opened the day with a 

presentation on research at NEES@UCSB. REU 

students then presented posters of their summer 

research, and students and mentors evaluated 

each of the posters. Emma Lejeune, the winner 

of the Best Overall Poster Presentation, will be 

presenting her poster at the 2012 NEES Annual 

Meeting. This was followed by a walking tour of 

earthquake damage and retrofits resulting from 

the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake. 

To assess the program’s overall impact, a survey 

was sent to the last known email address for all 

2006-2010 alumni. The survey was sent to 94 

REU alumni, with 62 responses received (66% response 

rate) as of 9/15/2011. Based on the collected 

data, the REU program is achieving its goals 

of inspiring students to pursue advanced degrees 

and to stay in STEM careers. The program has 

been effective with underrepresented groups evidenced 

by 80% of minority respondents and 50% 

of female respondents pursuing graduate degrees. 

Alumni overwhelmingly (53 of 62 responses) indicate 

that the REU program had an impact on 

their academic and career choices. 

The REU participants are not the only beneficiaries. 

Graduate students gain valuable experience 

in mentoring novice researchers, and NEES PIs 

and sites benefit from high quality research outcomes 

including software applications, analyses, 

and educational modules. For example, Ray Hooft, 

a 2010 participant at the University of California, 

Berkeley NEES site won the EERI undergraduate 

research paper competition. Three 2011 students 

at NEES@UCSB created K-12 educational modules 

that are now posted in NEESacademy. 

PG 

44 

t Left 

Student presenting a poster from 

his summer research project 


NEES Graduate 

Research: A Stepping 

Stone to a Research 

and Teaching Career 

Many graduate students who are involved in NEES 

research have pursued a career in higher education. 

NEES has followed their successes including 

the following two Ph.D. students: 

Brina Montoya completed her Ph.D. at the University 

of California, Davis in 2012 while working 

on a NEESR project. Her research consisted of 

developing a ground improvement technique that 

utilizes biological activity to increase the strength 

and stiffness of granular soil. This treatment 

process, microbial induced calcite precipitation 

(MICP), has the potential to cement liquefiable deposits 

in order to improve their performance under 

seismic loading. To evaluate the improvement 

technique, she used the 1-m radius centrifuge at 

the NEES Center for Geotechnical Modeling at 

the University of California, Davis and performed 

a suite of seven tests consisting of liquefiable soil 

treated to varying levels of cementation and subjected 

to multiple ground motions. The centrifuge 

tests not only evaluated the reduction in liquefaction 

susceptibility, but also illustrated the system 

behavior of a simple structure founded on the cemented 

sands. 

“NEES provided funding that supported me 

throughout my graduate career as well as allowing 

me to use the Center for Geotechnical Modeling 

facilities.” In her current position as an assistant 

professor at North Carolina State University, Brina 

plans to continue the development of the MICP 

treatment process that was established during the 

NEES-sponsored research and apply the treatment 

process to different soil conditions and different 

treatment goals. 

Lisa Star graduated with her Ph.D. from UCLA in 

2011 and is now an assistant professor at California 

State University, Long Beach. As a Ph.D. student, 

she collaborated on the NEES Grand Challenge: 

Mitigation of Collapse Risk in Older Concrete 

Buildings. “In addition to the great technical and 

scientific work, the Grand Challenge project gave 

me the opportunity to collaborate with earthquake 

researchers from around the country”, says Lisa. 

Lisa had two roles in the Grand Challenge project. 

The first was the investigation of the appropriateness 

of synthetic ground motions to be used 

in hazard analysis. She worked closely with geotechnical 

engineers and engineering seismologists 

to identify potential misfits between synthetic 

ground motion models and empirical ground motion 

data. In addition to her work on ground motions, 

Lisa participated in the investigation of soilstructure 

interaction effects for structures with 

shallow foundations. NEES@UCLA shakers were 

used for field-scale dynamic tests of a structure 

specimen. The structural specimen was portable, 

allowing them to test at two NEES@UCSB field 

sites, and evaluate the importance of soil conditions 

on system behavior. The NEES@UTexas 

shaker truck T-Rex was also used to dynamically 

load the soil around the structure. 

q Below 

Brina Montoya (top) and 

Lisa Star (bottom) began their 

careers with NEES 

research experience 

NEES Graduate Research: A Stepping Stone to a Research and Teaching Career 

PG 

45 



Mentoring the 

Next Generation of 

NEES Researchers 

PG 

46 

In coordination with the 2011 Quake Summit in 

Buffalo, New York, the University of Buffalo (UB) 

NEES site organized and hosted a student mentoring 

session and workshop aimed at developing the 

next generation of NEES researchers. Fifty-six domestic 

and international university students were 

introduced to equipment operations and testing 

available at NEES facilities. UB-NEES staff, assisted 

by UB graduate students, provided tutorials 

on the operation, application, and calibration 

of accelerometers, strain gauges, string-pots and 

the Krypton 3D Displacement Measuring system. 

These sessions culminated with a tutorial in UB- 

NEES control room on equipment test operations, 

including Real Time Dynamic Hybrid Testing. 

The workshop concluded with a shake table test 

demonstration and question and answer period. 

This mentoring session provided students with 

a unique opportunity to learn about instrumentation 

and testing techniques applicable to their 

own current research interests and activities in 

earthquake engineering. It also provided students 

with a great opportunity to collaborate with their 

fellow students sharing similar interests in testing 

and research. 


p Top 

Student learning about acceleromters 

(far left) from UB-NEES 

staff Scot Weinreber; UB-NEES 

staff Goran Josipovic introducing 

the Krypton camera systems to 

students (middle); and students 

learning about string-pots from UB- 

NEES staff Chris Zwierlein (right) 


u Right 

Tutorial station set up around the 

lab fl oor where students spent 20 

minutes each 

PG 

47 


NEES Equipment Sites Reach Out to International Collaborators in ESG Research 

PG 

48 

u Right 

Dr. Jamison Steidl introduces attendees 

to the extentive databases containing 

data recorded at the 

NEES@UCSB site (left); 

UCSB Profesor Emeritus Arthur 

Sylvester provided a walking tour of 

the earthquake history 

of Santa Barbara (right) 

NEES Equipment Sites Reach Out 

to International Collaborators in ESG Research 

On August 23, 2011, participants from around 

the globe participated in the workshop Using the 

NEES Equipment Site Facilities in ESG Research 

and International Collaborations hosted by NEES 

at University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB) 

as part of the 4th International Symposium on 

the Effects of Surface Geology on Strong Ground 

Motion. For the first time to be held in the United 

States, the symposium offered an excellent opportunity 

for NEES at UCSB to host the workshop. 

The prior three symposia were held in 1992 

in Odawara, Japan, in 1998 in Yokohama, Japan, 

and in 2006 in Grenoble, France. Workshop participants 

learned about NEES facilities as well as 

instrumented geotechnical sites in Japan and Turkey, 

and developed a set of future research needs 

related to site characterization and site response 

simulation. 

The Symposium on the Effects of Surface Geology 

on Seismic Motion (ESG4) held at UCSB offered 

an excellent opportunity for NEES@UCSB to host 

the workshop. The thirty-three scientists and researchers 

from nine countries who attended the 

workshop enjoyed a detailed overview of the NEES 

consortium, its mission, and its accomplishments. 

They also received an excellent introduction to 

the types of experiments that can be conducted 

at NEES research sites. The discussion of future 

research needs and opportunities for international 

collaborations was lively and in depth. 

Hosting a workshop, which was attended by scientists 

from all over the world, is a great benefit 

to the NEES community. The workshop offered 

NEES site managers an opportunity to describe 

the NEES consortium and its mission and explain 

u Right 

A video of the three components 

of acceleration show how the 

ground motions vary 

in time and space 

the groundbreaking research being conducted at 

their facilities. The discussion of research needs 

and work being conducted in other countries was 

informative and stimulating. Dr. Jamison Steidl of 

NEES@UCSB and Dr. Robert Nigbor of NEES@ 

UCLA gave an overview of the NEES site facilities 

at UCSB, UCLA and UT Austin. Dr. Atsushi 

Wakai and Dr. Atilla Ansal each gave an overview 

of geotechnical array facilities in Japan and Turkey, 

respectively. Dr. Steidl then gave an introduction 

to a web-based waveform explorer for access 

to borehole data. The workshop concluded with a 

panel discussion on future research needs, led by 

Dr. Fabian Bonilla, Dr. Youssef Hashash, and Dr. 

Steven Kramer. 


New Educational Resource: Visualizations of Site Amplification 

for Earthquake Recorded at the Garner Valley Field Site 

Using ground motions recorded from a M4.1 

event at the NEES@UCSB Garner Valley field site, 

Amit Chourasia of the San Diego Supercomputer 

Center generated animations of the ground motion 

response in the soil column. These are the 

first animations produced showing site amplification 

that use real earthquake data recorded in the 

soil column. Videos and interactive animations 

allow users to investigate the amplification of accelerations, 

velocities, and displacements in soil 

layers of various stiffnesses down to a depth of 150 

meters. 

All students of geophysics, seismology, and earthquake 

engineering understand that surface materials 

amplify the signal of earthquakes at individual 

sites. Since understanding and designing 

for site response is an important earthquake engineering 

challenge, these animations are an invaluable 

teaching tool for geophysics, seismology, and 

earthquake engineering. They will also be very 

important for demonstrating site effects to the 

general public. 

Understanding site effects helps the general public 

understand the principles of earthquake-resistant 

design. While people have heard that Los Angeles 

is a “bowl of jelly” when it comes to earthquakes, 

many don’t necessarily understand why this is 

true. These animations show that soft sediments 

resting on bedrock amplify earthquake signals 

that reach the ground surface. The animations, 

generated from data found on the NEES@UCSB 

website http://nees.ucsb.edu/facilities/gvda and in 

the NEEShub Project Warehouse https://nees.org/ 

warehouse/project/690, can be downloaded from 

http://visservices.sdsc.edu/projects/nees-ucsb/. 

New Educational Resource: Visualizations of Site Amplification 

PG 

49 



PG 

50 

u Right 

Teachers visiting NEES@UTexas 

Equipment Site Facilities 

Earthquake Engineering Graduate Students Support 

K-12 Education at NEES@UTexas 

The NEES equipment site at the University of Texas 

at Austin (NEES@UTexas), in partnership with 

Texas Earth and Space Science Revolution (TXESS 

Revolution), presented a 3-day seismology workshop 

for middle/high school teachers in July 2011. 

By holding the workshop in conjunction with an 

engineering geology class, engineering graduate 

students were able to team up with middle and 

high school teachers throughout the workshop. 

The middle and high school teachers have degrees 

in natural science, so teaming up with engineering 

graduate students added an engineering perspective 

to the class materials they developed. Collaborating 

in this way, teachers became familiar with 

engineering careers, providing them with valuable 

insights to share with their students as they encourage 

them to consider these fields. 

The three-day workshop provided participants 

opportunities to gain hands-on experience with 

data collection, data reduction, and data applications 

including: (1) field reflection and refraction 

survey and data reduction, (2) field Spectral-Analyses-of-Surface-Wave 

(SASW) survey and data 

reduction, and (3) development of class materials 

for a one-hour middle/high school class. The 

graduate students were assigned consultant roles 

in developing K-12 class materials during the last 

part of the workshop. In addition, the field equipment 

available at NEES@UTexas provided unique 

and comprehensive setups for the activities. 

Educational modules developed in the teachers’ 

workshop can be found on the NEES@UTexas 

website (http://nees.utexas.edu/Outreach-2011_ 

Summer_Seismic_Methods_Workshop.shtml). 


“I had such a great experience and I know that the 

students will be engaged when we pull that project 

back into the fold next year.” 

Teresa Milliger, 

Science/Science Enrichment Teacher 

Grisham Middle School 

t Left 

Field refl ection and 

refraction survey 

Teachers are shown 

laying out sensors 

q Below 

Teresa Milliger, Science/Science 

Enrichment Teacher from Grisham 

Middle School 


PG 

51 


NEES 3D Data Viewer Links Up with Google Sketchup 

PG 

52 

NEES 3D Data Viewer 

Links Up with Google Sketchup 

to Improve Versatility and Functionality 

Leveraging the expertise available in a network of 

research laboratories, staff at two NEES sites collaborated 

to improve the user experience for the 

3D Data Viewer (3DDV). NEES sites at Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute and Oregon State University 

integrated Google Sketchup with the 3DDV, 

simplifying the process of creating 3D models for 

analyzing data. 

Originally, the 3DDV required users to construct 

complex XML documents to define 

the model. Now, using this improved tool 

available on NEEShub, Google Sketchup files 

can be imported and associated with data 

files, so researchers no longer need to handcraft 

xml model files in order to use the 3DDV. 

The 3DDV is a tool used for analyzing the data 

associated with a three dimensional model. As 

experimental models have become more complex 

and contain an increasing number of sensors, the 

challenge of analyzing the generated data increas- 

es as well. The 3DDV provides a way to compare 

data while maintaining spatial relationships be- 

tween sensors. Originally, the 3DDV required 

users to construct complex XML documents 

to define the model. NEES@RPI and NEES@ 

OSU collaborated to improve the 3DDV user 

experience. The major improvement is the 

ability to create models in Google Sketchup 

and import them into 3DDV. This has significantly 

reduced the time and effort required to 

create models for use in 3DDV. Faster model 

creation leads to faster data analysis, a definite 

boon to the researcher. 

u Right 

Illustration of 3DDV with a 

Sketchup produced model and 

sensor data plotted bellow 

x Left Corner 

Model developed in 

Google Sketchup 

q Below 

Part of an XML fi le for the old 

model creation method 


NEES 3D Data Viewer Links Up with Google Sketchup 

PG 

53 


UCSB Garner Valley Site Installs Unique Cross-Hole Array Experiment 

PG 

54 

UCSB Garner Valley 

Site Installs Unique 

Cross-Hole Array 

Experiment 

The NEES@UCSB Garner Valley facility was recently 

enhanced to include a unique cross-hole 

array experiment. The new permanent cross-hole 

array includes two geophones and a solenoid-activated 

dual-direction hammer source at 5 meters 

depth. A second set of geophones at 2-m depth is 

deployed directly above the 5-m geophones in the 

same casings. The system is set to trigger once per 

day automatically with both upward and downward 

hammer strikes, thus providing the capability 

to measure shear-wave velocity on a daily basis. 

The system is also programmed to automatically 

activate the hammer source at shorter time intervals 

immediately following a large earthquake. 

This cross-hole experiment is unique in that these 

velocity measurements will capture the decrease 

and recovery of shear wave velocity after a large 

event, and thus the degradation of shear modulus 

and its recovery with time at the same soil depth. 

In combination with the permanent vertical array 

of accelerometers already deployed at Garner Valley, 

this new cross-hole experiment will provide a 

level of detail never before achieved in the observation 

of dynamic soil behavior during and following 

large earthquakes. 

Cross-hole tests are often used in site characterization 

studies to provide in situ estimates of shearwave 

velocity at a particular depth by measuring 

the travel time from an active source deployed at 

depth in one well casing, to geophones located at 

the same depth in other well casings. The travel 

time and the distance between receiver casings are 

used to estimate the velocity. 

As researchers wait for the earth to provide larger 

motions (an earthquake), the once daily hammer 

strikes are recorded and analyzed for potential 

temporal changes in velocity with seasons. 

The shear-wave velocity is determined by crosscorrelation 

of the signals between the geophones 

of equal depth, separated by 4.82 meters. Initial 

analysis performing this cross correlation on the 

5-meter sensors yielded a shear wave velocity of 

~220 m/s. Ten months of daily hammer strikes 

have been analyzed to determine if seasonal variation 

of shear-wave velocity exists at the site related 

to variations in soil saturation and water table 

depth. 


t Left 

Temporal variation of material 

velocity at cross-hole test (left) and 

pore pressure and barometric 

pressure observations (right) 

q Below 

Basic layout of the 

cross-hole instrumentation 

UCSB Garner Valley Site Installs Unique Cross-Hole Array Experiment 

PG 

55 


NEES Multi-Axial Subassemblage Testing Facility 

PG 

56 

Researchers Advance 

Knowledge of 

Structural Performance and 

Resilience at NEES Multi-Axial 

Subassemblage Testing 

Facility 

p Above 

Steel Special Truss Moment Frame Specimen and Test 

The University of Minnesota NEES site has been 

operating at 100% capacity. Over the course of the 

current year, six large-scale NSF-funded tested 

programs have been active and include: 

• • • 

Full-Scale RC and HPFRC Frame Subassemblages 

Subjected to Collapse-Consistent Loading Protocols 

for Enhanced Collapse Simulation and Internal 

Damage Characterization (CMMI 1041633) 

This research aims to better understand the collapse 

behavior and safety of both modern RC 

frame buildings and high performance fiber reinforced 

concrete (HPFRC) frame buildings when 

subjected to extreme earthquakes. Researchers 

will test a comprehensive set of full-scale RC 

components and subassemblages all the way to 

collapse. This will significantly add to the knowledge 

base since nearly all currently available test 

data stop short of collapse. During the past year, 

the investigators have been developing the work 

plan in conjunction with the MAST staff for the 

first phase of the project which involves tests of 

isolated concrete columns. 

p Above 

Reinforced Concrete Slab-Beam-Column Subassemblage 

Specimen and Test Setup at NEES MAST Laboratory 

• • • 

Steel Truss Systems with Enhanced Seismic Safety 

and Performance (CMMI 0936563) 

Researchers are studying two systems for which 

limited seismic performance data is available: 

special truss moment frames (STMFs) and staggered 

truss frames (STFs). Large-scale tests at the 

MAST facility will verify the behavior of STMFs 

constructed according to recent research recommendations 

and explore truss configurations that 

Setup at NEES MAST Laboratory 

could enhance STMF performance. They will also 

clarify the system behavior of STFs under cyclic 

loading and identify preferred energy dissipation 

mechanisms for STFs. The team has developed the 

work plan with the MAST staff to prepare for the 

first experimental phase of the project. 

• • • 

An Innovative Seismic Performance Enhancement 

Technique for Steel Building Beam-Column Connections 

(CMMI 0936547) 

This project will experimentally validate a novel 

seismic enhancement technique involving heat 

treating sections of beam flanges by exposing 

them to a very high temperature for a specified 

time before slow air cooling. This process reduces 

the strength of steel in the heat treated areas of the 

flange causing a plastic hinge to develop at the heat 

treated beam section (HBS) during an earthquake. 

Connections enhanced by this technique have the 

advantages of the popular reduced beam section 

(RBS) connection, but the HBS has better energy 


dissipation than the RBS connection. This project 

is validating the technique by conducting fullscale 

connection experiments. Researchers completed 

four beam-column connection tests at the 

MAST Laboratory between August and November 

2011. Results from these tests demonstrated that 

the novel idea of heat treatment of beam flanges 

successfully relocates the beam plastic hinge away 

from the welds. Four more HBS connections will 

be tested in 2012. Using the experimental and 

analytical results, the NCSU researchers will apply 

for prequalification of the HBS connections 

for seismic applications in special moment frames. 

• • • 

Multi-Scale, Mechanistic Fracture Prediction and 

Optimal Panel Zone Participation in Steel Moment 

Frame Buildings (CMMI 0936599) 

Despite a number of past studies on how much 

panel zone participation should be permitted in 

evaluating the inelastic seismic response of a steel 

moment frame, sharply conflicting views remain 

on how panel zones should be treated in design. At 

the crux of the disagreements are concerns regarding 

fracture induced by panel zone yielding. While 

there appears to be broad agreement that panel 

zone yielding is a highly ductile process, there is 

broad disagreement on the role that panel zone 

yielding plays in joint fracture. Addressing these 

concerns requires the fundamental capability to 

predict fracture at joints with weak panel zones 

subject to seismic loading. To meet these goals, 

this research integrates studies on cyclic rupture of 

steel components combined with high resolution 

finite element simulations of beam-column joints, 

advanced frame simulation studies, large-scale experimental 

studies, and parametric computational 

studies on joint performance. Researchers have a 

work plan to test ten beam-column connections 

at the MAST Laboratory beginning January 2012. 

• • • 

Unbonded Post-Tensioned Rocking Walls for Seismic 

Resilient Structures (CMMI 1041650) 

The goal of this project is to develop seismic resilient 

building solutions utilizing a “PREWEC” 

system that incorporates a precast concrete rocking 

wall with adjacent post-tensioned columns attached 

to replaceable energy dissipating devices. 

Key aspects of the MAST Laboratory tests include 

investigation of the interaction of the rocking wall 

with the floor system, and potential outrigger effects 

with adjacent gravity load columns. During 

the past year, the investigators have been developing 

the work plan for the first phase of testing at 

the MAST Laboratory. The quantification of the 

hysteretic and radiation damping characteristics 

will be studied through companion shake table 

tests to be carried out at the University of Nevada, 

Reno in spring 2012. 

• • • 

Assessment of Punching Shear Vulnerability of 

Slab-Column Connections with Shear Stud Reinforcement 

(CMMI 0936519) 

Structural systems that consist of slabs directly supported 

by columns or flat plate frame systems are 

widely used in concrete construction because of 

their architectural appearance, functionality, and 

economy. Because of their potential for punching 

shear failures during earthquakes, shear reinforcement 

is often provided in the form of headed shear 

studs. Results from a test conducted as part of a 

prior NEESR project (CMMI-0421180), however, 

have raised serious concerns about the effectiveness 

of this reinforcement for punching shear resistance. 

The main research objective is to estimate 

the vulnerability of existing slab-column connections 

by evaluating the efficiency of typical headed 

reinforcement designs used in practice. During 

the past year, four large-scale slab-column connections 

were investigated to determine the potential 

punching shear vulnerability and the effect 

of detailing. 

q Below 

Steel beam-column specimen being tested at the 

MAST Laboratory. In this setup, the beam is the 

vertical stub and the column is oriented horizontally. 

NEES Multi-Axial Subassemblage Testing Facility 

PG 

57 


Laboratory Expansion at the University of Nevada, Reno 

PG 

58 

Laboratory 

Expansion at the 

University of Nevada, 

Reno Enhances 

NEES Capabilities 

Construction is underway for an expansion to the 

existing Large-Scale Structures Laboratory at the 

University of Nevada, Reno, home to the NEES@ 

UNR Shake Table Array. The new facility will be 

a significant asset to the NEES Network and to 

earthquake engineering research in general by 

more than doubling the area of strong floor space 

at NEES@UNR. This will facilitate a significant 

increase in the number of projects that can be undertaken 

at any one time, as well as open up the 

space for service-to-industry work. A new auditorium 

will enable students and researchers to participate 

in off-site research projects in real-time, 

which will increase participation in network activities 

and facilitate broader learning. 

This expansion will provide 23,000 square feet of 

new space for experimental research and education 

in earthquake engineering. When combined 

with existing space of 9,000 sf, the new laboratory 

will comprise a total of 32,000 sf for research in 

large-scale structural systems. The new space includes 

a 9,600 sf high-bay laboratory (80 ft by 120 

ft), three levels of office space for visiting researchers, 

NEES staff, and graduate students, a conference 

room, control and instrumentation rooms, 

and a 100-seat auditorium equipped with a video 

wall and I-2 internet access. The auditorium will 

be linked by a bridge to meeting room space and 

conference facilities in the adjacent Harry Reid 

Engineering Laboratory. The expansion will also 

feature a 25 ft high reaction wall along the east end 

of the laboratory, and a new 14,000 sf fabrication 

yard. 

The four NEES shake tables are intended to be 

moved into the new laboratory, which has been 

custom-designed for this purpose. The floor of 

the lab is located 55 inches below grade so the 

table platens will sit at-grade, making them easier 

to use. They will still be relocatable in the N-S 

and E-W directions, as in the present laboratory. 

The clear height above the platens will increase 

from the existing lab by approximately 15 ft for 

a total height of about 45 ft, and the capacity of 

the two overhead cranes will increase to 30 tons 

each (compared to 25 tons each in the current 

laboratory). In addition, hydraulic and controller 

upgrades will be installed to improve shake table 

performance and flexibility. 

The total cost of the expansion is approximately 

$18.7 million, with $12.2 million from the National 

Institute for Standards and Technology, $2.9 

million from the U.S. Department of Energy, and a 

cost share of $3.6 million from non-federal sources 

by the University of Nevada Reno. Phase 1 of 

the construction (mainly site work and the fabrication 

yard) was completed in Spring 2011 and 

Phase 2 is scheduled for completion by December 

2012. Table relocation and commissioning will 

take place in Spring and Summer of 2013 and the 

new facility is expected to be opened in Fall 2013. 


t Left 

Plan view of the expansion to the 

NEES@UNR Laboratory 

q Below 

Interior view rendering of the new 

NEES@UNR Laboratory 

Laboratory Expansion at the University of Nevada, Reno 

PG 

59 


Centrifuge 2D Shaker System Upgrades 

PG 

60 

t Left 

Experiment setup using the 2D 

laminar container and 2D Shaker 

Centrifuge 2D 

Shaker System 

Upgrade Improves 

Quality of 

Earthquake 

Replication in 

Centrifuge 

Experiments 

The new state-of-the-art 2D shaker system installed 

at the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for 

Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) centrifuge 

laboratory at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

(RPI) provides unique capabilities unavailable 

at most other centrifuge facilities. The powerful, 

accurate, and repeatable 2D shaker control system 

replicates earthquake motion in the centrifuge 

more precisely than has ever been done in the past. 

Earthquakes are dynamic events with very different 

motions and frequencies in multiple directions. 

Researchers typically perform a mathematical operation 

and represent the earthquake motions in a 


Centrifuge 2D Shaker System Upgrades 

p Above 

2D Shaker (left) showing 

3 actuators; 

Screen capture (right) 

of the analysis and control system 

software 

simplified way using a 1D shaker system. Testing 

the interaction of structures and soils with only 

one direction of excitation may not provide data 

that is representative of the loading and response 

of actual structures during a real earthquake. The 

RPI 2D shaker provides a testing platform that 

is capable of delivering dynamic shaking in two 

directions with minimal interaction between the 

two directions, allowing researchers to perform 

more realistic earthquake engineering research. 

The 2D shaker, one of RPI’s state-of-the-art pieces 

of centrifuge equipment, is capable of generating 

more realistic earthquake shaking motions than 

the 1D shaker. Numerous centrifuge facilities 

support 1D shaker systems, but very few have two 

dimensional shake tables available for research. 

The purpose of the 2D shaker is to provide a testing 

platform that is capable of providing dynamic 

shaking in two directions with minimal interaction 

between the two directions. The shaker is 

integrated into the centrifuge basket and consists 

of three servo hydraulic actuators. Two of the actuators 

operate the X direction at the sides of the 

table, and one actuator is located under the center 

of the table and is oriented in the Y direction. The 

precise earthquake replication of the RPI 2D shaker 

is the result of a combination of three important 

aspects of the design. Solid mechanical design of 

the shaker itself, high quality servo hydraulic actuators, 

and a powerful vibration control system. 

The system would not be able to reproduce accurate 

motions without all three critical components 

working together as a complete system. 

PG 

61 


Project Citations 

PG 

62 

Pages 8 - 9 

Award Title: NEESR-SG: Smart and Resilient Steel Walls for Reducing 

Earthquake Impacts 

Award NSF Number: CMMI-0830294 

Award PI/PI Affi liation: Jeffery Berman / University of Washington 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Michel Bruneau of University at Buffalo; 

Laura Lowes of University of Washington; Larry Fahnestock of University 

of Illinois Urbana Champaign; K.C. Tsai of National Taiwan University 

• • • 

Pages 10 - 11 

Award Title: Development of Next Generation Adaptive Seismic 

Protection Systems 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Satish Nagarajaiah, CEVE & MEMS, Rice University, 

Houston 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Andrei Reinhorn, CSEE of University at 

Buffalo; Michael Constantinou, CSEE of University at Buffalo; Douglas 

Taylor of Taylor Devices, Inc., Buffalo, NY; Michael Symans, CE of Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute; Jian Zhang, CE of UC Los Angeles; Thomas 

Attard, ET, of Arizona State University 

• • • 

Pages 12-13 

Award Title: NEESR-SG: Experimental Determination of Performance 

of Drift-Sensitive Nonstructural Systems under Seismic Loading 

Award NSF Number: CMMI - 0619157 

Award PI/PI Affi liation: Kurt M. McMullin of San Jose State University 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Winncy Du of San Jose State University 

and Thuy Le of San Jose State University 

• • • 

Pages 14-15 

Award Title: Biological Improvement of Sands for Liquefaction Prevention 

and Damage Mitigation 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Jason DeJong of University of California Davis 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Ross Boulanger and Doug Nelson, University 

of California Davis; Laurie Caslake, Lafayette College 

• • • 

Pages 16-17 

Award Title: NEESR-II: Evaluation of Seismic Levee Deformation 

Potential by Destructive Cyclic Field Testing 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Scott Brandenberg, UCLA 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Jonathan Stewart of UCLA 

• • • 

Pages 18-19 

Award Title: RAPID: Mapping of Damage in Precast Concrete Buildings 

from the February 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Jose Restrepo of UC San Deigo 

Award Title: RAPID: Performance of the Base-Isolated Christchurch 

Women’s Hospital during the Sequence of Strong Earthquakes and 

Aftershocks in New Zealand from September 2010 through 2011 

Award NSF Number CMMI-1138714 

Award PI/PI Affi liation: Henri Gavin of Duke University 

Pages 20-21 

Award Title: Permanently Instrumented Field Sites for Study of Soil- 

Foundation-Structure Interaction 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: T. Leslie Youd / Brigham Young University 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Robert Nigbor of UC Los Angeles; 

Jamison Steidl of UC Santa Barbara 

Award Title: NEES Permanently Instrumented Field Sites - UCSB 

Equipment Site Upgrade Proposal 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Jamison Steidl of UC Santa Barbara 

• • • 

Pages 22-23 

Award Title: NEESR-CR: Full-Scale Structural and Nonstructural 

Building System Performance during Earthquakes 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Tara Hutchinson, University of California, San 

Diego 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: José Restrepo & Joel Conte of University 

of California, San Diego; Ken Walsh of San Diego State University; 

Claudia Marin of Howard University; Brian Meacham of Worcester 

Polytechnic Institute (non-NSF supported Fire Payload PI) 

• • • 

Pages 24-25 

Award Title: Ground Rupture Effects on Critical Lifelines 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: T.D. O’Rourke, Cornell University 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Harry Stewart of Cornell University; 

Michael O’Rourke of RPI; Michael Symans of RPI; and Kathy Kraft of 

Sciencenter, Ithaca, NY 

• • • 

Pages 26-27 

Award Title: Seismic Simulation and Design of Bridge Columns 

under Combined Actions, and Implications on System Response 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: David Sanders of University of Nevada, Reno 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Abdeldjelil Belarbi of University of Missouri; 

Shirley Dyke of Purdue University; Amr Elnashai of University of 

Illinois; Jian Zhang of University of California Los Angeles 

• • • 

Page 28-29 

Award Title: NEESR-CR: Impact Forces from Tsunami-Driven 

Debris 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: H. Ronald Riggs, University of Hawaii 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Clay Naito of Lehigh University, Dan 

Cox of Oregon State University, Marcelo Kobayashi of University of 

Hawaii 

Pages 30 - 31 

Award Title: NEESR-SD: Development of a Real-Time Multi-Site 

Hybrid Testing Tool for NEES 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Richard Christenson, University of Connecticut 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: James Ricles of Lehigh University; Billie F. 

Spencer, Jr. of University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign 

• • • 

Page 32 - 33 

Award Title: Improving the Seismic Resilience of Federal-Aid 

Highway Systems 

Award Number: Federal Highway Administration contract DTFH61- 

07-C-0003, California Department of Transportation contract 

59A0695 NEES Shared-Use Access 

Award PI/PI Affi liation: Dr. Ian Buckle of University of Nevada, Reno 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Dr. David Sanders and Dr. Ahmad Itani 

of University of Nevada, Reno 

• • • 

Pages 34-35 

Award Title: NEESR-CR: Tsunami Generation by Landslides: 

Integrating Laboratory Scale Experiments, Numerical Models and 

Natural Scale Applications 


Award PI:/PI Affi liation Hermann Fritz/Georgia Institute of Technology 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Zygmunt Kowalik and James Beget of 

University of Alaska at Fairbanks 

• • • 

Pages 36-37 

Award Title: EAGER: Developing and Testing Algorithms for Generating 

Leading Tsunami Waves 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Philip L-F. Liu of Cornell University 

• • • 

Pages 38-39 

Award Title: NEESR Payload: Determining the Added Hazard Potential 

of Tsunamis by Interaction with Ocean Swell and Wind Waves 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: James Kaihatu of Texas A&M University 

Award Title: NEESR-CR: Seismic Response of Landfills: In-situ 

Evaluation of Dynamic Properties of Municipal Solid Waste, Comparison 

to Laboratory Testing, and Impact on Numerical Analyses 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Dimitrios Zekkos, University of Michigan 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Mark Tufenkjian, California State, Los 

Angeles; Neven Matasovic, Geosyntec Consultants 


Pages 42-52 

Award Title: NEES Operations 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Julio Ramirez of Purdue University 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Thalia Anagnos of San José State University; 

Rudolf Eigenmann and Barbara Fossum of Purdue University; 

Ellen Rathje of University of Texas at Austin 

• • • 

Pages 54-55 

Award Title: Permanently Instrumented Field Sites for the Study of 

Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Jamison H. Steidl of University of California, 

Santa Barbara 

• • • 

Pages 56-57 

Award Title: Full-Scale RC and HPFRC Frame Subassemblages 

Subjected to Collapse-Consistent Loading Protocols for Enhanced 

Collapse Simulation and Internal Damage Characterization 

Award NSF Number: CMMI 1041633 

Award PI/PI Affi liation: Shih-Ho (Simon) Chao/ University of Texas - 

Arlington 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Arturo Schultz/University of Minnesota; 

John Popovics of University of Illinois; Curt Haselton of CSU Chico 

Award Title: Assessment of Punching Shear Vulnerability of Slab- 

Column Connections with Shear Stud Reinforcement 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Gustavo Parra-Montesinos of University of 

Michigan 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Carol Shield of University of Minnesota; 

Andrea Schokker of University of Minnesota Duluth 

• • • 

Pages 58-59 

Award Title : The Expansion of the Center for Civil Engineering 

Earthquake Research Facilities at the University of Nevada, Reno 

Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) 

Award Number: 60NANB10D306 

Award PI/PI Affi liation: Prof. Ian Buckle of University of Nevada, Reno 

• • • 

Pages 60-61 

Award Title : NEES Operations 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Julio Ramirez, Purdue University 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Thalia Anagnos, San Jose State University; 

Rudolf Eigenmann and Barbara Fossum, Purdue University; Ellen 

Rathje, University of Texas at Austin. 

NEES Sites at which research occurred: RPI 

Project Citations 

Award Title: Steel Truss Systems with Enhanced Seismic Safety and 

Performance 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Shih-Ho (Simon) Chao of University of Texas 

- Arlington 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Michael Hagenberger of Valparaiso 

University 

Award Title: An Innovative Seismic Performance Enhancement 

Technique for Steel Building Beam-Column Connections 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Tasnim Hassan of North Carolina State 

University 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Jose D’Arruda of University North 

Carolina Pembroke 

Award Title: Multi-Scale, Mechanistic Fracture Prediction and Optimal 

Panel Zone Participation in Steel Moment Frame Buildings 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Gary Fry of Texas A&M University 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Michael Engelhardt of University of 

Texas at Austin; Anne Raich of Lafayette College; Carol Stuessey of 

Texas A&M University 

Award Title: Unbonded Post-Tensioned Rocking Walls for Seismic 

Resilient Structures 


Award PI/PI Affi liation: Sri Sritharan of Iowa State University 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Catherine French of University of Minnesota; 

Eric Musselman of University of Minnesota Duluth 

Award Title : Upgrading, Development and Integration of Next 

Generation Earthquake Engineering Experimental Capability at 

Rensselaer’s 100 g-ton Geotechnical Centrifuge 

Award NSF Number: CMMI- 0086555 

Award PI/PI Affi liation: Ricardo Dobry, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affi liation: Thomas Zimmie, Tarek Abdoun, Mourad 

Zeghal, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Ahmed Elgamal, University of 

California, San Diego 

PG 

63 


Photo Credits 

PG 

64 

Pages 8-9 

Photo Credits: Patricia Clayton, Dept. Civil & Enivironmental 

Engineering, University of Washington 

• • • 

Pages 10-11 

Photo Credits: Satish Nagarajaiah, Rice University; Andrei Reinhorn 

and Michael Constantinou, University at Buffalo 

• • • 

Pages 12-13 

Photo Credits: Winncy Du, MAE Department, San Jose State 

University 

• • • 

Pages 14-15 

Photo Credits: Jason DeJong, University of California, Davis 

• • • 

Pages 16-17 

Photo Credits: Bob Nigbor, Civil Engineering Department, 

UCLA 

• • • 

Pages 18-19 

Photo Credits: Bob Nigbor, Civil Engineering Department, 

UCLA 

• • • 

Pages 20-21 

Photo Credits: NEES at University of California, Santa Barbara 

• • • 

Pages 22-23 

Photo Credits: Tara Hutchinson, University of California, San 

Diego 

• • • 

Pages 24-25 

Photo Credits: NEES Equipment Site, Cornell University 

• • • 

Pages 26-27 

Photo Credits: Thomas Frankie, CEE Department, University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

• • • 

Pages 28-29 

Photo Credits: Clay Naito, H. Ronald Riggs 

Pages 30-31 

Photo Credits: Brian Phillips and Yunbyeong Chae , University 

of Illinois-Chanpaign Urbana; Gary Novak, Lehigh University 

• • • 

Pages 32-33 

Photo Credits: Shawn Sariti, TLT, and Michael Levi, University 

of Nevada, Reno 

• • • 

Pages 34-35 

Photo Credits: Nimish Pujara of Cornell University 

• • • 

Pages 36-37 

Photo Credits: Brian McFall, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Ramy Ugarte, San Jose State University, NEES REU student 

summer 2011; Brian McFall, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Stephanie Lopez, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, 

NEES REU student summer 2011; Fahad Mohammed, Georgia 

Institute of Technology 

• • • 

Pages 38-39 

Photo Credits: James Kaihatu, Texas A&M University 

• • • 

Pages 40-41 

Photo Credits: Dimitrios Zekkos, University of Michigan 

• • • 

Pages 42-43 

Photo Credits: Teresa L. Morris, NEEScomm 

• • • 

Page 44 

Photo Credits: Sandra H. Seale, University of California, Santa 

Barbara 

• • • 

Page 45 

Photo Credits: Brina Montoya, North Carolina State University; 

Lisa Star, California State University, Long Beach 

• • • 

Pages 46-47 

Photo Credits: University at Buffalo 

Page 48 

Photo Credits: Sandra H. Seale, University of California, 

Santa Barbara 

• • • 

Page 49 

Photo Credits: Amit Chourasia, San Diego Supercomputer 

Center 

• • • 

Pages 50-51 

Photo Credits: Univeristy of Texas, Austin 

• • • 

Pages 52-53 

Photo Credits: Jason P. Thomas, NEES@RPI 

• • • 

Pages 54-55 

Photo Credits: University of California, Santa Barbara 

• • • 

Pages 56-57 

Photo Credits: Sri Sritharan and Sriam Aaleti of Iowa State 

University; Shih-Ho Chao, Department of Civil Engineering of 

University of Texas-Austin; MAST Laboratory, Department of 

Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota 

• • • 

Pages 58-59 

Photo Credits: BJG Architecture + Engineering, Reno, NV 

• • • 

Pages 60-61 

Photo Credits: Inthuorn Sasanakul, Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute 

• • • 


Research Notes 

Resarch Notes 

PG 

65 


Find us on 

Facebook 

Follow us on 

Twitter 

NEES Highlights 2012 was designed and edited by NEEScomm personnel Thalia Anagnos, Pamela McClure, Jared West, and Teresa Morris 


Strategic Plan 2010-‐2014 | E 


Strategic Plan 

2010-2014 

George E. Brown, Jr. Network 

for Earthquake Engineering Simulation 


Kobe, Japan 

January 17, 1995 

Our Challenge: 

Reduce the impact of earthquakes 

and tsunamis on society 

through Research, Engineering, 

Science, and Education 

India 2001 

Source: PEER-Nisee, University of California, Berkeley 


To the NEES Community 

NEES’s mission is to accelerate improvements in seismic design and performance 

by serving as an indispensible collaboratory for discovery and innovation. 

Who We Are 

The George E. Brown Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) is a 

collaboratory that features a distributed network of advanced experimental equipment 

sites and a robust cyberinfrastructure that includes collaborative and simulation 

capabilities. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NEES is dedicated 

to the mitigation of earthquake and tsunami risks. The participants in the NEES 

collaboratory include researchers, scientists, staff, educators, students, academic 

institutions, partnering organizations, and funding agencies. The NEES Community and 

Communications Center (NEEScomm), headquarters for the NEES operations, is 

dedicated to serving the community through effective stewardship. 

Our Stakeholders 

Our ultimate stakeholder is the general public, but more specifi cally the individuals and 

communities that are at risk of losing life or property caused by earthquakes and 

tsunamis. Our immediate focus is on the research community and practicing engineers 

who develop the innovations necessary to reduce the impact of seismic disasters. We 

also understand our responsibility in education and outreach for the student community. 

We aim to direct students toward science and engineering while equipping them with the 

knowledge, tools, and experiences needed to create the next generation workforce. 

Our Priorities 

The mission for NEES aligns with the larger national plan for earthquake and tsunami 

risk reduction. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 

Strategic Plan for 2009-2013, submitted to Congress by the Interagency Coordinating 

Committee of NEHRP, outlines the role that NEES plays in the nation’s strategy for 

“increasing the resilience of the United States.” The NSF is one of the four NEHRP 

agencies with distinct but complementary goals whose coordinated effort is to address 

earthquake risk in the United States. 

The NEES priorities are to: 

• Support research and engineering efforts that lead to Performance-Based 

Seismic Design (PBSD) 

• Support research and engineering techniques for evaluating and rehabilitating the 

existing built environment 

• Play a significant role in the development of the nation’s human resource base in 

the fi eld of earthquake and tsunami risk mitigation 

i 


CORE SPONSORS 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

National Science Foundation 

Cooperative Agreement #CMMI-0927178 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

To The NEES Community...............................................................i 

Strategic Planning..........................................................................1 

Vision..........................................................................................2 

Values.........................................................................................3 

Strategies and Actions..............................................................4 

Aim Number 1............................................................................5 

Aim Number 2............................................................................7 

Aim Number 3............................................................................9 

Aim Number 4..........................................................................11 

Aim Number 5..........................................................................13 

Critical Success Factors & Key Performance Metrics.........15 

Academic, International and Industry Partners....................17 

2010 Governance Board.........................................................18 

. 

Loma Prieta, CA 

October 17, 1989 

Source: California Seismic Safety Commission, Bay Area Regional Earthquake 

Preparedness Project (BAREPP) & Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) 


STRATEGIC PLANNING 

NEES utilizes a community-focused strategic planning methodology. We must 

understand the vastness of our challenge and respond to the interests of each of our 

stakeholder groups while remaining true to our values and mission. Our strategic plan 

will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis while our progress towards the 

objectives and the implementation of the actions will be monitored throughout the year. 

We will keep our community engaged throughout the implementation of our strategic 

plan so that we adapt to their needs and deliver the capabilities necessary to support 

their efforts. 

We have engaged members from the various stakeholder groups of the NEES 

community throughout the entire strategic planning process, and we believe that this 

process has led to a plan that enables us to achieve the NEES vision. We referenced 

the previous history of NEES and evaluated the areas we need to improve upon. We 

conducted interviews with key members in the community, and we had members from 

the various stakeholder groups participate in our strategic planning retreat. In addition 

to the engagement of the NEES Governance Board, the NEES Equipment Site Forum, 

and the NEES Users Forum, the following individuals participated in the development of 

the strategic plan: 

George Adams, Purdue University 

Tom Albrechinski, The State University of New 

York at Buffalo 

Thalia Anagnos, San Jose State University 

Bill Anderson, National Academy of Sciences 

(retired) 

Saurabh Bagchi, Purdue University 

Robert Beckley, University of California, 

San Diego 

Arden Bement, Purdue University 

Sean Brophy, Purdue University 

Ian Buckle, University of Nevada, Reno 

Juan Caicedo, University of South Carolina 

Barbara Cooper, Purdue University 

Jeremy Diehl, Purdue University 

Ricardo Dobry, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

Shirley Dyke, Purdue University 

Allegra East, Purdue University 

Marc Eberhard, University of Washington 

Rudi Eigenmann, Purdue University 

Sherif Elfass, University of Nevada, Reno 

Ken Elwood, University of British Columbia 

Andre Filiatrault, The State University of New York 

at Buffalo 

Barb Fossum, Purdue University 

Mahmoud Hachem, Skidmore Owings and 

Merrill, San Francisco 

Tom Hacker, Purdue University 

Nancy Healy, Georgia Institute of Technology 

John Hooper, Magnusson Klemencic Associates 

Ayhan Irfanoglu, Purdue University 

Annie Kammerer, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Meagan Kramer, Purdue University 

Bruce Kutter, University of California, Davis 

Roberto Leon, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Steven Mahin, University of California, Berkeley 

Tommy Marullo, Lehigh University 

Farzad Naeim, John Martin and Associates 

Scott Newbolds, Purdue University 

Bob Nigbor, University of California, 

Los Angeles 

Gary Novak, Lehigh University 

Tom O’Rourke, Cornell University 

Melora Park, Oregon State University 

Greg Pluta, University of Illinois, 

Urbana-Champaign 

Santiago Pujol, Purdue University 

Julio Ramirez, Purdue University 

Ellen Rathje, University of Texas, Austin 

Hank Ratzesberger, University of California, 

Santa Barbara 

Glenn Rix, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Chris Rojahn, Applied Technology Council 

Inthuorn Sasanakul, Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute 

Carol Shield, University of Minnesota 

Dawn Weisman, Purdue University 

Dan Wilson, Universtiy of California, Davis 

Solomon Yim, Oregon State University 

Tom Zimmie, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

1 


NEES VISION 

In order to meet the challenge to “reduce the impact of earthquakes and 

tsunamis on society through Research, Engineering, Science, and Education,” 

NEES will develop an active collaboratory, a laboratory without walls for a large 

user base composed of researchers practitioners, students, and the public at 

large. At the center of this collaboratory will be the NEEShub, the central 

access point to (1) robust, high-quality software tools and databases for 

performing research, (2) collaborative capabilities for researchers and for 

practitioners to perform research and transform that research into practice, and 

(3) the NEESAcademy, which provides education for all NEES members. With 

enhanced capabilities at the NEES experimental facilities, researchers will be 

performing the research required to drive innovative engineering solutions. 

Through active communications and collaborative partnerships, NEES will 

influence research, engineering, and policy. Through broad and effective 

education and outreach, NEES will help create the research and engineering 

leaders of tomorrow. 

Our vision will be realized through the following critical achievements: 

• Through NEES and its partnerships, researchers will have access to the 

world's best integrated state-of-the art physical simulation facilities. 

• NEES will be a cyber-enabled community that shares ideas, data, 

computational tools and models. 

• NEES will play a significant role in the education and training for the next 

generation of earthquake-engineering researchers and practitioners. 

• NEES will have partnerships with organizations to support the 

dissemination of research results and the reduction of risks of seismic 

disasters by transferring these results into practice. 

• NEES will be a global community achieving excellence in research and 

education efforts to mitigate earthquake and tsunami risk to life and will 

serve as a model to other engineering and science communities facing 

similar challenges. 

2 


OUR VALUES 

Safety 

Education 

Data Preservation 

Collaborative Community 

Technology Leadership 

Scientific Progress 

Diversity 

3 


With the overarching challenge defi ned, 

NEES will align to fi ve strategic aims that 

enable us to achieve our vision. NEES’ core 

values will guide the journey, while the 

implementation activities will be closely 

linked to one or more of these strategic 

aims. 

STRATEGY 

and ACTIONS 

COMMUNITY 

Build a broad and engaged NEES 

community based upon a culture of 

collaborating in research and education 

through sharing facilities, ideas, data, 

computational tools and models 

RESEARCH 

Enable unique and innovative experimental 

and computational research that addresses 

the engineering challenges and increases 

the resilience of communities 

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 

Support the development of Performance- 

Based Seismic Design and existing infrastructure 

assessment procedures by linking 

the researcher and practitioner communities. 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

Support the development of the researcher 

and practitioner talent pipeline through 

effective education and outreach programs 

PUBLIC AWARENESS 

Increase the visibility of the NEES 

community, capabilities, and contributions 

focused on reducing earthquake and tsunami 

risks to life through research, engineering, 

and education 


Aim Number 1 

Hybrid beam-column connection test at 

University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana (UICU) 


COMMUNITY 

Build a broad and engaged NEES community based upon a culture of 

collaborating in research and education through sharing facilities, ideas, 

data, and computational tools and models. 

Actions Needed: 

• Build a diverse community that uses NEES experimental facilities to 

perform research focused on improving the resilience of critical 

infrastructure and communities 

• Encourage and facilitate community members to use or contribute ideas, 

tools, data or educational resources on the NEEShub 

• Integrate and share knowledge and resources across NEES 

experimental facilities 

• Leverage the NEES experimental facilities and cyberinfrastructure to 

engage the NEES community and extend education and outreach efforts 

• Solicit direct feedback from stakeholders and the community through 

satisfaction surveys and interviews to enhance and extend NEES 

capabilities and programs 

• Focus on community resilience in earthquake affected areas by 

collaborating with end users on research that is responsive to the 

social and institutional factors that affect implementation 

6 


Aim Number 2 

Large wave flume at Oregon State University (OSU) 


RESEARCH 

Enable unique and innovative experimental and computational research 

that addresses the engineering challenges and responds to the 

social and institutional factors infl uencing implementation. 


• Support pioneering research in earthquake engineering that also 

reduces losses from other hazards and improves the resilience of 

critical infrastructure and communities 

• Maintain state-of-the-art physical and numerical simulation 

capabilities by engaging with the earthquake research community to 

identify future needs 

• Develop efficient and safe research facilities through standard 

equipment, practices, and policies 

• Enable innovative research such as hybrid simulation and 

multi-site collaboration through a common framework for research, 

including equipment, software, and data integration 

• Develop and maintain a research project warehouse on NEEShub 

containing complete research documentation including methods, 

equipment, calibrations, video, data, and educational efforts 

• Recognize and promote community’s contributions to the 

development of enhanced simulation tools and research data 

repository 

• Develop strategic partnerships with public agencies, industry, and 

associations to expand research and funding opportunities 

• Collaborate through strategic partnerships with public agencies, 

industry and associations to expand research capabilities 

8 


Aim Number 3 

Classroom at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) 


KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 

Support the development of Performance-Based Seismic Design and 

existing infrastructure assessment procedures by linking researcher and 

practitioner communities. 


• Develop collaborative partnerships with industry to improve 

infrastructure design and construction practices 

• Promote key research findings through white papers, newsletters, 

webinars, a research publication database, and open access to 

NEES research data and metadata 

• Partner with professional organizations to contribute to accredited 

continuing education curriculum for practitioners 

• Support practitioners in Performance-Based Seismic Design by 

maintaining a repository for component characteristics and fragility 

data for structural and non-structural components 

• Develop partnerships with professional organizations to contribute 

to dissemination of research outcomes 

10 


Aim Number 4 

2010 Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) students 

at workshop at University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) 


WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

Support the development of the researcher and practitioner talent 

pipeline through effective education and outreach programs. 


• Collaborate with the user community to increase the education, 

outreach, and training products within the NEESAcademy on the 

NEEShub 

• Organize workshops on the NEEShub and at primarily 

undergraduate institutions (PUI’s), community colleges, and 

two-year colleges that target under-represented demographic groups 

• Promote success stories of faculty development activities 

• Engage in outreach and education with industry by means of 

workshops, seminars, short courses, and web-based instructional 

products 

• Collaborate with the research community and experimental 

facilities to expand the research experience opportunities for 

undergraduates, graduate students, and young professionals 

12 


Aim Number 5 

Golcuk, Turkey 

August, 1999 

Source: PEER-Nisee, University of California, Berkeley 


PUBLIC AWARENESS 

Increase the visibility of the NEES community, capabilities, and 

contributions focused on reducing earthquake and tsunami risks to life 

through research, engineering, science, and education. 


• Collaborate with other organizations to increase public awareness about 

earthquake hazard reduction. 

• Promote NEES research results to the community through 

conferences and research highlights 

• Create a database of all publications that relate to the research and 

engineering practices targeting disaster mitigation 

• Leverage news and media services to enhance visibility of the 

network’s capabilities, research results, and national influence on 

reducing the impact of earthquake and tsunami disasters 

14

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS and 

KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS 

Development of Community 

• Number of NEEShub users 

• Demographics of NEEShub users 

• Number of participants at NEES-sponsored events 

• Community Satisfaction 

• Profi le of funding sources 

• Total number of collaborative partnerships established 

Community Engagement in Education & Outreach 

• Number of community contributions to cyberinfrastructure and 

educational resources 

• Number of media mentions in various forms of press and journals 

• Number of Education Outreach & Training (EOT) activities 

delivered by NEES experimental facilities 

• Number of EOT activities delivered by research members of 

the NEES collaboratory 

• Quality and impact of extension programs 

• Number and quality of programs engaging practitioners and 

number of participants 

• Number of educational programs delivered to industry and 

number of industry participants 

Physical Simulation Capabilities 

• User satisfaction of experimental facilities and support 

• Project on-time completion rates 

• Safety performance at experimental facilities 

15 


CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS and 

KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS 

Data Management and Numerical Simulation 

• Number of research projects curated into NEEShub project 

warehouse 

• Number of research projects that can be viewed, analyzed, 

searched with available capabilities 

• Number of numerical simulation tools on NEEShub 

Achieving National Impact 

• Number of media that acknowledge NEES support or 

resources 

• Number and reach of media content mentions (print, online, 

TV, radio) associated with NEES sites and NEES community 

• Impact factor of media mentions 

• Number of news releases on topics of interest submitted to 

targeted media 

Extend the NEES Network through 

Collaborative Partnerships 

• Number of International Memorandums of Understanding 

(MoU’s) 

• Number of partnerships with organizations focused on transfer 

of research to practice 

• Number of international faculty and student exchanges 

• Number of international jointly-conducted research projects 

• Number of international jointly-authored publications 

• Number of projects that target multi-hazard risk reduction 

16 


PARTNERSHIPS 

ACADEMIC 

Cornell University 

Lehigh University 

Oregon State University 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

University at Buffalo, SUNY 

University of California at Berkeley 

University of California at Davis 

University of California at Los Angeles 

University of California at San Diego 

University of California at Santa Barbara 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

University of Minnesota 

University of Nevada at Reno 

University of Texas at Austin 

INDUSTRY 

MTS Systems Corporation 

INTERNATIONAL 

Canadian Seismic Research Network, Canada 

Hyogo Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Japan 

Korea Construction Engineering Development Program, Korea 

European Laboratory for Structural Assessment 

NZ Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, New Zealand 

Pacific Rim Applications and Grid Middleware Assembly 

National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taiwan 

UK Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, United Kingdom 

17 


2010 GOVERNANCE BOARD 

Dr. Farzad Naeim, John Martin and Associates, Chair 

Bill Holmes, Rutherford & Chekene, Vice Chair 

Dr. Sergio Alcocer, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) 

Dr. Roberta Balstad, Columbia University 

Dr. George Cybenko, Dartmouth College 

Dr. Kenneth Elwood, University of British Columbia 

Dr. Anthony Fiorato, Glenview, IL 

Dr. Nancy Healy, National Nanotechnology Infrastraucture Network (NNIN) 

Dr. Roberta Johnson, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) 

Dr. Glen Rix, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Dr. Christopher Rojahn, Applied Technology Council 

Dr. Horst Simon, Berkeley National Laboratory 

Maule, Chile 

Feb. 27, 2010 

Source: Jack Moehle,PEER Center Chile Photo Gallery 


2 nd Workshop on China-‐U.S. Collaboration 

Final Report | F 


Final Report 

2 nd Workshop on China-‐USA Collaboration for 

Disaster Evolution/Resilience of Civil Infrastructure and Urban Environment 

Co-‐chairs: 

Prof. Julio A.RAMIREZ (Purdue University, USA) 

Prof. Jinping OU (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Sponsors: 

US National Science Foundation (NSF) 

National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) 

Shanghai, China, December 9-‐10, 2011 

 

1 


WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES 

The second workshop was structured around the working groups-‐Simulation and Monitoring, 

and built upon the objectives of the first workshop held at Purdue University, August 23-‐24, 

2010. The final report of the first workshop can be found at-‐ 

http://nees.org/resources/1671/download/Final_Report_China-‐US.pdf 

The purpose of the 2 nd workshop was to (i) generate opportunities for research collaboration 

using facilities and data exchange, (ii) discuss testbeds where researchers can engage in the 

validation of models and simulation tools, and (iii) provide a forum where researchers and 

funding agencies from China and the USA can discuss and promote synergistic collaboration, as 

well as the linkages necessary to facilitate this collaboration. The ultimate objective of this 

workshop was to establish partnerships to improve the disaster evolution/resilience of civil 

infrastructure and urban environment in both countries and around the world. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOP 

The venue for the workshop was the Days Hotel in Shanghai, China on December 9-‐10, 2011. 

The Workshop Steering Committee consisted of Profs. Jinping OU and Gang LI (Dalian Technical 

University, China), Profs. Julio RAMIREZ and Shirley DYKE (Purdue University), and Prof. Bill 

Spencer Jr. (University of Illinois, Urbana-‐Champaign). The workshop agenda included a 

combination of keynote lectures from China and USA representatives and working sessions on 

two distinct topics. 

• Hybrid Simulation: As defined herein, hybrid simulation includes both physical and 

computational experimentation. In this area, the facilities have a tremendous impact, 

and where the network has seen increases in activity. Some of the topics to be 

covered should consider an assessment of current software linking simulation and 

testing, identification of possible platforms for future development, and the balance 

between incremental improvements and transformational technologies in this area. 

• Monitoring: The ability to continuously monitor the integrity of structures in real-time 

can provide for increased safety to the public. Assessment of structural 

integrity after catastrophic events, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, or 

fires, is vital. Additionally, structures internally, but not obviously, damaged in an 

earthquake may be in great danger of collapse during aftershocks; structural 

monitoring can help to identify such structures to enable evacuation of building 

occupants and contents prior to aftershocks. Furthermore, after natural disasters, it 

is imperative that emergency facilities and evacuation routes, including bridges and 

highways, be assessed for safety. 

 

2 


Each working group was assigned 2 co-‐chairs, one from each delegation, and one recorder. 

Members of the working groups were asked to give brief opening remarks about the task of 

their working group, introducing their views regarding the main issues before the group, with a 

goal of generating discussion and eliciting ideas and opinions from the group about the task. 

After the deliberations were completed, the working group chairs and recorders prepared a 

report about the discussions and opinions expressed in the sessions, and formulated specific 

recommendations. On the second day, the groups convened in a plenary session to develop a 

cohesive report with final workshop recommendations. In each working group the 

development of methodologies and standards for the storage, curation and access to data and 

metadata generated from simulations and tests were discussed. Such an approach is taken to 

facilitate interchange of information, reduce interpretation errors, and enlarge the research 

pool and to create a roadmap for future developments taking into account the needs of the 

international community. 

The next sections of the report describe the agenda and participants. This is followed by a 

summary of the outcomes from the first workshop, working group summaries of the second 

workshop and plans for the 3 rd Workshop. 

AGENDA 

• 

Thursday, December 8, 2011 

Arrival to Shanghai. 

Days Hotel Tongji Shanghai () 

Address: 50 Zhangwu Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, P. R. China 200092 

(50200092) 

Tel: 86-‐21-‐33626888 

Fax: 86-‐21-‐33626777 

Web: http://www.daysinn.cn/english/hotel/tongji_a.htm 

• 

Friday, December 9, 2011 

07:45am: Continental breakfast and registration 

08:30am: Introduction to the workshop, welcome to Shanghai and brief remarks from the 

guests 

 

3 


Chair: Prof. Xilin LU 

Opening Remarks: 

Prof. Jinping OU 

Prof. Julio Ramirez 

Dr. Jiping RU (NSFC) 

09:00am: Plenary lectures 

Co-‐Chairs: Prof. Jinping OU and Prof. Julio Ramirez 

09:00am-‐09:30 AM 

Advances and Future Plans of DECISEW(Disaster Evolution of Civil 

Infrastructure under Strong Earthquake and Wind) 

Prof. Jinping OU 

09:30am-‐10:00 AM 

Opportunities in the George E. Brown Jr., Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation (NEES) 

Prof. Julio A. RAMIREZ 

10:00am-‐10:30 AM 

Structural Seismic Tests and Simulation 

Prof. Xilin LU 

10:30am: Break 

11:00am: Plenary lectures 

11:00am-‐11:30 AM 

Emerging Opportunities in Real-‐time and Distributed Hybrid Simulation 

Prof. Shirley DYKE 

11:30am-‐12:00 AM 

In-‐Field Monitoring and Verification for Seismic Damage and Wind Effects 

of Structures 

Prof. Hui LI 

 

4 


12:00am-‐12:30 AM 

Structural Health Monitoring and Hybrid Simulation for Improved Seismic 

Hazard Mitigation 

Prof. Bill F. SPENCER Jr. 

12:30pm: Lunch 

01:30pm: Working group meetings 

03:30pm: Coffee break 

04:00pm: Working group meetings 

05:30pm: Adjournment 

06:30pm: Banquet (Hosted by Chinese Delegation, on 86th floor of Jinmao Tower, Shanghai) 

• 

Saturday, December 10, 2011 

09:00am: Working group reports and plenary discussion 

10:30am: Coffee Break 

11:00am: Workshop summary 

12:00pm: Banquet (Hosted by Tongji University, in Days Hotel Tongji, Shanghai) 

14:00pm: Adjournment 

MEMBERSHIP OF WORKING GROUPS 

Working Group 1: Hybrid Simulation 

Co-‐chairs: Prof. Shirley DYKE (Purdue University, USA) 

Prof. Xilin LU (Tongji University, China) 

Recorder: Prof. Jian ZHANG (University of California-‐Los Angeles, USA) 

Members: Prof. Li CHEN (Tsinghua University, China) 

Prof. Feng FAN (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) 

Prof. Yurong GUO (Hunan University, China) 

Prof. Gang LI (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Prof. Jianzhong LI (Tongji University) 

Prof. Jie LI (Tongji University) 

Prof. Xinzhen LU (Tsinghua University) 

 

5 


Prof. Jiaru QIAN (Tsinghua University, China) 

Prof. Bin WU (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) 

Dr. Ou, YANG (Hunan University, China) 

Prof. Junhai YONG (Tsinghua University, China) 

Prof. Ying ZHOU (Tongji University) 

Prof. Mettupalayam SIVASELVAN "Siva" (University of Colorado, Boulder, USA) 

Prof. Gilberto MOSQUEDA (State University of New York, Buffalo, USA) 

Prof. Narutoshi NAKATA (Johns Hopkins University, USA) 

Prof. Julio RAMIREZ (Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA) 

Working Group 2: Monitoring 

Co-‐chairs: Prof. Bill SPENCER Jr. (University of Illinois at Urbana-‐Champaign, USA) 

Prof. Hui LI (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) 

Recorder: Prof. Hoon Sohn (Purdue University/KAIST, USA) 

Members: Prof. Jinping OU (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Prof. Hongnan LI (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Prof. Jun TENG (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) 

Prof. Limin SUN (Tongji University, China) 

Prof. Zheng HE (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Prof. Zhongxian LI (Tianjin University, China) 

Prof. Satish NAGARAJAIAH (Rice University, USA) 

Prof. Prof. Kerop D. JANOYAN (Clarkson University, USA) 

Prof. Ming WANG (Northeastern University, USA) 

Prof. JoAnn BROWNING (University of Kansas, USA, NEEScomm Representative) 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 

• 

• 

Guest from China: 

Dr. Jiping RU, Director of the Division of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the 

Department of Engineering and Materials Science, NSFC, China. 

Researchers from China: 

Prof. Jinping OU (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Prof. Hui LI (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) 

Prof. Hongnan LI (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Prof. Jun TENG (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) 

Prof. Limin SUN (Tongji University, China) 

Prof. Zheng HE (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Prof. Zhongxian LI (Tianjin University, China) 

Prof. Xilin LU (Tongji University, China) 

Prof. Jie LI (Tongji University, China) 

Prof. Jiaru QIAN (Tsinghua University, China) 

 

6 


Prof. Li CHEN (Tsinghua University, China) 

Prof. Junhai YONG (Tsinghua University, China) 

Prof. Gang LI (Dalian University of Technology, China) 

Prof. Bin WU (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) 

Prof. Feng FAN (Harbin Institute of Technology, China) 

Prof. Yurong GUO (Hunan University, China) 

Prof. Ying ZHOU (Tongji University, China) 

Prof. Xinzhen LU (Tsinghua University) 

Dr. Ou, YANG (Hunan University, China) 

• 

Researchers from USA: 

Prof. Julio RAMIREZ, Purdue University (US Delegation Leader) (Simulation) 

Prof. JoAnn BROWNING, University of Kansas (NEEScomm Representative) (Monitoring) 

Prof. Bill SPENCER Jr., University of Illinois (US Working Group Leader, Monitoring) 

Prof. Satish NAGARAJAIAH, Rice University 

Prof. Kerop D. JANOYAN (Clarkson University, USA) 

Prof. Hoon SOHN, KAIST (currently, visiting professor at Purdue University) 

Prof. Ming WANG, Northeastern University 

Prof. Shirley DYKE (US Working Group Leader, Simulation) 

Prof. Jian ZHANG (UCLA) 

Prof. Mettupalayam SIVASELVAN "Siva" (University of Colorado, Boulder) 

Prof. Gilberto MOSQUEDA (State University of New York, Buffalo) 

Prof. Narutoshi NAKATA (Johns Hopkins University) 

 

7 


OUTCOMES FROM THE 1 st US-‐CHINA WORKSHOP AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY 

As a result of the efforts from researchers following the 1 st Workshop, there are two ongoing 

US-‐China collaboration projects funded since the 1 st Workshop was held in August 2010. 

Furthermore in 2012, the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) could fund additional 

four new joint projects. A brief description of the projects already active follows, for more 

information please contact the Co-‐PIs directly at the e-‐mail address shown in parenthesis next 

to their names. 

1. A hybrid simulation project led by Shirley Dyke, Purdue University (e-‐mail: 

sdyke@purdue.edu) and Bin Wu, Harbin Institute of Technology, China, in collaboration 

with Tao Wang, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, Yurong Guo, Hunan University, 

China, and Jian Zhang, University of California, Los Angeles: The project focuses on 

assessing the use of Real-‐Time Hybrid Simulation (RTHS) to study the global behavior of 

a controlled structural system where RTHS results will be directly compared to shake 

table test results. A structure is equipped with a smart base isolation system composed 

of semi-‐actively controllable MR fluid dampers and elastomeric bearing pads using RTHS 

methodology. The structure to be simulated is divided into the isolation level as the 

physical component and a 3-‐D steel frame model representing the numerical 

substructure. For the analytical model, a small-‐scale prototype structure (1.84m by 

2.04m in plan and 3.60m in height) built in Harbin Institute of Technology in China is 

taken as the reference structure. The seismic responses of structure with smart base 

isolation system are obtained using RTHS and compared to numerical and shake table 

responses. 

2. A structural monitoring project led by Bill Spencer Jr., University of Illinois, Urban-‐ 

Champaign (e-‐mail: bfs@illinois.edu) and Hui Li, Harbin Institute of Technology with 

collaborators from Dalian University of Technology, China, and the California Institute of 

Technology: The project focuses on the monitoring, evaluation and validation for 

seismic damage and wind effects in long-‐span bridges and tall buildings (2012-‐2016, 

China side). The Xihoumen Bridge-‐second longest suspension bridge in the world and 

the Guangzhou New TV tower are selected as testbed models. 

 

8 


WORKING GROUPS SUMMARIES 

Working Group 1: Hybrid Simulation 

Introduction 

Hybrid simulation includes both physical and computational experimentation. In this type of 

study, the NEES equipment facilities and cyberinfrastructure can have a tremendous impact as 

the use of this technique by researchers is steadily increasing. The working group had two co-chairs, 

one from each delegation, and one recorder. Members of the working group gave brief 

presentations of their views regarding the main issues before the group. The main goal of the 

presentations was to generate discussion and elicit ideas and opinions about the state-‐of-‐the 

art, motivation for collaborations, and research challenges ahead. 

Figure 1. Prof. Dyke and participants in the discussions of the Simulation Working Group 

The salient items covered in the deliberations of this working group were: 

 

9 


• plans to leverage research opportunities through China-‐USA collaborations 

• identification of possible platforms for future development 

• interoperability and assessment of current software linking simulation and testing 

• visualization needs 

• standards in software and data formats for compatibility 

• balance between incremental improvements and transformational technologies 

• hybrid simulation test-‐bed problems. 

A summary of the discussions and recommendations of the group regarding the needs of the 

community for continued progress is provided next. The outline includes: 

1. State of the Art 

2. Motivation for China-‐USA Collaboration 

3. Challenging Problems 

4. Potential Research Topics and Recommendations 

Summary of Discussions 

State of the Art 

Hybrid simulation is a promising technique that can be used for assessment at the system-‐level 

of the behavior of structures, for which physical testing of the entire structure is not feasible 

due budgetary or physical constraints. It is important to note that significant developments in 

the past decade are facilitating the implementation of advanced simulation techniques to 

achieve assessment of system-‐level behavior. Several hybrid simulation platforms have been 

developed, which include OpenFresco and UI-‐Simcor on the U.S. side and NetSlab and SiPESC 

on China side. For real-‐time hybrid simulation, the Matlab’s xPC, dSpace and Quarc are 

software tools typically used by researchers from China and the US. The communication 

protocol used is TCP/IP. China has also developed visualization tools, e.g. Donap (Tsinghua 

University). However, validation of this promising technique has been performed only in a 

limited set of cases. The group felt that transformational technologies in this area could best be 

accomplished through the global cooperation and collaboration of researchers. At this time, 

real-‐time hybrid testing is still in early development stage and a uniform vision from the 

community is needed to guide future efforts effectively. 

Motivation for China-‐USA Collaboration 

There are strong motivations for USA and China to share efforts in hybrid simulation. The 

strength of both sides can be utilized in terms of the hardware and software developments as 

well as large scale testing facilities. On the USA side, these include the NEES testing sites, 

network, cyber-‐infrastructure, simulation software (OpenSEES, IDARC 2D/3D, NISRAF, MAEviz) 

and middleware (OpenFresco, UI-‐Simcor etc.). On the China side, several large scale testing 

 

10 


sites are being developed, including four reconfigurable shake tables at Tongji University, 

centrifuge testing facility at Zhejiang University and Hunan University’s HNU-‐LCSS facility etc., 

and NEES is working at developing formal partnerships with some of these facilities for the 

benefit of researchers in the US and the world. Two simulation platforms, namely SiPESC and 

Netslab as well as visualization tools have also been developed in China. Through the US-‐China 

collaboration, we can solve challenging earthquake engineering problems posed by complex 

structural systems, progressive collapse etc. to improve earthquake resilience in both countries. 

Furthermore, through this collaboration, efforts to unify the standards, platforms, benchmark 

problems and data formats for hybrid simulation can be conducted effectively. 

Technical capabilities around the world to perform hybrid and real-‐time hybrid simulation have 

advanced considerably since the last workshop in August 2010. Recent achievements include: 

• Actuator control methods and new sub-‐structuring methods for RHTS have been 

experimentally validated on frame systems; 

• RTHS methods have been extended to test structures with higher frequencies; 

• Real-‐time nonlinear updating methods have been demonstrated on degrading 

hysteretic systems; 

• Multi-‐site RTHS has been successfully conducted; 

• Force control has been implemented to compensate for control-‐structure 

interaction and oil column resonance; and 

• Hybrid testing shake table configurations are being successfully implemented for 

structural performance evaluation. 

The ongoing developments in this area allow researchers to apply hybrid simulation in the 

solution of challenging problems and generate new knowledge. The next section describes 

some of these challenging problems in earthquake engineering and strategies to deal with 

these challenges using hybrid simulation techniques. 

Challenging Problems 

A host of challenging problems discussed along with the potential use of hybrid simulation to 

tackle these problems includes: 

• long-‐span bridges subject to spatially varying ground motions 

• tall buildings with mega elements 

• dams 

• collapse simulation of structures 

• nonlinear soil-‐structure interaction 

• fluid-‐structure interaction 

• liquefaction-‐induced lateral spreading 

• uncertainties in investigation and quantification 

 

11 


Potential Research Topics and Recommendations 

With the goal to eventually tackle the challenging cases identified above, the following research 

topics were identified: 

a) Further improve the hybrid simulation testing methods 

• Combination of control and confutation (EFC) 

• Partitioned integration algorithms 

• Input model updating 

• Validation of hybrid simulation results 

• Quantify sources of errors 

• Force-‐based real time hybrid simulation 

b) Evaluate the feasibility of multi-‐site distributed hybrid simulation 

c) Use hybrid simulation as tool to understand seismic structural behavior from onset of 

damage to collapse, such as the earthquake-‐induced collapse simulation of structures 

d) Use hybrid simulation for realistic structural control evaluation and to understand the 

behavior of innovative new earthquake resistant systems or devices. 

e) Seismic response simulation of bridges with shaking and liquefaction-‐induced lateral 

spreading 

f) Develop more logic way to incorporate and quantify the uncertainties and stochastic 

nature of nonlinear behavior of structures. 

In order to address the research topics, the following research areas were recommended: 

a) Testbeds for hybrid simulation validation 

To validate and further develop the hybrid simulation integration methods, carefully 

designed testbeds are needed to understand capabilities and limitations of these 

methods. Two types of testbeds are envisioned: (i) Type 1 testbed consists of simple 

benchmark problems to validate new algorithms. Preferably, they are reconfigurable 

and with well-‐defined inputs/outputs/signals. The cases considered can cover different 

possibilities encountered in hybrid simulation, such as a physical subsystem with and 

without inertia, different bandwidths of actuator dynamics etc. The tests should be 

repeatable, linear or a protocol needs to be developed. When nonlinearities arise, they 

should be controllable and repeatable to ensure equivalent tests are conducted using 

different methods; (ii) Type 2 testbed is intended as a testbed structural system that will 

challenge the capabilities of hybrid simulation, leading to new developments. Such 

testbed structural system may include a system with large nonlinearity, where pure 

numerical simulations are less reliable (i.e. due to significant strength and stiffness 

degradation). It should include real-‐time or distributed testing with multiple 

substructures. One good candidate could be a structure that was previously tested on a 

shake table to have the benchmark response. The working group did not reach 

agreement regarding which way the community should proceed and preferred to offer 

these two ideas as a starting point. 

 

12 


) Progressive collapse of buildings with hybrid simulation 

This is a particularly challenging problem primarily dealt with using large numerical 

simulations. Given the capabilities of hybrid simulation, researchers could explore how 

to use hybrid experiments to validate collapse models. However, to properly address 

the problem, several major developments are needed. These include the careful 

consideration of the integration algorithms due to extremely small time steps, 

predicting the initiation of damage in structural members, quantifying local 

nonlinearities, and running real-‐time test at large scale. 

c) Soil-‐structure interaction (SSI) in bridges 

Hybrid simulation can play a major role on the seismic response assessment of bridges 

considering soil-‐structure interaction. Since bridges are affected more by SSI than 

buildings and are susceptible to liquefaction-‐induced lateral spreading, hybrid 

simulation provides an effective technique to evaluate the response at the system level. 

Hybrid simulation can integrate the foundation components with the bridge 

superstructure for system level performance assessment. Major challenges include 

linking the geotechnical and structural testing protocol, scaling and foundation 

nonlinear modeling. 

 

13 


Working Group 2: Monitoring 

Introduction 

Structural health monitoring attempts to continuously and/or periodically monitor the integrity, 

safety and performance of structures that are subjected to traffic and wind loadings as well as 

extreme events such as earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados. Two co-‐chairs, each from China 

and the USA and one recorder were assigned to each group. The participants of the working 

group were asked to prepare a short presentation file describing SHM challenges and specific 

research topics of interest in advance of the meeting. Then, each member was asked to give 

brief remarks on their views on SHM challenges and collaborative research topics. This report is 

the outcome of the discussions and opinions expressed during the working group discussion, 

and outlined in the following orders: (1) Current state of the art, (2) motivation for China-‐USA 

collaboration, (3) activities since the last workshop at Purdue in August, 2010, (4) challenging 

problems to be addressed, (5) potential research topics, and (6) recommendations. 

Figure 2. Participant in the Working Group on Monitoring at the 2 nd Workshop 

A summary of the discussions and recommendations of the group regarding the needs of the 

community for continued progress is provided next. The outline includes: 

1. State of the Art 

 

14 


2. Motivation for China-‐USA Collaboration 

3. Challenging Problems 

4. Potential Research Topics and Recommendations 

Summary of the Discussions 

State of the Art 

There have been several notable advancements in monitoring technology, including wireless 

sensing and remote data acquisition that can enable substantial advances in the accuracy and 

efficacy of structural monitoring. Similarly, there have been significant advancements in 

mathematical modeling, shake table testing and hybrid simulation. China offers an impressive 

number of ongoing structural health monitoring (SHM) activities. For example, almost all new 

major bridges built since 2005 as well as some old bridges have SHM systems installed. Various 

sensors such as accelerometers, optical fibers, and other sensors, distributed and remote 

sensor networks are employed along with global and local monitoring techniques. It is 

estimated that there are more than 90 cases, where SHM systems are installed in real 

infrastructure, and over 140-‐instrumented bridges. A bridge with the biggest SHM system 

installed contains 1440 sensors. Some of these sensing and SHM systems have worked with 

reliability over 10 years. 

Motivation for China-‐USA Collaboration 

As previously mentioned, there are more than 140 long span bridges in China with installed 

SHM systems. These large numbers of instrumented bridges offer an outstanding opportunity 

for several potentially fruitful collaborations with China to conduct testbed studies. 

Furthermore, with the majority of civil infrastructures are owned by state and local 

governments, it would be relatively easier to gain access to these systems for testbed studies. 

Finally, there is increasing interests and demands for developing and implementing SHM and 

control systems to real structures in both US and China. 

Challenging Problems 

During the Monitoring Work Group discussion on the subject, several challenges were 

identified. Of those topics, the ones that resonated the most amongst the participants, were: 

• types of problems that should be validated through testbed-‐testing 

• effective leveraging of “the internet of things” (this is a concept similar to “smart planet,” 

which US researchers are more familiar with) and cloud computing for SHM applications 

• simultaneous consideration of multi-‐hazards such as typhoon, earthquake, and terrorist 

attack 

• development of multifunctional and multilevel sensors 

• new data models to facilitate data collection and data sharing 

• shared simulation tools 

• identification of complex system behavior 

 

15 


Potential Research Topics and Recommendations 

After discussion on challenging issues, three research topics that might be further pursued as 

joint projects were identified. The objective of the three ideas that were developed during this 

working group is to collect full-‐scale dense sensor data from both standard structures during 

seismic events and advanced structures that push the envelope in load development, analysis 

and design. The proposed projects include instrumentation and analysis that will validate the 

structural designs and characterize the structural performance and environment load, such as 

wind and seismic effects, in an effort to develop a database. This database will be used to 

advance the state of seismic design and performance-‐based design and structural assessment. 

The information collected will also be used to detect, localize and quantify damage before it 

reaches critical levels. 

a) Vortex induced vibration (VIV) monitoring and control: Prof. Hui Li (HIT) has an ongoing 

project on VIV. Prof. Satish Nagarajaiah (Rice University) also has a project on a related 

subject. Thus, they proposed to work together to further explore collaboration 

opportunities on the VIV monitoring and control for long-‐span bridges. This 

collaboration would also explore the possibility of utilizing the wind tunnel testing 

facility available at Harbin Institute of Technology and an actual long span bridge. 

b) Hybrid simulation by integrating field monitoring, lab testing, modeling and control: By 

adding field monitoring and control components into the existing hybrid simulation, the 

capacity of hybrid simulation can be brought up to the next level. Specific applications 

that this new hybrid simulation is best suited to, need to be identified. For example, the 

current fragility analysis can significantly benefit from this extended hybrid simulation 

capability. Participants identified three potential testbed structures that are best suited 

for this subject. 

• Donghai Bridge: Prof. Limin Sun’s group already has collected extensive amount of 

monitoring data from this bridge over 5 years, and plan on sharing the monitored 

data with the SHM engineering community 

• Xihoumen Bridge: A good candidate for model updating, and Prof. Hui Li will be 

building a model using this bridge as a prototype 

• Guangzhou TV tower: Extensive monitoring data and high fidelity models are also 

available, and there is an ongoing effort to develop a SHM benchmark problem 

based on this signature structure in China. 

c) Real-‐time and in-‐field hybrid simulation based on SHM: The goal of this research is to 

better understand the behavior of a critical substructure in a real structure by (1) 

providing a dense instrumentation of the substructure with sensors, (2) building a 

numerical model for the rest of the host structure and using a model-‐updating 

technique based on SHM data from the real structure, and (3) integrating the 

monitoring data obtained from the critical substructure in the field and the numerical 

model carefully calibrated for the whole structure. 

 

16 


Other interesting and challenging research ideas suggested by the participants included: (1) 

Simultaneous benchmarking of real structure, corresponding scaled model, and numerical 

model for SHM, control, hybrid simulation, (2) application of new sensors and sensing 

technology to field structures, (3) multi-‐level SHM for distributed infrastructure network 

systems by improving the functionality of sensor, sensor networks, and SHM system. 

The group participants finally recommended organizing an international conference in 2012 

focusing on “SHM of real structures”. The scope of presentations would be limited only to real 

world testing and simulation applications, but regulatory officials, bridge owners, practicing 

engineers, design engineers, computer scientists, and more theoretic researchers will be invited. 

Prof. Hui Li accepted to lead the organization of this conference. 

FINAL WORKSHOP RESOLUTION 

The participants agreed to reconvene in 2012 at a NEES site in the USA to hold the 3 rd 

Workshop on China-‐USA Collaboration for Disaster Evolution/Resilience of Civil Infrastructure 

and Urban Environment. At this workshop once again the key topics for the working groups will 

be Simulation and Monitoring. The outcomes from the first two workshops will be reviewed 

and new research collaborations will be investigated. 

 

17 


9 th International Conference Keynote Speech | G 


JOINT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 

9th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering/ 4th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering 

March 6-8, 2012, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan 

THE GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 

SIMULATION (NEES): REDUCING THE IMPACT OF EARTHQUAKES AND TSUNAMIS ON 

SOCIETY 

Julio A. Ramirez 1) 

1) Professor, Structural Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue U., NEES Chief Officer and NEEScomm Center Director 

ramirez@purdue.edu 

Abstract: The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) is a network of 14 

experimental sites (https://nees.org/sites-mainpage/laboratories) connected by a cyberinfrastructure that fosters 

collaboration in research and education. The current experimental reach of the laboratories ranges from the marine to the 

geotechnical to the structural environments and can address almost any technical question related to the safety of the 

built-environment in earthquakes. While each of the NEES equipments sites are impressive, the umbrella of the network 

facilitates cooperation on research between multiple sites. Consequently, more may be accomplished in a single 

investigation, which results in faster impact of research findings. Now in its 8 th year of official operation, the network 

features over 300 multi-year, multi-investigator projects, yielding many advances in earthquake engineering and a wealth 

of valuable experimental data. The NEES platform for collaboration, NEEShub (nees.org), provides convenient access to 

the NEES data repository (Project Warehouse) and hosts tools for data visualization, analysis, computational simulation 

and collaboration. The NEESacademy in the NEEShub is designed to host a rich set of resources aimed at disseminating 

new earthquake engineering knowledge. In this paper, brief descriptions of some of the research, outreach, information 

technology, and educational accomplishments of NEES are illustrated. 

1. INTRODUCTION 

In November 1998, the National Science Board 

approved the George E. Brown Jr., Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation (NEES) for construction with funds 

totaling $82 million from the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) Major Research Equipment and Facilities 

Construction (MREFC) appropriation. Construction 

occurred during the period 2000-2004. As part of its 

contribution to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, the National Science Foundation (NSF) funds 

NEES operations (Award # CMMI-0927178) as well as 

many of the research projects that are conducted in NEES 

facilities. NEES operations are managed by the NEES 

Community and Communications Team (NEEScomm), 

which is headquartered at Purdue University in West 

Lafayette, IN, and includes key administrative partners at the 

University of Texas at Austin, San Jose State University, the 

University of Washington at Seattle, the University of 

Kansas at Lawrence, and Fermi National Accelerator 

Laboratory. 

NEEScomm manages a nationwide network of 14 

experimental facilities. Each of these university-based 

equipment sites enables researchers to explore a different 

aspect of the complex way that soils and structures behave in 

response to earthquakes and tsunamis. The sites are available 

not just to researchers at the universities where they are 

located, but to investigators throughout the USA who are 

awarded grants through NSF’s annual NEES Research 

(NEESR) Program and other NSF programs. Researchers 

located at colleges or universities remote from the NEES site 

used have led 80% of NEESR projects. 

NEES laboratories are also used for research conducted 

or funded by other federal, state, and local agencies, by 

private industry, and even by international researchers under 

the partnerships that NEES has cultivated with research 

facilities and agencies in Japan, Taiwan, Canada, and China. 

To date, more than 300 multi-year, multi-investigator 

projects have been completed or are in progress at NEES 

sites. These projects are yielding a wealth of valuable 

experimental data and continue to produce transformational 

research and outcomes that impact engineering practice from 

analytical models to design guidelines and codes. The family 

of NEES researchers, educators, and students encompasses 

an ever increasing group of universities, industry partners, 

and research institutions in the US and abroad. Project teams 

in collaboration with the NEEScomm team have developed 

a rich set of resources for research and education. 

The focus of this paper is to provide a sample of the 

breadth of the activities of researchers, students, educators, 

and practitioners collaborating in NEES equipment sites and 

field stations and the NEES cyber-platform for collaboration, 

NEEShub (nees.org). Regrettably, many notable activities 

were excluded because of limited space. More information 

about these activities and others can be found in Buckle and 


Ramirez (2010), 2009-2010 NEES Facility Project 

Highlights (NEEScomm, 2010), 2010-2011 NEES Activity 

Highlights (NEEScomm, 2011) and in the NEEShub at 

nees.org. 

environment responds to earthquakes. NEES investigators 

have studied the responses of a variety of structures, from 

reinforced concrete columns used in buildings and bridges 

(Figure 3) to wind turbines and port container cranes. 

2. RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

Today, NEEScomm manages the operations of the 

large, complex, and geographically distributed NEES 

infrastructure (Figure 1) of equipment sites and 

cyberinfrastructure with its collaboration platform, 

NEEShub at nees.org, that encompasses hundreds of 

millions of dollars of investment. 

Figure 3. Full-scale Bridge Column on the 

NEES@UCSD Shake Table 

Award Title: Large-Scale Validation of Seismic Performance of Bridge 

Columns. Funded by Caltrans through the PEER Center. Award PI/PI 

Affiliation: Steve Mahin/ University of California, Berkeley. Award 

co-PI/co-PI Affiliation: José Restrepo / University of California, San Diego 

Ian Buckle/ University of Nevada, Reno. NEES Sites at which research 

occurred: NEES @ UCSD 

Figure 1. Growing Community of NEES Users 

Research at NEES facilities has contributed to the 

advancement of understanding of seismic phenomena, such 

as the characteristics and effects of tsunamis and the 

potential for soil liquefaction (Figure 2). 

Other NEES research has developed or validated new 

seismic protection systems, design methods, or simulation 

tools that enable engineers to improve the seismic 

performance of structures. For example, NEES projects have 

validated the improved seismic performance of bridge piers 

made with innovative polymer materials (Figure 3); of 

base-isolated designs for steel structures; of reinforced 

masonry shear-wall structures; and of retrofit techniques for 

nonductile, reinforced concrete frames with infill walls. New 

design methods have been developed for mid-rise 

wood-framed buildings, metal building systems, precast 

concrete floors, and reinforced concrete wall systems. NEES 

research has also produced new simulation tools and 

fragility data for nonstructural building systems. 

Figure 2. Colormap of Induced Shear Strain vs. Depth 

and Time (upper plot) and Recorded Ground Surface 

Accelerogram (lower plot) in Centrifuge Model Tested in 

RPI Centrifuge. 

Award Title: NEESR-CR: Evolutionary Intensity Measures for More 

Accurate and Informative Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation. Award NSF 

Number: CMMI-0936408 

Start Date: October 1, 2009. End Date: September 30, 2012 

Award PI/PI Affiliation: Steven Kramer/ University of Washington, 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affiliation: Kenan Hazirbaba /University of Alaska, 

Matthew Kuhn/ University of Portland. 

NEES Sites at which research occurred: RPI 

It has also strengthened our knowledge of how the built 

Figure 3. The Bridge Model Mounted on the Three 

Shake Tables with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer 

Wrapped Columns 

Award Title: Seismic Performance of Bridge Systems with Conventional 

and Innovative Design. Award NSF Number: CMS-0420347, 

CMMI-0650935, and CMS-0402490 

Start Date: November 2004. End Date: April 2011 

Award PI/PI Affiliation: M. Saiid Saiidi, University of Nevada, Reno, 

Award co-PI/co-PI Affiliation: A. Elgamal, UCSD; A. Mirmiran, Florida Int. 

U.; I. Buckle, UNR; G. Fenves, University of Texas, Austin 

NEES Sites at which research occurred: UNR and UCSD 


Many of these projects have prompted, or laid the 

groundwork for, improvements in model building codes and 

in design and construction practices, enhancing societal 

resilience to earthquakes and tsunamis. Facilitating these 

outcomes has been the dissemination of NEES findings 

through publications, NEEShub at nees.org, and NEES EOT 

activities. NEES research has been cited in more than 1,500 

publications, including rising numbers of refereed journal 

articles (Figure 4). During the first 10 months following its 

release in July 2010, NEEShub served 28,447 unique 

visitors from 57 countries. 

files in the warehouse has increased rapidly and now 

exceeds one million (Figure 7). NEEShub also stores and 

shares a variety of other earthquake engineering resources, 

including publications, databases, computational models, 

simulation software, educational materials, and data 

management and visualization tools. Some of these have 

been developed by NEES personnel, while others have been 

contributed by the earthquake engineering community. 

NEEScomm solicits and welcomes such contributions from 

the United States and abroad. 

Figure 4. Publications Resulting from NEES work 

Figure 5. NEEShub: NEES Platform for Collaboration 

Seismic design professionals visiting NEEShub can 

search and download bibliographic citations (and often 

copies) of publications describing NEES research findings; 

access and analyze these findings and use associated tools to 

improve their designs; and view presentations about NEES 

findings recorded at conferences and webinars. Practitioners 

can also attend NEES research presentations at EOT venues 

such as the annual “Quake Summit” conferences hosted by 

NEES. 

3. NEES CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE 

Linking the experimental facilities to each other, to 

NEEScomm, and to off-site users is the NEES 

cyberinfrastructure. This unique system of information 

technology resources enables researchers participating 

on-site or remotely to collect, view, process, and store data 

from NEES experiments, to conduct numerical simulation 

studies, and to perform hybrid (combined experimental and 

numerical) testing involving one or more NEES equipment 

sites. At the center of this system is NEEShub, a platform 

designed to facilitate information exchange and 

collaboration among earthquake engineering researchers, 

educators, students, practitioners, and stakeholders. 

Accessed via the NEES website, nees.org, NEEShub is 

powered by HUBzero software developed at Purdue 

University (Figure 5). 

NEEShub features the NEES Project Warehouse 

(Figure 6), a curated, centralized data repository used to 

store and share research results. As more NEES research 

projects have been completed in recent years, the number of 

Figure 6. NEES Data Repository: Project Warehouse 

Figure 7. Project Files and Directories in the Project 

Warehouse 

An example of such collaboration can be found in the 

section on databases on the NEEShub Project Warehouse 

which provides access to NEES and non-NEES data vetted 

by the professional community and organized by theme. The 

database on shear wall structural performance features 267 

entries and contains material and geometric properties, 

experimental results, and references for tests of reinforced 


concrete structural walls subjected to lateral-load reversals 

for each entry. Part of the database was assembled by 

researchers at Tongji University under the direction of 

Professor Xilin Liu (Figure 8). 

Figure 8. Database on Shear Wall Performance on the 

NEEShub Project Warehouse 

In addition to enabling sharing and collaboration that 

can accelerate advances in earthquake risk reduction, 

NEEShub is also helping to disseminate these advances. 

NEESacademy, a section of NEEShub maintained by 

NEEScomm’s education, outreach, and training (EOT) staff, 

provides access to varied resources tailored for students, 

teachers, engineering professionals, and the public. NEES is 

helping to build the workforces needed to discover and 

implement research findings. NEES is also enabling students 

to learn earthquake enginneering through involvement in 

research projects, undergraduates through NEES’ annual 

Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, and 

graduate students by directly assisting NEES investigators. 

In a recent survey, NEEScomm found that at least 559 

graduate students, including 191 PhD candidates, have been 

trained through participation in NEES research. Many of 

those receiving PhDs now hold faculty positions at major 

research universities worldwide. 

3. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS 

NEES has cultivated partnerships with research 

facilities and agencies in Japan, Taiwan, Canada, and China 

(Ramirez 2010). 

The development of a Memorandum of Understanding 

with The National Research Institute for Earth Science and 

Disaster Prevention (NIED) on earthquake engineering 

research using E-Defense and NEES Facilities represents an 

important accomplishment with significant realizations in 

the collaborative research arena. Japan's E-Defense shake 

table, operated by NIED, is the world's largest multi-degree 

shake table. In September 2005, the NSF and the Japanese 

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and 

Technology (MEXT) signed a memorandum concerning 

cooperation in the area of disaster prevention research. 

NSF-supported NEESR projects addressing the seismic 

performance of midrise wood frame buildings, steel frames, 

and base-isolated structures utilized both NEES facilities and 

E-Defense during the 2009-2010 timeframe. An example of 

the successes is the testing on July 14, 2009, of a six-story 

condominium building on the shake table at the E-Defense 

facility, located in the city of Miki, north of Kobe (Figure 9). 

This was the culminating experiment of the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) multi-year NEESWood project 

under the direction of Prof. John van de Lindt from the 

University of Alabama. The enabling agreement was 

intended to last five years. NSF continues to support the 

extension of this program for another 5-year term. On 7 June 

2010, the Memorandum of Understanding with The 

National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster 

Prevention (NIED) on earthquake engineering research 

using E-Defense and NEES Facilities was renewed for up to 

five more years. 

Figure 9. Testing the NEESWood Capstone Building 

on the E-Defense Shake Table 

Another significant milestone was reached on July 8, 

2010 with the official signature at the Port and Airport 

Research Institute (PARI) in Japan, of the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MoU) on use of facilities and research 

collaboration between PARI and NEES. PARI has 

developed and operates experimental facilities for 1) marine 

environment and engineering, 2) geotechnical and structural 

engineering, and 3) construction and control systems in close 

collaboration with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, 

Transport and Tourism (MLIT) of Japan. Among those 

facilities are the “Large Hydro-Geo Flume (LHGF)”, an 

“Underwater Shake Table (UST)” to investigate earthquake 

and tsunami engineering (Figure 10) and a “Large 

Geotechnical and Hydrodynamic Centrifuge (LGHC)” to 

investigate the multi-hazards of earthquakes and tsunamis. 


Figure 10. PARI Underwater Shake Table (UST) 

On 3 May 2010, through a Memorandum of 

Understanding, the research partnership between NEES and 

the Canadian Seismic Research Network (CSRN) was 

formalized. CSRN was established to undertake research 

leading to the development of national guidelines for seismic 

rehabilitation of existing buildings and bridges, 

microzonation of Canadian urban regions, and scenarios for 

policy and planning decisions. CSRN, led by Prof. Denis 

Mitchell, is headquartered at McGill University in Montreal, 

Quebec, Canada, and coordinates research projects 

conducted by 26 researchers from eight universities across 

Canada. Large-scale structural testing is conducted at most 

of the eight universities and forms an important component 

of the CSRN research program. In this MoU, NEES and 

CSRN agree to cooperate in the implementation of joint 

research in earthquake engineering, including but not limited 

to experimental research utilizing CSRN and NEES 

facilities. 

As part of the ongoing effort by NEES to explore and 

nurture research and collaboration partnerships, on August 

2010, NEEScomm, the National Science Foundation (NSF), 

and the National Natural Science Foundation of China 

(NSFC) have sponsored two workshops to develop research 

topics and proposal teams on China-United States 

collaboration for disaster evolution/resilience of civil 

infrastructure and urban environment with participation of 

the NEES research community. The final report of the first 

Workshop held at Purdue University on China-United States 

Collaboration for Disaster Evolution/Resilience of Civil 

Infrastructure and Urban Environment was posted on 

nees.org. The report includes workshop discussions, 

recommendations, key resolutions, and future plans. The 

second workshop was held in Shanghai on December 9-10, 

2011 (Figure 11). 

Figure 11. 2 nd NEES/NSFC Workshop Participants 

Acknowledgements: 

NEES Operations is managed through a cooperative agreement 

between the National Science Foundation and Purdue University 

for the period of FY 2010-2014 [NSF Award (0927178) from the 

Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI) 

Division] under the supervision of Dr. Joy M. Pauschke, Program 

Director for the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake 

En-gineering Simulation (NEES) Operations and Research 

Programs in the Directorate for Engineer-ing. The findings, 

statements and opinions presented in this paper are those of the 

author and do not necessarily represent those of the National 

Science Foundation. 

References: 

Buckle, I. A., and Ramirez, J. A. (2010), “NEES Research 

Highlights,” Proc. 9th US National & 10th Canadian 

Conference, Toronto, Canada. 

NEEScomm, (2010), NEES Facility Project Highlights, retrieved 

from 

http://nees.org/about/neescommunications/neesprojecthighlights. 

NEEScomm, 2010-2011, NEES Activity Highlights, retrived from 

http://nees.org/about/neescommunications/neesprojecthighlights 

Ramirez, J. A. (2010), “International Collaboration – Networking 

the Earthquake Engineering Re-search Community into a 

Global Framework,” Proc. 9th US National & 10th Canadian 

Conference, Toronto, Canada. 


Canadian Seismic Research Network 

Memorandum of Understanding | H 



Joint CSRN-‐NEES Workshop Agenda | I 


Joint CSRN –NEES Workshop on the Seismic Isolation and 

Damping of Bridge Structures 

Irving K. Barber Learning Centre (IBLC) Room 182 

1961 East Mall, University of British Columbia 

Vancouver V6T 1Z1 

Monday April 30, 2012 

The Canadian Seismic Research Network (CSRN) and the U.S. Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation (NEES) are pleased to invite you to a one-day co-sponsored Workshop 

on Seismic Isolation and Damping of Bridge Structures. 

This Workshop is free but requires registration by email to rene.tinawi@polymtl.ca, CSRN 

Manager, before April 20, 2012. Space is limited. 

Time Speaker Title 

8:00 Coffee and welcome 

8:30 Denis Mitchell * Future directions of CSA S6 Code 

8:50 Robert Tremblay* Current and future designs – Base isolation 

9:10 Constantin Christopoulos* Numerical Studies for the Calibration of Design 

Methodologies for Damped and Isolated Bridges 

9:30 Frédéric Légeron* Aspects of retrofit design and testing of typical bridges 

9:50 Break 

10:20 Patrick Paultre* Fragility curves with and without isolation 

10:40 Carlos Ventura* Seismic Instrumentation for bridges in Vancouver 

11:00 Luc Chouinard* Combining seismic and temperature deformations 

11:20 Najib Bouaanani* Performance-based assessment of isolated bridges 

11:40 Sandwich Lunch 

12:30 Michael Constantinou, Unified LRFD-Based analysis and design procedures 

SUNY, Buffalo 

13:00 Tim Delis, Caltrans California applications and Caltrans design philosophy 

13:30 Ian Aiken, SIE Inc. Applications and performance of full-scale devices 

14:00 Break 

14:15 Steve Zhu, 

Examples of bridge isolation design 

Buckland & Taylor 

14:45 Don Kennedy, 

Examples of seismic bridge retrofit design 

Associated Engineering 

15:15 Sharlie Huffman, BC BC Ministry of transportation perspective 

Ministry of Transportation 

15:45 Discussions and wrap-up 

16:30 End of Workshop 

* CSRN Researcher 


NEEScomm Management Community Plan | J 


| NEEScomm Management Community Plan 

Group Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Purpose 

VPR, Center Director, Deputy 

In Person 

Project Overview 

Center Director 

NSF Program Manager, Center 

Conf. Call 

Annual Meeting & Project Overview 

Director, Deputy Director 

Site Visits 

Governance Board 

Twice, -‐ 1 in person, 

Annual Meeting 

Project Oversight 

Chief Officer and Deputy In Person Annual Meeting Project Overview 

Director 

Strategic Council Webex Annual Meeting Strategic Planning 

Operations team 

As In 

Annual Meeting All Team Review 

needed Person 

Business Office 

As In 

Financial Review 


NEEScomm EOT 

As In 

Annual Meeting Group Goals Review 


NEEScomm IT 

As 

needed 

In Person 

and Conf. 

Call 

Annual Meeting Group Goals Review 

Site IT Managers 

HUBzero Team 

Core Feedback Group 

As 

needed 

As 

needed 

Conf. Call 

and 

Webex 

In 

Person 

In Person 

and Conf. 

Call 

In 

Person 

Annual Meeting & 

IT Managers retreat 


Status Meeting with group and 

Monthly 1-‐1 conf. call 

Hub/IT/EOT issues 

Technical hub functionality and 

design 

NEEScomm Site Operations As 

needed 

Annual Meeting Operational Issues 

Equipment Site Forum Webex Annual Meeting Discuss Operational Issues 

Site Operations Managers 

MTS 

As 

needed 

As 

needed 

Webex Annual Meeting Goal planning, progress 

reporting 

Con Call 

and 

Webex 


Performance and usage 

reporting 

Users Forum Annual Meeting Assessment and user input 

gathering 

NEES Equipment Sites (x14) Annual Meeting 2-‐3 Day site visits by NEEScomm 

team 

NEES Researchers Annual Meeting Report on Research Progress 

PAC 

Quarterly Annual Meeting Discuss Group reports 

via Webex 

Site Operations Group As 

needed 

Webex Annual Meeting Review Site Operations issues in 

policy and planning 

Data Working Group 

As 

needed 

Webex Annual Meeting Data related issues and policies 

Community Collaborations 

Group 

Cyberinfrastructure Group 

Requirements Analysis and 

Assessments Group 

As 

needed 

As 

needed 

As 

needed 

Webex Annual Meeting Community Building and 

Collaboration Issues 

Webex Annual Meeting IT Strategic Issues 

Webex Annual Meeting Prioritization and Requirements 

Gathering/ Analysis 


Governance Board Minutes | K 


Minutes 

NEES Governance Board Meeting 

Did not get 100% reply on electronic 

vote so it must go to a face to face 

meeting for approval. ml 

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 

4:00 PM to 8:00 PM 

Hyatt Conference Center, Room B 

Remote Participants: Farzad Naeim, Chris Rojahn, and Dennis Mitchell. 

Attendees in person: Bill Holmes, Ken Elwood, Anthony Fiorato, John Cobb, Mark Benthien, Scott Newbolds, Keith 

Adams, Joy Pauschke, Dawn Weisman, Saurabh Bagchi, Rudi Eigenmann, Tom Hacker, Sean Brophy, Melanie 

Lindsay, Julio Ramirez, Barb Fossum. 

Attendees on Thursday June 9 2011 – Bill Holmes, Ken Elwood, John Cobb, Mark Benthien, Joy Pauschke, Dawn 

Weisman, Melanie Lindsay, Julio Ramirez, Barb Fossum. Remote Participants: Chris Rojahn, Farzad Naeim. 

* Action Items are shown in Red and Board Resolutions/Votes Boxed 

* Status of Minutes: Draft 

Date of Approval: xxxx 

1. 4:00 PM Preliminaries 

a. Call to order 4:05 

b. Welcome attendees and plans for the day 

c. Attendees Introductions -‐ 4:15 roundtable of introductions. 

d. NEEScomm Opening Remarks -‐ Julio welcomed all the board. 

e. Remarks from the floor -‐ add approval of minutes when we have quorum. 

2. Remarks from Dr. Joy Pauschke, NEES Program Director, NSF. – Welcome, brief comments –board can help 

the team with metrics (Could the Board identify the top 3 or 5 metrics), evaluation and assessment of the 

EOT materials, and Business System review of NEES. NEEScomm needs to be more proactive in publicizing 

NEES. 

3. Approval of minutes from 3/3/11 – no quorum for approval. Bill asked for any corrections? Minutes will 

be distributed out for approval and comments by e-‐mail. Bill suggested when we send them next, asking 

for comments right away. Tony suggested a section on Action Items listed and responses, so this will help 

us track for NSF. Next meeting date Melanie will set up a doodle poll for September face-‐to-‐face meeting at 

Purdue University. 

4. 4:30 PM Memorandum of Understanding between the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation (NEES), and the Canadian Seismic Research Network (CSRN)). Prof. Dennis Mitchell 

DSRN Director called in; described CSRN briefly, discussed the partnership between NEES and CSRN. Bill 

asked if there are any projects that could be transferred. Joy stated she was excited about this; it will serve 

both countries very well. Bill seconded the remarks from Dr. Pauschke. 

5. Board Appointments 

a. Current Status (Ramirez) (NEES GB Membership Report) – Julio Ramirez presented list of all current 

members. Bill Holmes graciously accepted being the new Chair for 1 year. His term will start on 

Nov. 1, 2010. Following up on the board recommendation for continuity, Julio Ramirez invited all 

the board members whose term ended on Oct. 31, 2011, to a second term on the board. Everybody 

with the exception of Sergio Alcocer accepted the invitation. Thus, the Board provided input to Julio 

Ramirez on the three nominations for the one vacancy. 


. Board recommendation (all Board) for new member that will be replacing Sergio. Need a balance 

for the board. Closed discussion on board nominations. 

6. 5:00 PM NEEScomm Items – started at 5:02 

a. Strategic Plan Update Process (Ramirez 5’) 

b. NEES beyond 2014 -‐ (Ramirez 15’) -‐ Mark Benthien suggested to investigate partnerships with 

other national earthquake centers. Joy Pauschke would like to see National Hazards from Boulder 

Colorado as a possible partner; Mark Benthien suggested USGS and Earthscope. 

i. STPI study requests and upcoming meeting with its expert panel (Update to NEES 

Governance Board on Activities related to NEES beyond 2014) – Tony Fiorato asked for 

clarification on what the study and pointed out that he sees the current NEES as a more 

collaborative approach. He believes we need to show the value as a network and discuss 

the wisdom of going back to way it was. John stated there is synergy. Joy responded with in 

depth information. Tony asked if the cost of the sites were all the same. John thought it 

would be useful to list what projects are large versus small. Mark asked if there was a 

difference in sites with Shared use. Bill asked what NEES is compared to when we gave the 

PhD’s through NEES-‐R projects. John Cobb stated that NEES is transforming the way our 

community does research. 

c. Implementation of NSF ‘s Business System Review of NEES (Fossum/Newbolds 20’) (Business 

System Review Preliminary Results) 

d. IT update: Project Warehouse and NEEShub Release 2.5 and 3 (Weisman 5’) Ken Elwood asked 

what the status of OpenSees is. Julio Ramirez stated that it a new subaward is being discussed with 

more information provided by OpenSees staff on quality of research support provided and ability of 

the user community to contribute to this open source software. Ken Elwood feels that OpenSees is 

one of the most important tools for researchers in the network. John Cobb also agreed. He also 

asked in general if the flow of wishes coming in from NEEShub users versus going out is about the 

same. Dawn Weismann replied that the incoming is much larger. John Cobb noted that this could 

be a problem if the community gets frustrated with slow progress. 

e. Education and Outreach Update-‐ NEESacademy developments (Adams 10’) – Joy asked how much 

Sean and Thalia interact with Keith about the assessment. The response was that there is a 

significant interaction. Keith Adams stated that at the sites majority of time is spent doing 

outreach. Mark Benthien stated that the challenge is how much specific time is spent on outreach 

versus work we do to educate. 

f. Project Advisory Committee Report (Eigenmann 10’)-‐ no questions 

7. 6:00 PM Working Dinner 

8. 6:30 PM NEEScomm Headquarters (Fossum/Adams/Newbolds/Weisman) 

i. Status of Projects in Year 2 and budget -‐ 

ii. Metrics, Assessment and Balance Scorecard (Progress Report for Year Two 2011 NEES 

Strategic Performance Assessment) – Mark asked if the targets had been reviewed and 

approved. Meeting suspended at 8:02pm. Melanie will get a room set up and send out 

new web ex. Meeting resumed at 4:01 on June 9 2011 PM. Discussion of the targets. 

Bill Holmes stated he would like to expand post earthquake data from outside information 

(outside contributors), Mark Benthien stated we only have two rows of metrics on the sites 

and wondered why. Joy Pauschke wants to know how or who is tracking demographics of 

who is using the sites. Mark Benthien agreed that we should involve the sites and let them 

know that this is what being asked. Bill said he thinks that we should track what 

universities are using our sites. Number of collaborations with other universities, number 

of projects using multiple sites. Chris thought that it would be good to identify types of 

tests. Mark Benthien pointed out that the checks of divisions shouldn’t be shown externally. 

It was suggested to add the Site utilization Metric. Knowledge transfer – see how many 


practitioners are in projects. Count publications ACI, NIST in research to practice. 

Workforce development – Ken asked if it is possible to track what % are NEES students. 

Diversity also needs to be tracked. Public Awareness – move publications to research, 

separate journals, papers etc. Move research highlights also to research. Media slots, non 

earthquake media, Meltwater news could be hired to track all media information (3 years, 

$10,000). Stewardship – Farzad asked about the % actual spent money. Barb explained it. 

John would like to see a budgeted cost of work completed." When an activity is 

behind schedule on the calendar, this measure would allow the project to know 

whether the activity is also over or under budget in terms of spending versus 

completion to date. Mark Benthien suggested providing a metadata to provide 

commentary to the statistics. Safety and cybersecurity incidents (should be listed as safety 

reportable). 

iii. Status of Response to NSF site visit report in Year 1 (link below due to large size –Quarterly 

Progress Report, Page 60 – 

http://nees.org/site/resources/pdfs/2011%202nd%20Quarter%20report[1].pdf ) -‐ 

iv. Annual Report and Year 2 NSF site visit (Table of Contents) 

9. 7:30 PM Other Board Business 

a. Concluding Remarks – 

b. 8:00 PM Adjourn or suspend if additional 1 hour meeting is needed on the 9 th from 4:00 to 5:00 PM 

Homework for the board will be to send in their top three metrics, and possible targets send these as well; 

Create snapshot of the most critical metrics. Ken liked how PEER used quotes. Meeting ended at 5:14 pm. 

Update on status to 6/9/11 on Board Action Items: 

1. Melanie will send out minutes for approval and comments. Bill suggested when we send them 

next, asking for comments right away. Tony suggested a section on Action Items listed and 

responses, so this will help us track for NSF. Vote completed 7 21 11. 

2. Next meeting date Melanie will set up a doodle poll for September face to face meeting. – 

Melanie Lindsay sent out Doodle poll on 6/23/11 

3. Julio will invite new board member; if they decline he’ll move forward with other names and 

submit to the GB. – Done. 

4. Meeting suspended at 8:02pm. Melanie will get a room set up and send out new web ex. – Done, 

Thursday June 9 th 4:00 – 5:00pm was set and new webex invite was sent out to the board. 

5. Homework will be for the board will be to send in their top three metrics and possible targets 

for the metrics suggested; Create snapshot the most critical metrics. 


Minutes approved on 2/2/12 electronically by doodle poll. 

Minutes 

*On the thumb drive, each document name contains the 

agenda item where discussed. 

NEES Governance Board 

Hall for Discovery Learning and Research Purdue University, Discovery Park 

Room 131 

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 

8:00 AM to 3:30 PM 

Attendees: Julio Ramirez, Farzad Naeim (Chair, NEES Governance Board), Bill Holmes (Vice-‐Chair, NEES Governance 

Board), Glenn Rix (NEES Governance Board), Chris Rojahn (NEES Governance Board), Nancy Healy (NEES Governance 

Board), John Cobb (NEES Governance Board), Lelio Mejia (NEES Governance Board), Ken Elwood (NEES Governance 

Board), Barbara Fossum, Dann Parker, Emily Vazquez, Angela Paxton, Cheryl Long, Scott Newbolds, Keith Adams, Sean 

Brophy, Dawn Weisman, Rudi Eigenmann, Teresa Morris, Additional NEES IT and EOT members. 

Attendees Remotely: Joy Pauschke (NEES Program Director), Olga Cabello (NEES Governance Board), Padma 

Raghavan (NEES Governance Board), Tony Fiorato (NEES Governance Board), Mark Benthien (NEES Governance 

Board), Thalia Anagnos, Saurabh Bagchi, Ellen Rathje 

1. 8:00 am Breakfast, preliminaries and welcome to Purdue 

Naeim/Ramirez 

a. Call to order, welcome attendees and plans for the day Naeim 

i. Welcome attendees and new board members Naiem 

ii. Attendees Introductions 

Board 

iii. Introductions of NEEScomm Team 

All 

iv. NEEScomm Opening Remarks 

Ramirez 

v. Remarks from the floor 

2. New Appointments and New Chair* Naeim/ Holmes 

a. Governance Board Member Bill Holmes accepted the new chair position. A vice chair position is 

open and Holmes suggested contacting him if anyone was interesting in taking the position. 

3. Election of additional Board Officer(s) Entire Board 

4. Approval of Minutes from 03/03/11 and 06/08-‐09/11* Entire Board 

For 03/03/11, Holmes proposed approval of minutes. Naeim motioned, Chris Rojahn second. For 

06/08-‐09/11, Holmes proposed approval of minutes. Naeim motioned, Chris Rojahn second. 

Vote: Motion carried. 

5. Approval of Policies* Entire Board 

Holmes discussed the board minute approval process. He tabled the motion until the executive 

board meeting. See executive board minutes for discussion and vote. 

New Site Scheduling Protocol Policy 

Ramirez introduced the new site scheduling protocol policy. Scott Newbolds, Site Director, 

presented the new policy. During the presentation, it was recommended to cover the background 



for the purpose of the policy and of its importance. Once an award is identified as a NEESR project, 

Newbolds contacts the site to do a feasibility check. A utilization form is used to see what potential 

dates are available. The researcher can see those possible dates and match up their work. The site 

will review if they can fit it in the time slot available. The scheduling committee is to oversee any 

changes to make sure everything is transparent. They make sure that everyone stays on schedule 

of the proposed date slots. They also make sure that the local PI is not being advantageous with 

their own projects and not allowing enough room for other researchers. Finally, the policy was put 

in place to ensure all projects are complete by 2014. 

Pauschke added comments about the fact of only 70% projects are completed, and one facility in 

particular that didn’t have projects completed, therefore the money was becoming difficult to 

follow. Other projects were being delayed and fear of not starting and completing. The survey also 

showed that scheduling scored the lowest and a concern of the users. 

Discussion from the floor centered around why a scheduling committee meeting is necessary. 

Pauschke answered that it is important to keep all projects transparent. It also intends to keep 

things moving with the site opps manager working with the project PI. Clarification was asked of 

how the scheduling committee worked. The committee will allocate the facility and resources so it 

is not just one person making these decisions due to priority of projects. Naeim proposed that this 

committee should meet regularly because their job is to manage and not dispute. Are there plans to 

make this an active committee to meet more often? Newbolds said that they are right now 

meeting quarterly but can meet more frequently if more planning is necessary. Naeim further 

explained with examples that as a PI, you cannot wait until the next quarter to resolve a conflict or 

get something scheduled. It was asked if there was an advising committee that meets more 

regularly at the locations running the project? Ramirez responded that each site has a site 

scheduling committee member and Newbolds has a subcommittee that works with the locations on 

a regular basis. 

To resolve the issues, Newbolds asked for recommendations from the board members. Rix and 

Mejia proposed a small executive committee to meet more regularly. Holmes asked when the policy 

was being reviewed and revised, who decided on this number of committee members. Newbolds 

said that NSF recommended that each site have a representative on the committee. 

Ramirez wrapped up of the purpose of the governance board when it comes to the policy. He asked 

if they wish to weigh in on the resolution of any conflict and do they want to raise the protocol to 

include the governance board to be involved of the resolution of any conflicts that cannot be 

resolved at NEEScomm. Holmes commented that for timely purposes, it would not be suitable for 

this board to be involved. The discussion of a possible executive board for this purpose was tabled 

for later discussion. 

6. Remarks from Dr. Joy Pauschke, NEES Program Director, NSF Remote Participation 

Pauschke thanked Naeim and welcomed Holmes as the new chair. 

Pauschke updated the board with two studies that have been ongoing for looking at the future of 

earthquake engineering research infrastructure beyond 2014. NSF has agreed to operate NEES for 

10 years. The first five years was with NEES Consortium, Inc. NEEScomm has a 5-‐year contractual 

agreement that ends on Sept 30, 2014. When NEES re-‐competed for continuation, there was a 

solicitation (08-‐574) in place that they would assess NEES on how to continue earthquake-engineering 

research. 



7. Break (15’) 

Studies include: 

1. National Research Council -‐ National Academies – a workshop on March 14-‐15, 2011. The 

purpose was to bring members of the community together to determine the challenges going 

forward in earthquake engineering infrastructure. The report from this study came out in July 

2011. The report is available online for further reading. 

2. Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI) – Look back through accomplishments of NEES 

and what are scenarios of what they can support past 2014. PI survey, community survey, 

expert panel. Feedback type study. Report is being written and to be completed by the end of 

December 2011. 

Both study findings with a final plan will be presented to the National Science Board, the 

earthquake engineering community and Purdue University in summer or fall of 2012. 

Pauschke re-‐visited the site scheduling policy and stressed to the board to get a better handle on 

throughput and the metric on impact. She challenged the board to really understand both. 

8. Response to recommendations from FY2011 NSF Site Visit* NEEScomm Team 

Julio reviewed the comments and outcome of the NSF annual site visit. A document was included in 

the board packet for review including the seven key recommendations that NEEScomm must 

respond to. NEEScomm directors each responded to specific recommendations and actions items 

in each of their areas. 

9. NEEScomm Report 

a. Priorities for Year 3 (FY2012) and important dates Ramirez 

i. Ramirez covered the site locations and that they are unique in their own way. There are 

two basic reasons why a major research facility such as NEES would need to be re-competed: 

 

1. User Satisfaction 

2. Aging infrastructure 

ii. The first major priority of NEES is to continue to build a community of users that is satisfied 

with service they get from NEES. The site scheduling protocol is one of those components 

where we can ensure user satisfaction. What we do with NEEShub is another way to serve 

the needs of our users. 

iii. The second major priority is to enhance the aging cyber and physical site infrastructure. 

iv. Review new and outgoing board members as well as the policies of membership and terms. 

v. Event Dates for FY2012 are listed in the PowerPoint presentation. 

vi. Value of the Network 

1. Increases participation with shared facilities through integration and leverage of 

cyberinfrastructure and laboratories with agreements with large-‐scale facilities 

such as E-‐Defense. 

b. Update NEES Beyond 2014 activities Ramirez 

The STPI report was discussed with an emphasis that there are many scenarios that NSF 

could recommend for further funding NEES. 

c. Project Advisory Committee Eigenmann 

d. Balanced Scorecard Metrics Fossum 



10. Report of Status of NEES/E-‐Defense Collaboration) 

Ramirez/Cobb/Mahin(Remote Participation) 

Naeim asked what he recommends of how we should go forward to make this a successful relationship. 

Mahin said it must be a personal relationship; meeting frequently and having them participate actively. 

Pauschke commented that as she reflects back, they really wanted to this happen. The change in leadership 

and personnel has caused the disconnect of collaboration. Cobb asked about the unwillingness to help with 

data access. Mahin mentioned there are items that can be added to the agenda for the JTCC meeting and 

would add this issue to it if possible. 

Continuation of NEEScomm Report: 

e. Site Operations Newbolds 

f. IT Operations Weisman 

g. Cybersecurity Bagchi 

h. EOT Operations Adams 

i. Demonstration of NEEShub Release 3.5 Weisman 

11. Review of Board Operating Procedures Entire Board/Ramirez 

This agenda item was tabled to be discussed during the executive meeting. See executive meeting notes. 

12. Board Comments on Year 3 (FY2012) Annual Work Plan Entire Board 

Fiorato asked about the historical data and the procedure of how old data is entered. He further explained 

when he further looked into the data that there is old data from the 70’s in the database. He wondered 

how a researcher decides to include what data. Was there an automatic request for this? Ramirez 

answered that it was designed by a NEES IT team member, Santiago Pujol, and that it was a voluntary 

project that researchers added the materials available to the repository for others to have access. Elwood 

added the stress of importance of getting the old data up on NEEShub. He also mentioned it would be 

beneficial to add a sort feature to sort the data by date and other fields. 

13. 3:00 PM Executive Board Session 

j. Future Board Meetings 

i. March 2012 (telephone conference: date to be determined at this meeting) 

1. 2-‐hour phone call. March 23 rd for a 2-‐hour phone call. Send an electronic doodle to 

see if date is available for everyone. 

a. Primary purpose to study the impact issue. Go to balance scorecard and pick 

3 of your favorite projects that are of high impact. Send them to Bill. Send 

reminder to do so. 

ii. July 9, 2012 (Annual meeting in Boston) 

iii. See executive board minutes for action items. 

k. Concluding Remarks 

Meeting adjourned at 3:30 PM. 


PAC Reports | L 


1 

NEEScomm Project Advisory Committee 

Quarterly Report – 1 st Quarter, FY 2012 

(October 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011) 

4/12/2012 

Table of Contents 

1 Project Advisory Committee Charge 1 

2 PAC Commendations and Recommendations 2 

3 Subcommittee Reports 3 

3.1 Site Operations Subcommittee 3 

3.2 Requirements Analysis and Assessment Subcommittee 3 

3.3 Cyberinfrastructure Subcommittee 5 

3.4 Data and Curation Subcommittee 6 

3.5 Education, Outreach, Training Subcommittee 6 

3.6 Simulation Steering Committee 11 

4 Brief Updates from User Forum and Equipment Site Forum 13 

Appendix: PAC Subcommittees and Committee Memberships 

14 

1. Project Advisory Committee Charge 

The Project Advisory Committee (PAC) is charged with engaging the NEES community in the management 

of the NEES network. As part of this mission, the PAC provides formal advice on a quarterly basis in the 

form of an evaluation report. 

The PAC does its work through a number of subcommittees and also seeks input from the Equipment Site 

Forum (ESF) and the User Forum (UF). The subcommittees will be formed and dissolved based on the 

need for their contributions. The appendix lists the current PAC subcommittees and the committee 

memberships. 

Sources of Information for this Report 

The report provides an assessment of and recommendations to NEEScomm based on the latest NEES 

quarterly report, PAC subcommittee activities, and other information resulting from community 

interactions. Each PAC subcommittee contributes to this report, focusing on a specific part of NEES and 

NEEScomm, according to the subcommittee’s charge. 


2 

2. PAC Commendations and Recommendations 

Recommendations in this sections will be responded to by NEEScomm in writing and in a 

conference call with the PAC. 

2.1 Notable Accomplishments 

• The CIS welcomes the inclusion of "Examples of Contributions from the Community on the 

NEEShub" in the NEES Update from Julio in and since October. This is an excellent addition 

and direction (http://nees.org/announcements/neesupdateoctober2011) and we encourage 

it to be continued. 

• We commend NEEScomm’s continued work on data upload and curation, the Project 

Warehouse, including community tools, consideration of shared data, and the prioritization 

of work in collaboration across NEEScomm IT, the CRC and RAAS committees. 

• The new batchsubmit command and its capability to run large computational jobs, such as 

OpenSees simulations, on national supercomputer resources is a promising development. 

• Databases and Journal of Earthquake Engineering partnership: The committee commended 

NEEScomm for making journal article data available, and also felt that extending these 

partnerships to other journals (e.g., ACI, ASCE, and EERI publications) was extremely 

important. 

2.2 Recommendations 

RAAS-‐1 (M): The RAAS would like to know what information is sent to new PI’s about the 

following: deadlines for uploading data, resources on NEEShub for uploading and viewing data, 

simulation resources, Wish List functionality, etc. The RAAS thinks there should be a package of 

information distributed to the PI’s. 

CIS-‐1 (M): We encourage NEEScomm leadership to provide a framework, forum and policies for 

submission of proposals in response to NSF OCI and other computational solicitations that could 

stimulate successful additional projects that contribute to the NEEScomm vision. 

CIS-‐2 (H): We note from the “Bridge to the Future” projects that data movement is a challenge 

for which a common, scalable, robust, very easy to use solution would be of broad benefit to the 

program. (This includes moving data back to the repository, merging of diverse outputs, 

data/storage management, data caching etc. in the hub environment). We encourage a specific 

NEEScomm activity on this issue to make a recommendation to the NEEScomm 

Cyberinfrastructure Release Committee (CRC). 

CIS-‐3 (M): The CRC should prioritize the short-‐term action items in the Simulation Report for 

NEEScomm IT. 

DCS-‐1 (M): Including more data from various sources in databases will serve to increase the 

visibility of the NEEShub, which the committee feels strongly about. 

DCS-‐2 (M): Resource Contribution Awards 

The committee felt that offering these awards to those in the community for outstanding 

contributions would be helpful in encouraging the user community to focus on quality resource 


3 

and data archiving, not just archiving with the least effort required to satisfy their proposal 

contracts. 

DCS-‐3 (M): Searching for “Data” in the NEEShub 

There are currently two types of search in the NEEShub: one for the oracle database, and one 

for the hub content (resources, project descriptions, etc). There is some question as to whether 

this should be unified or not. A number of questions were posed to the DCS, and the resulting 

one-‐hour discussion was insufficient for coming to many conclusions. This discussion is ongoing 

in the DCS. 

If the user knows what he/she is looking for (knows the project exists), then searching within the 

NEEShub is effective at this time. However, projects that currently have no data available are 

also showing up in the search results, which is confusing. 

A direct listing of specifically the public projects would be helpful (this is slated for the next 

release). 

A demo was performed showing the database-‐style interface to the search results. This style is a 

possible alternative to the google-‐style list. Searching for quantitative results may require a 

different interface than searching for textual information or keywords. However, some logical 

way to prioritize the projects that appear at the top of the list would be helpful. 

The DCS is still discussing this issue. In the one hour dedicated to this topic, it was unclear if the 

unified or divided search is better. It was unclear which interface is best for the results of the 

search. It was unclear what types of searches the various user types would like to perform. 

Perhaps we need to include some professional engineers. More feedback from practitioners is 

needed. 

3. Subcommittee Reports 

3.1 Site Operations Subcommittee (SOS) 

no report at this time 

3.2 Requirements Analysis and Assessment Subcommittee (RAAS) 

Evaluation of User Needs and Prioritization of User Requirements for IT Development 

The RAAS reviewed 1) how NEEScomm has included User Needs in operations and procedures, 

2) how User Requirements for IT Development have been prioritized and implemented in the IT 

development process, and 3) how NEEScomm has incorporated community building activities. 

Review of accomplishments and challenges encountered will be organized according to these 

three primary review items. 


4 

Accomplishments 

1) NEEScomm inclusion of User Needs in operations and procedures (specifically how needs 

are collected and addressed in the overall NEES framework) 

JoAnn has been working with NEEScomm IT and TecEd (from Ann Arbor, MI) to implement 

usability tests of NEEShub. Three target groups are included: practitioners, students, and 

research PI’s. The results of the test will help indicate how inviting NEEShub is to new and 

continuing users, how easy it is to navigate with the current nomenclature, ease of access to 

Project Warehouse data and uploading data, and general search capabilities. 

The RAAS membership has changed to bring in new ideas. Half of the membership has rotated 

off, leaving the rest of the membership to serve a third year and help with continuity of RAAS 

activities. 

The final report of the NEEScomm User Survey was submitted to NSF for review. The response 

rate was 50%, which is a good representation of NEEScomm users. Another User Survey is being 

planned for this year to be presented at the annual meeting. Continuous feedback from the 

Community is a critical part of successful operation of NEES. 

2) Prioritization and implementation of User Requirements for IT processes 

All User Wishes were prioritized using the standard NEEScomm procedure in the past quarter. 

The CRC first prioritized wishes into High, Medium, and Low categories, which were reviewed by 

the RAAS. The RAAS then further prioritized the High-‐priority wishes into three levels of critical 

need. 

NEEScomm IT is currently working with the prioritized wishes and internal requirements to 

develop the IT Product Contract for Release 4.0. 

3) NEEScomm community building activities 

The community building activities this quarter has focused on engaging the community to 

contribute resources to NEEShub, and therefore work together to solve common problems. The 

NEEShub Resource Contribution Contest served as positive reinforcement for those that 

contribute, and as advertisement to the opportunities to share. 

The sites are also being encouraged to work collaboratively in a round-‐robin proficiency test for 

calibrating sensors. Ten sites are participating voluntarily, which is great representation across 

NEES. Other smaller collaborative efforts (between 2-‐3 sites and NEEScomm) are noted with 

UNR/Berkeley/NEEScomm, UCSD/UCLA and Buffalo/NEEScomm. 

The NEEScomm Simulation Steering Committee produced a Vision Report on Computational and 

Hybrid Simulation that is being discussed in different community committees (CIS, User Forum, 

etc.) to solicit feedback and allow the community to steer future projects in computational 

simulation. This is an excellent way to provide leadership within the context of community 

needs. 

Challenges Encountered 

No specific challenges were noted this quarter. 


5 

3.3 Cyberinfrastructure Subcommittee (CIS) 

The CIS committee 1 st quarter 2012 webex heard about two new Bridge to the Future 

cyberinfrastructure activities and to discuss the NEES 2011 Vision Report on Computational and 

Hybrid Simulation: Needs and Opportunities report. We thank Greg Deierlein who attended the 

meeting on NEES 2011 Vision Report on Computational and Hybrid Simulation: Needs and 

Opportunities at short notice. 

The objective of the first Bridge to the Future project (Rudi Eigenmann) is to push the limit of 

simulations with a large parameter sweep using MPI on 10,000 processors for OpenSEES in 

parallel. A student has been hired to assist, compiling OpenSEES and getting it ready to run. The 

objective of the second (Tom Hacker) is to look at simulation in the small -‐ running inside 

different implementations of virtualized containers in the hub environment and up to 16-‐ 

processor scale clusters. 

The “retreat” with NEEScomm IT leadership has been postponed pending funds available and a 

crisper focus to the meeting scope and objectives being developed. As a current replacement, 

the CIS and Simulation Steering Community are collaborating on the workshop planned during 

the NEES annual meeting in July. 

Membership 

We welcomed Phil Maechling of SCEC to the committee and recognize his broad expertise in the 

domain. 

At the last meeting we discussed the duration of Committee Membership. Members with similar 

experiences recommended the term be 3 years, with the reasoning being that for people 

outside of the project it takes a year to really ramp up. There was general agreement to stagger 

membership starts -‐ which has already been the case with new members of the committee. We 

also significantly benefit from several members of NEEScomm staff being “ex-‐officio” members 

of the committee. No definite action has been proposed to date. 


In addition to the commendations made in Section 2.1, We note the good progress with the 

NEEShub Release 3.5 and notably the improvements to Batchsubmit and Scratch space 

management. The support and education for the SynchroNEES tools, as well as the continued 

focus on data curation and management are important accomplishments. We note the release 

of improved Windows Tools, progress in the tools and capabilities of the Project Warehouse and 

Project Display Tools for data, meta-‐data and document upload. 

Suggestions 

We suggest NEEScomm investigate the EarthCube initiative http://earthcube.ning.com/ to see 

whether it would be useful to participate. 

It was discussed whether researchers would benefit from a service to pre-‐place datasets from 

the Project Warehouse or databases with “black box” access to matlab, octave and/or other 

computational analysis tools be available for execution through the Hub as part of batch 

processing. There is some experience with this in IPLANT and Dataone. 

There were several comments and feedback from the Simulation Report discussion: 


6 

• The report would benefit from exposure of rapidity with which computer architectures are 

now advancing and the impact this will have in a very short time -‐ order of a year or two -‐ 

on the codes to be run. Codes at all layers/levels have to be changed to efficiently use MIC 

and GPU architectures. These changes are significant and the consequences of not making 

the changes are orders of magnitude loss in efficiencies. 

• The report would benefit from discussion of long timeframes expected and needed to have 

effective and widespread common data format definitions, acceptance and use that are 

essential for data reuse and sharing 

• The report would benefit from a full discussion of data validation and verification. This is an 

essential component of being able to trust and use data resulting from simulations. 

• Consider sharing of data interchange, transformation and converter services. IRIS, SCEC and 

other open data sets are more advanced than previously. 

• Data translators for common data formats could well be useful for NEEScomm researchers. 

• Consider linking some useful datasets from NEEShub. Examples brought forward are: 

http://www.cosmos-‐eq.org/vdc/index.html, http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/, 

http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/, http://strongmotioncenter.org/, Federations to European data 

3.4 Data Curation Subcommittee (DCS) 

The DCS committee had one teleconference this quarter. About half of the DCS membership 

turned over this quarter, and thus the committee was first updated on the charge and recent 

activities of the DCS. During that meeting, the committee was mainly requested to provide 

feedback on the user needs regarding searching for data. A solution regarding more efficient 

data searching tools is currently a strong focus at NEEScomm, especially as more data is being 

made available through the NEEShub, allowing for data re-‐use and viewing. The 

recommendations from that meeting are below. This report is based on that meeting. The next 

meeting is planned for the end of March. 

Data Curation Subcommittee Recommendations: see Section 2.2. 

3.5 Education Outreach Training Subcommittee (EOTS) 

1. Identified Accomplishments (based on the NEES QR or other sources of info) 

A. One of the major accomplishments during the last quarter was the delivery and review of the 

NEES EOT Strategic, Implementation and Execution plans. The EOTS provided detailed written 

comments and a followup conference call was held between the NEEScomm EOT and EOTS to 

discuss the written recommendations. Subsequent action items and some items that were 

already underway regarding the recommendations below are highlighted in yellow. 

The primary messages from EOTS to NEEScomm EOT were to: 

-‐ General comments 


7 

-‐ 

-‐ 

• Make clear how goals and objectives are set and how projects will be tracked/corrected 

over time based on community feedback and evaluations. 

• Identify what resources (staffing, funding, travel, finances) are needed/available to 

make sure the individual goals are or can be met. 

• Data for measuring effectiveness are based on numbers (attendees, event, modules). 

Numbers convey short-‐term impact but do not capture sense of long-‐term impact or 

effectiveness. Real impact might be better measured by: 

o Number of new researchers (including students) using NEES resources/facilities 

o Better use of NEES resources/facilities (for example as a result of training) 

o Actual use of modules in classrooms, sustained use of the modules after the 

funding ends, and adoption/adaptation of modules for use in classrooms 

beyond those in which they were piloted 

o Feedback from instructors that the modules enhanced student understanding, 

student interest or motivation, or even more excitement on the part of the 

instructor to teach the subject material with the new resources provided 

through NEES EOT’s efforts 

o Use (and repeated use) of NEEShub and NEESacademy by the community, along 

with feedback from the community about the resources that are used 

o Longitudinal studies of student progress over time – do they pursue advanced 

science and engineering studies, careers, each PhD, etc.? (This is being done 

through the evaluation of students in the REU program) 

Prioritize the limited resources 

• NEEScomm EOT identified relevant and useful goals and objectives, but did not provide 

detail on the scope of resources (people, dollars, talent) available to implement the 

plans. It was suggested that NEEScomm EOT should consider a less comprehensive plan 

that provides more depth on fewer areas for deeper long-‐term impact. One of the major 

messages was that NEEScomm EOT should consider developing a legacy (through 

thinking of long-‐term goals, partnering with other organizations, continuing 

development of NEESAcademy, etc.) 

• It was suggested that NEEScomm EOT list key needs identified by the community that 

make each item in the plan an important goal/objective and should list the percent 

effort that the EOT team proposes to expend on each area to better identify the 

priorities (e.g., should more effort be spent on K-‐12, undergrads, post-‐docs, researchers, 

practioners—and what are the goals in each of those areas—e.g. regarding K-‐12 is it to 

work with teachers or to work with the students, likewise with undergrad education, 

etc.) 

• Identify pro-‐active efforts regarding under-‐represented individuals—one such effort has 

been with the Howard University Ambassador program (recent activity includes 

interaction with NEES and an NSF Enhance grant (PI: A. Zerva)) 

• NEEScomm EOT efforts often get diverted by other NEEScomm and external (NSF 

requests) – the impact of the diversion of those efforts on the other planned 

deliverables should be identified and communicated to ensure that it is made clear what 

other key efforts are being compromised. 

Focus the EOT plans at a higher level 

• NEES EOT should put more thought into the long-‐term impacts that the NEEScomm EOT 

would like to claim in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, and the activities and metrics that will 


8 

allow the team to attain those impacts. Pursue IRB approval so that you can publish 

findings (NEEScomm EOT is working on IRB approval). 

• Develop a clear process for collecting, assessing, and responding to the highest priority 

needs and requirements of the community. Develop an on-‐going process of seeking 

community feedback to refine and/or evolve the NEES EOT activities. The activities 

selected to be pursued will be more compelling when clearly aligned to specific 

community needs. 

• Rather than “working in the trenches” with development and delivery of EOT, focus on 

facilitating the capture of EOT materials generated by NEESR PIs and the sites. To 

facilitate this 

o Communicate with the NEESR PIs and sites (NEEScomm has initiated monthly 

webconference calls with the site EOT personnel which has facilitated the 

sharing of experiences and generated a number of ideas, e.g., use of undergrad 

film students to create informational videos. It has also enabled NEEScomm to 

receive requested input from the sites on how developed tools might be used 

by the sites (e.g., NEEScomm and EOT supplemental funding videos)) 

o Strategic plan should address the difficulties/challenges in capturing the EOT 

materials and should include proactive efforts to address the challenge. Clarify 

the expectations such that all parties can achieve a common understanding of 

what is expected. There currently is not much feedback/interaction regarding 

the proposed EOT activities within the AWPs. 

o Regarding NEESR PIs, the NEES EOT team can help researchers develop EOT 

activities by offering advice, lessons learned, strategies, and potentially 

implementation support. Having NEESR researchers as members of an advisory 

group would be useful to get their advice/feedback on NEES EOT goals and 

objectives. 

o Provide templates, tools, guidelines, up front so as materials are created, the 

developers can work within the framework, rather than needing to change 

things once the products are created. 

o Evaluate the supplemental funds to support the efforts of the sites. It is not 

clear how significant the funds are to effect the desired outcomes and goals of 

the NEES EOT strategic plans. Consider identifying needs to be fulfilled with the 

supplemental requests such that the developed resources fit into the overall 

plan. (NEEScomm EOT revised the review process on the supplemental requests 

to require the submitters to indicate the results of the prior support) 

o Host another EOT workshop (to be done at the 2012 Quake Summit) 

• Continue to develop contacts with other major organizations USGS, EERI, etc. to share 

resources and to develop NEES as a one-‐stop shop for earthquake related materials with 

appropriate links to other sites. Engage other sciene and engineering EOT projects to 

participate to avoid re-‐learning/re-‐inventing proven strategies and practices. 

(NEEScomm EOT has been successfully partnering with EERI to transfer technology 

developed in NEESR projects into practice) 

• Develop programs as models (e.g., Howard University Ambassador Program could serve 

as a model to engage other such programs at other universities to deliver NEES-‐related 

EOT activities). (NEEScomm is thinking about using the local student EERI chapters to 

serve in the role as ambassadors) 


9 

-‐ 

• Rather than generating curriculum for local schools try to find higher impact forums, as 

an example, contact Project Lead the Way on a national level to investigate how NEES 

EOT curriculum tools might be incorporated in such a program. 

• Continue efforts with the development of NEESAcademy but also investigate the 

useability of the site. Try to work within the existing NEEShub framework to create 

documents with links such that one might find materials and activities in an organized 

way (e.g., Make Your Own Earthquake). (A useability study is planned) 

• NEEScomm EOT should be at the forefront of providing resources to the NEESR PIs and 

sites regarding assessments. Rather than just using numerical data in terms of numbers 

of participants, investigate NSF-‐developed assessment resources such as 

http://www.engr.psu.edu/awe/secured/director/precollege/pre_college.aspx or other 

sources and share best practices with the EOT deliverers (NEEScomm is exploring the 

use of “clicker technology” to get better immediate assessment feedback on EOT 

activities which they plan to share with the sites in the future) 

Regarding communicating the comprehensive plan for EOT with the broader community and 

with NSF reviewers it was recommended that the NEEScomm EOT be clear and concise about: 

• community needs that drive the activities, 

• short and long-‐term strategies, 

• stakeholders and target audiences, 

• resources (FTE, travel, etc.) available for the activities, 

• balance/priority/level of effort among the various activities, 

• process to assess the efforts to be able to say they are effective, and 

• expected outcomes. 

B. Other accomplishments included the selection of the EOT Supplemental Grants and the NEES 

REU Sites. 

C. The following is a summary of the review of accomplishments listed in the Quarterly Report. 

Note that one of the members of the EOTS thought that the most significant accomplishments 

pertained to the development and submission of the course modules and the work on NEES 

Academy. The following is a combined summary of the activities listed in the quarterly report 

created by two additional members of the EOTS, relative to the five primary EOT goals. The 

items that are highlighted fell under multiple categories. 

Goal 1 – Gather, develop and coordinate quality K-‐12 education and outreach 

• NEEShub Resrouce Contribution Contest 

• Doktor Kaboom Pre-‐Show Activity 

• Classes Visit NEEScomm Education, Outreach and Training 

• Battleground Middle School Hosts EOT for Wave Activity 

• Developing Partnership with Indiana State Museum – preliminary discussions 

• Howard Ambassadors – select 20 under-‐represented students 

• Frontiers in Education Conference “NEES Academy – Cyber-‐Enabled Learning 

Experiences for K-‐16 Earthquake Engineering and Science Education” 

Goal 2 – Increase public awareness of earthquake engineering and science 

• Developing Partnership with Indiana State Museum – preliminary discussions 

• NEES presents to University of the District of Columbia 


10 

• Press Release Makes Media Circuit: 

“Quake Experts Finds Substandard Construction in Turkey” 

• The Profile Series 

Goal 3 – Increase and train the research workforce 

• NEEShub Resource Contribution Contest 

• Joint Seminars on Turkey Earthquake 

• Seismic Design and Performance of Nonstructural Elements Seminar: EERI 

• Webinar -‐ Shear-‐Wave Velocity Profiling and Its Importance to Seismic Design 

• Wood Education Institute 

• NEES 2011 Vision Report on Computational and Hybrid Simulation 

• Howard Ambassadors – select 20 under-‐represented students 

• Webcast lecture on NEES TIPS/E-‐Defense Tests 

• Penn State University Colloquium regarding “Cyber Infrastructure for NEES” 

• Discovering OpenSees – release of tools, and a few seminars to introduce usage 

• Young Researchers Activities – program for 8 REU students in 2012 

• NEEShub Releases 

• Project Warehouse 

• Windows Tools to enhance productivity 

• Cybersecurity 

• NEEShub Boot Camp Webinars – Introduction to NEEShub and Data Curation 

• Workshop on Advances in Real-‐Time Hybrid Simulation 

• Create a Database of Earthquake Engineering Research Publications 

Goal 4 – Inform practitioners of latest innovation 

• Round Robin Proficiency Testing 

• Seismic Design and Performance of Nonstructural Elements Seminar: EERI 

• Webinar -‐ Shear-‐Wave Velocity Profiling and Its Importance to Seismic Design 

• NEES 2011 Vision Report on Computational and Hybrid Simulation 

• Joint Seminars on Turkey Earthquake 


• Webcast lecture on NEES TIPS/E-‐Defense Tests 

• Usability Study 

• Presentations to Columbia Purdue Institute for Scientific Research (CPISR) 

• 2nd Workshop on China – US Collaboration for Disaster Evolution/Resilience of Civil 

Infrastructure and Urban Environment 

• The Fourth Kwang-‐Hua Forum and Opening Symposium of Tongji Shaking Table Array 

• Supercomputing 2011 

• Create a Database of Earthquake Engineering Research Publications 

Goal 5 – Foster an engaged NEES EOT community 

• Special Mechanical Engineering Seminar-‐ NSF Program Opportunities 

• NEEShub Course Management System Webinar: Moodle 


2. Comments and suggestions 


11 

A review of the listings above indicates that the team did not report evenly on all five goals, 

however, the level of effort tied to each of individual bullet point items may be significantly 

different. One of the members of the EOTS felt that Goal Number 4 received the most attention, 

which he felt seemed appropriate to the long-‐term health of the NEES research community. 

As a follow-‐up, it would be useful for NEEScomm EOT to provide more background on what is 

happening with respect to the other goals in relation to available resources. The NEEScomm 

EOT team should be more pro-‐active in reporting accomplishments, challenges, and issues in 

future QSR reports. For example, were there any lessons learned? Any challenges that were 

overcome with innovative approaches? Capturing more than just accomplishments, including 

challenges, problems, issues and lessons learned can help to inform activities in subsequent 

quarters to correct problems, improve programs, or otherwise be more responsive to 

community needs. 

A general comment about the seminars, webinars, release of tools, workshops, etc. is that there 

is no indication of the impact of conducting the events. Did more people access the Hub to 

download (or upload) materials or tools as a result? Did more people apply to utilize NEES 

facilities? Did more teachers/faculty incorporate NEES related materials into their curricula? 

Did researchers learn new tools or methods and indicate how they plan to incorporate them in 

their own research practices? Were new policies and methods adopted by communities, 

building codes, design practices? Were new partnerships or collaborations developed? 

Reporting numbers of participants is useful, but it's not a true measure of impact resulting from 

the events, activities and investment of time and effort. An effective evaluation strategy 

could/should be developed to help identify desired metrics of impact, instrumentation to assess 

the resulting impact from these types of outreach activities, and methods for conducting the 

assessment and analysis of the data. Reports on the longer-‐term resulting impact would seem 

to be much more useful to NSF and the community, and help secure additional funding in the 

future. 

The EOTS appreciates the inclusion of the EOT portfolio in the quarterly report. It is useful to see 

the variety of activities underway and the state of the activities, but it is not clear from the 

portfolio which activities are the priorities, and whether the activities are currently on track. 

It is not clear to the EOTS that the current format of reviewing the Quarterly Report is the most 

effective means of providing feedback to NEEScomm EOT. The EOTS suggests that it may be 

more effective for the EOTS to have more detailed documentation and debriefing from 

NEEScomm EOT regarding implementation of the feedback received from the EOTS. In addition, 

the EOTS can respond to specific requests from NEEScomm EOT for information. 

3.6 Simulation Steering Committee (SSC) 

The SSC is continuing to review and provide feedback to NEEScomm on needs and priorities in 

the area of simulation, including continuing development of simulation tools being made 

available through NEEShub. The SSC has also been planning two NEES-‐sponsored workshops on 

simulation, one of which is an outreach oriented workshop that will be held at the ASCE 

Engineering Mechanics Conference in June 2012 and the second of which is a strategic vision 

workshop on high-‐performance computing that is planned to be held in conjunction with the 


12 

CMMI-‐NEES meeting in July 2012. Further information on these two workshops are included 

below. 

Simulation Workshop at ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference: In June 2012, NEES will host 

a boot camp workshop on expanding the usability of available simulation tools at the NEEShub. 

This bootcamp will take place at the ASCE Engineering Mechanics Institute conference at the 

University of Notre Dame. The boot camp will be in the form of a competition where 

participants are challenged to accomplish some tasks within a particular time. Participants are 

expected to use some of the available computational models and run simulations at the 

NEEShub. 

Simulation Workshop at the CMMI-‐NEES Annual Meeting: The SSC has initiated a simulation 

workshop to be held at the CMMI-‐NEES Annual Meeting in Boston in July 2012. This workshop is 

intended to bring together researchers with expertise in computational methods, information 

technologies, mechanics and earthquake engineering, who share a common interest in 

advancing the state-‐of-‐art in high performance computing for simulation-‐based earthquake 

engineering. The work shop is motivated by unprecedented advancements in high performance 

computing which can enable detailed modeling of various phenomena at varying time and 

length scales – from nano-‐scale simulation of material response to earthquake ground motions 

to large-‐scale modeling of earthquake risk evolution in urban regions. The workshop is intended 

to provide a forum for discussion and exchange of ideas, toward the following goals: (1) taking 

stock of the capabilities, limitations and future potential of simulation in earthquake risk 

assessment and mitigation, (2) foster multi-‐disciplinary communication and collaboration on 

simulation-‐based earthquake engineering, and (3) identify and explore potential initiatives to 

advance the state-‐of-‐art in simulation-‐based earthquake engineering. 

The workshop will bring together a small group of experts (15 to 20 people) for an informal but 

structured discussion. It is proposed to organize the workshop around the following three topic 

areas: (1) applications of advanced computational simulation in earthquake engineering, (2) 

critical limitations (bottlenecks) of traditional computational simulation and solution methods 

and how these might be overcome, (3) emerging approaches in computational and information 

technologies that can benefit earthquake engineering researchers. It is tentatively envisioned 

to invite two to three experts to make short (10 minute) presentations in each of these three 

topic areas to motivate discussion by the group. The tentative agenda for the workshop would 

be as follows: 

Welcome and Introduction (15 min) 

Topic Area 1: Applications in Earthquake Engineering (1-‐1/2 hours) 

Topic Area 2: Computational Solution Methods (1-‐1/2 hours) 

Break (15 min) 

Topic Area 3: Emerging Computational and Information Technologies (1-‐1/2 hours) 

Summary and Wrap Up (30 min) 


13 

4 Brief Updates from User Forum and Equipment Site Forum 

ESF report: 

NEESComm partnered with the University of Minnesota and University of Nevada, Reno for their 

NSF site visits (held in December and February, respectively). NSF comments from both site 

visits were, in general, very positive. NEEScomm and Minnesota submitted a joint response to 

the Minnesota site visit report and held a brief teleconference with NSF to clarify a few issues. 

Reno recently received their site visit report and is in the process of working with NEESComm to 

craft responses. Two themes that were recurring weaknesses, were the need for a retention 

plan and the need for post 2014 business plans. The ESF will be working with the SOS to collect 

information necessary for NEESComm to put together a networkwide retention policy. The 

ground rules for the policy are that it must be funded with already committed NSF funds and 

that it may not break any policies at any of the site Universities. To help NEESComm with the 

second of these two rules, the ESF has asked the Site PIs to gather information from their 

sponosored projects offices about what strategies would be in line with University policy. The 

ESF is also contemplating crafting a site directed networkwide response to the 2014 business 

plan issue. At a minimum, the ESF may put together a template for post 2014 business plans 

that can be used by the different Universities. Discussions are in the early stages on this issue. 

UF report: 

John van de Lindt has accepted one additional year as the UF Chair. The UF will focus in the 

coming year on determining where most effort is needed to improve the site user process with 

regard to user rights and responsibilities. This will be accomplished through periodic interviews 

with recent and current users of sites. The UF has selected two of the three representatives 

that will be joining the Site Scheduling Subcommittee and a third will be selected within the next 

two weeks. The UF, through discussions with NEEScomm administration, proposed periodic 

interaction/discussion with the NEES Strategic Council to ensure that recommendations are 

acted on in a timely manner. This will take effect immediately and a discussion of how often this 

feedback is given will be made in the next month. 


14 

APPENDIX 

PAC Subcommittees and Committee Memberships 

PAC Subcommittees and Charges: Currently the PAC has six subcommittees. 

• Site Operations Subcommittee (SOS). This subcommittee will encourage 

transformational research and education in a safe and efficient environment by 

providing advice on the management of the equipment site operations and sub-‐awards. 

• Requirements Analysis and Assessment Subcommittee (RAAS). This subcommittee will 

focus on requirements gathering and evaluation for four areas that are key to the 

success of the network: site operations, cyberinfrastructure, EOT, and network impact. 

• Cyberinfrastructure subcommittee (CIS). This subcommittee will ensure that the NEES 

cyberinfrastructure is built with the best possible IT components from both industry and 

the research community, and that there is no duplication of efforts. 

• Data and Curation Subcommittee (DCS). This Subcommittee provides guidance and 

feedback to NEEScomm on all issues related to data management and curation. 

• Education Outreach and Training Subcommittee (EOTS). This subcommittee will support 

innovative and effective education, outreach, and training by providing guidance on EOT 

priorities, directions, and partnerships. 

• Simulation Steering Committee (SSC). The SSC's charge is to engage the community in 

creating a vision for computational and hybrid simulation and provide recommendations 

for NEEScomm to pursue this vision. 

Committee Memberships: 

Project Advisory Committee 

The PAC consists of the PAC chair, the chairs of all PAC 

subcommittees, two individual members, three 

representatives of each the Equipment Site Forum (ESF) 

and the User Forum (UF), and a NEEScomm staff contact 

person. 

Rudi Eigenmann (Chair) 

Name 

JoAnn Browning (RAAS Chair) 

Shirley Dyke (DCS Chair) 

Marc Eberhard (SOS Chair) 

Catherine French (EOTS Chair) 

Ruth Pordes (CIS Chair) 

Greg Deierlein (SSC Chair) 

Mike McLennan 

Carol Shield (ESF Chair) 

Tarek Abdoun (ESF rep.) 

Solomon Yim (ESF rep.) 

John van de Lindt (UF Chair) 

Affilliation 

Purdue University 

University of Kansas 


University of Washington 

University of Minnesota 

Fermi National Labs 

Stanford University 



RPI 

Oregon State University 

University of Alabama 


15 

Gustavo J. Parra-‐Montesinos (UF rep.) 

Silvia Mazzoni (UF rep.) 

Barbara Fossum ( Staff Contact) 

University of Michigan 

Degenkolb 


Cyberinfrastructure Subcommittee (CIS) 

Name 

Ruth Pordes (Chair) 

Tim Ahern 

JoAnn Browning 

John Cobb 

Shirley Dyke 

Rudi Eigenmann (ex officio) 

Tom Hacker (ex officio) 

Laura N. Lowes 

Philip Maechling 


Carol Song 

Dan Stanzione 

Jamie Steidl 

Craig A. Stewart 

Dawn Weisman (Staff Contact) 

Affilliation 


IRIS 


Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

Tennessee 





Southern California Earthquake 

Center (SCEC) 



U. Texas / TACC 

UC Santa Barbara 

Indiana University 


Data and Curation Subcommittee (DCS) 

Name 

Shirley Dyke (Chair) 

Pedro Arduino 

Juan Caicedo 

Brady Cox 

Jeffrey Dragovich 

Hermann Fritz 

Rudi Eigenmann 

Yurong Guo 

Yahya C. (Gino) Kurama 

Thomas Marullo 

Keri Ryan 

Sri Sritharan 

Rajesh Thyagarajan (Staff Contact) 

Affiliation 


U. Washington 

U. South Carolina 

U. Arkansas 

NIST 

Georgia Tech. 


Hunan University, China 

Univ of Notre Dame 

Lehigh U. 

U. of Nevada, Reno 

Iowa Sate University 



16 

Stansislav Pejsa (ex -‐officio) 

Rajesh Thyagarajan (ex officio) 



RequirementsAnalysis and Assessment Subcommittee 

(RAAS) 

JoAnn Browning (Chair) 


Shih-‐Ho (Simon) Chao 

Mary Beth Hueste 

Ayhan Irfanoglu 

Abe Lynn 

Jennifer Knowles 

Tommy Marullo 

Terri Norton 

Peter Rojas 


Name 


Affilliation 



University of Texas, Arlington 

Texas A&M U. 


California Polytechnic State 

University, San Luis Obispo 

U. Nevada, Reno 

Lehigh U. 

U. Nebraska 

University of California, Davis 

Iowa State University 

NEEScomm Deputy Director 

Site Operations Subcommittee (SOS) 

Name 

Marc Eberhard (Chair) 

Sherif Elfass 

Swaminathan Krishnan 

Robert Nigbor 

Gustavo J. Parra-‐Montesinos 

James Ricles 

Carol Shield 

Wei Song 

Harry Stewart 

Solomon Yim 

Scott Newbolds (Staff Contact) 

Meagan Kramer (ex-‐officio) 

Affiliation 


University of Nevada, Reno 

Caltech 

UCLA 


Lehigh 



Cornell 




Education Outreach and Training Subcommittee (EOTS) 

Name 

Catherine French (Chair) 

Diane Baxter 

Affiliation 


UC San Diego 


17 

John Bushey 

Jay Berger 

Scott Lathrop 

Joe Wartman 

Dan Cox 

Consultant 

EERI 

University of Chicago 



Simulation Steering Committee (SSC) 

Name 

Greg Deierlein (Chair) 


Juan Caicedo 

Frank McKenna 

Dominic Assimaki 

Pat Lynett 

Jian Zhang 

Narutoshi Nakata 

Silvia Mazzoni 

Laura Lowes 

Mahmoud Hachem 

Gilberto Mosqueda 

Lelio Mejia (corresponding member) 

Shirley Dyke 

Greg Rodgers (ex officio) 

Affiliation 



U. of South Carolina 

UC Berkeley 


Texas A&M U. 

UCLA 

John Hopkins U. 

Degenkolb Engineers 



U. Buffalo 

URS corp. 

Purdue U. 

Purdue U. 


1 

NEEScomm Project Advisory Committee 

Quarterly Report – 4 th Quarter, FY 2011 

(July 1, 2011 – September 30, 2011) 

12/14/2011 

Table of Contents 

1 Project Advisory Committee Charge 1 

2 PAC Commendations and Recommendations 2 

3 Subcommittee Reports 3 

3.1 Site Operations Subcommittee 3 

3.2 Requirements Analysis and Assessment Subcommittee 5 

3.3 Cyberinfrastructure Subcommittee 6 

3.4 Data and Curation Subcommittee 6 

3.5 Education, Outreach, Training Subcommittee 7 

3.6 Simulation Steering Committee 11 

4 Brief Updates from User Forum and Equipment Site Forum 12 

Appendix: PAC Subcommittees and Committee Memberships 

13 

1. Project Advisory Committee Charge 

The Project Advisory Committee (PAC) is charged with engaging the NEES community in the management 

of the NEES network. As part of this mission, the PAC provides formal advice on a quarterly basis in the 

form of an evaluation report. 

The PAC does its work through a number of subcommittees and also seeks input from the Equipment Site 

Forum (ESF) and the User Forum (UF). The subcommittees will be formed and dissolved based on the 

need for their contributions. The appendix lists the current PAC subcommittees and the committee 

memberships. 

Sources of Information for this Report 

The report provides an assessment of and recommendations to NEEScomm based on the latest NEES 

quarterly report, PAC subcommittee activities, and other information resulting from community 

interactions. Each PAC subcommittee contributes to this report, focusing on a specific part of NEES and 

NEEScomm, according to the subcommittee’s charge. 


2 

2. PAC Commendations and Recommendations 

Recommendations in this sections will be responded to by NEEScomm in writing and in a 

conference call with the PAC. 

2.1 Notable Accomplishments 

• We commend the continued efforts on data curation, the adoption of Digital Object 

Identifiers (DOI) as a standard marking of the information, and the continued ramp up of 

attention to simulations and larger computational science. 

• NEEShub usage data shows, over the last year, 100,000 unique visitors and 20,000 unique 

substantial users, spending 15 min. or more. In the previous year, there were 5,000 

substantial users. These are very encouraging numbers. 

• The creation of the Vision Report on Computational and Hybrid Simulation is an important 

step and is likely to create new excitement in the NEES network. 

• The new OpenSees batch submit capability on the NEEShub is an important step towards 

enabling high-‐performance computing simulations on multiple computer platforms. 

• NEEScomm staff is doing a better job communicating and working with the equipment sites 

about staff changes and new policies. 

• The SOS notes an increased amount of sharing activity among the sites. 

• The EOT strategic and implementation plan is now available and can be evaluated. 

2.2 Recommendations 

This section contains the critical recommendations, which NEEScomm is asked to respond to. 

Additional suggestions may be given in the subcommittee reports. H/M/L indicate priorities. 

SOS-‐1: (H) The uncertainty regarding the future of NEES beyond 2014 is a growing threat to site 

staff retention and hiring. NEEScomm should organize discussions on strategies for mitigating 

this threat to safe and efficient site operations. 

RAAS-‐1: (M) NEEScomm IT should maximize the number of User Wishes that are included in 

each new Release. Feedback to the wisher should continue to be well documented within the 

WishList and communicated to the RAAS. 

RAAS-‐2: (M) NEEScomm should continue to work towards a partnership with E-‐Defense and 

NCREE to share experimental data. 

RAAS-‐3: (M) The RAAS could accommodate more user input. This input could be garnered from 

different groups, including Users Forum, CIS, SOS, Governance Board, etc. 

RAAS-‐4: (M) It would be helpful to identify the user groups that are using tools and whether 

they are voluntarily using these tools/NEEShub items. 

CIS-‐1: (M) The committee sees the recent publication of from the Simulation Committee as an 

important strategic document with significant information technology implications and needs. 


3 

We would encourage a joint discussion between CIS and the Simulation Committee on the 

outcomes and next steps for related/overlapping topics. 

CIS-‐2: (M) The committee supports additional attention to common and enhanced telepresence 

tools for the NEES community, including across the research and EOT activities. Particular notes 

from the CIS meeting on the topic suggested RDV have an annual users meeting (we understand 

this is now planned) and consider looking for a small company interested to collaborate on an 

SBIR or STTR as a way of increasing the development and support resources available. 

DCS-‐1: (M) Including more data from various sources will serve to increase the visibility of the 

NEEShub, which the committee feels strongly about. DCS states that the NEEShub should be 

established as a main location for users to get resources for the entire earthquake engineering 

community. 

DCS-‐2: (M) The DCS would be interested in knowing how many proposals were submitted to the 

NEESR solicitation this November for data re-‐use. If the number is not growing, the committee 

can identify reasons for this. It was mentioned by some in the DCS that a couple of key projects 

that have finished their testing a year or more ago had not yet uploaded their data and thus it 

would be difficult for users to write proposals on these projects. The committee is encouraging 

NEEScomm to have and enforce stricter requirements on data upload. 

EOTS: See the EOTS section on page 7 for several recommendations. 

SSC: Several recommendations were expressed as part of the Vision Report on Computational 

and Hybrid Simulation. 

2.3 Discussion items from the recent PAC meeting 

• It was suggested that NEEScomm consider asking NEEShub visitors for feedback, either 

via a web form during their visit or through occasional email. While some users dislike 

such surveys and pop-‐ups, it could create useful feedback, if done moderately. 

• NEEScomm’s efforts on the computational simulation and cloud-‐computing front are 

encouraging. 

• Continued work on making the Project Warehouse easier to use is both commendable 

and needed. 

• Researchers still need to duplicate information at times, e.g., some information put in 

proposals will then need to be cut/pasted into NEES site operation forms. Reducing the 

need for such duplication would be desirable. 


4 

3. Subcommittee Reports 

3.1 Site Operations Subcommittee (SOS) 

The NEES Site Operations Subcommittee met by teleconference on Monday, December 5 th to 

discuss the operations of the network of NEES equipment sites. The following accomplishments 

and recommendations were identified during that discussion. 


1. Developed a new Site Visit Protocol and implemented it for two sites. 

2. NEEScomm staff did a good job of replacing site operations staff member Matt Lovell quickly 

and communicating with the sites about this transition. 

3. NEEScomm continues to work well with the equipment sites and NSF to develop a best-case-‐ 

scenario implementation of the daily rates. 

4. The SOS notes an increased amount of sharing activity among the sites. These activities 

include: 

a. UCLA added instrumentation for UCSD tests 

b. Krypton system is being shared. This capability should be advertised to researchers. 

c. One research project was moved from UNR to UCB. 

5. NEEScomm has developed uniform site SMART goals. 

6. E-‐defense/NEES collaboration has made it possible to test very large structures. However, 

the increased cost of US participation will make it difficult to conduct such research in the 

future. 

Concerns/Recommendations 

1. Site staff retention and hiring is a growing problem and a threat to successful site 

operations. This problem will worsen with time. NEEScomm should work with the sites to 

develop strategies that consider (1) retention incentives, (2) dealing with accrued leave 

issues, in which released staff members might have to stop working BEFORE September 30 th 

2014. 

2. The site equipment is aging. Some of it was acquired before NEES was commissioned. 

Additional upgrade/construction funding may be needed to operate well beyond 2014. 

3. Average rate of experimental completion has not improved much over the past year 

(CHECK THE NUMBERS) 

4. Sites need additional information to implement the uniform SMART goals 


5 

3.2 Requirements Analysis and Assessment Subcommittee (RAAS) 

Evaluation of User Needs and Prioritization of User Requirements for IT Development 

The RAAS reviewed 1) how NEEScomm has included User Needs in operations and 

procedures, 2) how User Requirements for IT Development have been prioritized and 

implemented in the IT development process, and 3) how NEEScomm has incorporated 

community building activities. Review of accomplishments and challenges encountered will be 

organized according to these three primary review items. 

Accomplishments: 

1) NEEScomm inclusion of User Needs in operations and procedures (specifically how 

needs are collected and addressed in the overall NEES framework) 

The RAAS has begun a new process for gathering user needs. The chair of the RAAS has 

been joining ongoing research meetings of NEES project groups to demonstrate key features of 

NEEShub that may help the research group in their work, and then to listen to their needs. 

These group meetings are in place of the past formal interviews conducted by the group. Group 

meetings this quarter have included PIs Tasnim Hassan (NCSU), Kurt McMullin (SJSU), and Ron 

Riggs (UH). 

Improvements to the WishList may be possible by implementing pre-‐existing Hub 

capabilities. JoAnn is coordinating with Mike McLennan on this item. 

Usability testing is being planned for the next quarter which will help increase user 

satisfaction. An independent consultant will be hired to assist in this effort. 

2) Prioritization and implementation of User Requirements for IT processes 

Release 3.5 was completed based on the prioritization of wishes for Release 3.0. Five more 

wishes were granted in this release. 

The RAAS reviewed all of the Medium and Low category wishes from the last round of 

prioritization. Fourteen wishes were requested to be moved back into consideration for the 

prioritization for Release 4.0. All of these wishes will be re-‐prioritized in the next quarter. 

3) NEEScomm community building activities 

The community building activities this quarter were well balanced in the user audience. 

The attendees of the annual meeting had favorable reviews. For the annual meeting survey, 

97% of the respondents felt the Quake Summit 2011 either met or exceeded their expectations. 

A webinar was held September 12, 2011 to 80 registered participants to help investigators 

prepare NEESR proposals. 

Outreach to the communities and schools have been very balanced this quarter. Various 

outreach activities to communities and schools included the Hispanic Engineering, Science and 

Technology Week at University of Texas-‐Pan American, high school teacher/engineering 

graduate student workshop at University of Texas, DaVinci Days at Oregon State University, 

exhibits at Purdue Day at the Indiana State Fair, the Culver Academy students participating at 

NEEScomm headquarters, and the NEES Engineering Projects in Community Service educational 

shake tables. 

Collaboration activities with sites included testbed training Purdue, a university-‐industry 

workshop at Cornell to help develop simulation technology into engineering curricula, and 


6 

round robin proficiency testing that is being organized at Buffalo and conducted across the 

network. 

Challenges Encountered: 

No specific challenges were noted this quarter. 

3.3 Cyberinfrastructure Subcommittee (CIS) 

The CIS committee has followed up with 2 webex meetings very related to NEEScomm work: the 

first on Telepresence tools and the second on further use of OpenSees 1 ( 

http://nees.org/topics/OpenSEES )for production running over a distributed computational 

infrastructure. Members of the User Forum were invited and attended the first meeting. The 

presentations and information are posted on the CIS wiki and some salient points included 

below. 

We are pleased to see NEEScomm IT continue to effectively support the users and evolve the 

capabilities and usability of the functionality of the NEEShub infrastructure and the services 

available through it. We applaud the continued efforts on data curation, the adoption of Digital 

Object Identifiers (DOI) as a standard marking of the information, and the continued ramp up of 

attention to simulations and larger computational science. We have continued contributions 

from the NEEScomm IT leadership. 

The CIS notes that Dawn Weisman has confirmed with NEEScomm leadership that the “retreat” 

to have focused discussion on the longer term needs, technical design and implementation 

technologies available to and used by NEEScomm IT can be planned for the week of February 

13 th 2012. We will now start to plan this workshop actively. 

3.4 Data and Curation Subcommittee (DCS) 

The DCS committee had one teleconference this quarter. During that meeting the committee 

was updated on the status of several important topics NEEScomm is working on, and the DCS 

also reviewed and approved the revised Data Management Plan this quarter. The 

recommendations from that meeting are below. This report is based on that meeting, and 

relevant follow-‐up discussions with the NEES community. Recommendations are below. 

1. Databases and Journal of Earthquake Engineering partnership 

1 OpenSEES is a “software framework for developing applications to simulate the performance of structural and geotechnical 

systems subjected to earthquakes”. You can run OpenSEES directly at the NEEShub without the need of installation of any software 

in your computer other than a web browser. You can also submit OpenSEES jobs to the Open Science Grid using the NEEShub (see 

the Running OpenSEES on OSG wiki page for more information). 


7 

The committee feels that the hub should be a place for users to get resources for the entire 

earthquake engineering community. However, it was recommended by the DCS in the prior 

quarter that NEEScomm needs to advertise the availability of resources and these databases 

more. Thus the November Community Update was focused on contributions from the 

earthquake engineering community. The article discussed various ways in which the 

community might contribute to NEEShub, including through the new Journal of Earthquake 

Engineering database. This partnership was established a few months ago, and the number 

of articles included is growing. Automation would be helpful to facilitate faster development 

of these resources. ACI is also considering establishing a partnership with NEEScomm to 

offer the data from their manuscripts to readers using this tool. 

Including more data from various sources will serve to increase the visibility of the NEEShub, 

which the committee feels strongly about. DCS states that the NEEShub should be 

established as a main location for users to get resources for the entire earthquake 

engineering community. 

2. Data Management Plan 

The internal NEEScomm Data Management Plan (DMP) was reviewed and discussed by the 

DCS. There were just a few minor comments and questions. The DCS approved the DMP. 

3. Data Re-‐use Status 

Between 10-‐20 proposals were submitted to NSF for data re-‐use last spring and three were 

funded. The DCS would be interested in knowing how many proposals were submitted to 

the NEESR solicitation this November for data re-‐use. If the number is not growing, the 

committee can identify reasons for this. It was mentioned by some in the DCS that a couple 

of key projects that have finished their testing a year or more ago had not yet uploaded 

their data and thus it would be difficult for users to write proposals on these projects. The 

committee is encouraging NEEScomm to have and enforce stricter requirements on data 

upload. 

3.5 Education Outreach Training Subcommittee (EOTS) 

Identified Accomplishments 

a. Review of 2012 REU requests 

EOTS (represented by French) participated in the review of the 2012 REU requests. 

b. NEESComm site visit protocol outcomes associated with EOT 

French participated via teleconference (10/11/11) as a followup to NEESComm site visit to 

UMN-‐MAST Site. The potential of implementing “clicker technology,” was discussed with 

Keith Adams, where one can engage an audience and get immediate feedback for 

assessments. NEESComm EOT has decided to use this technology on a pilot basis. Better 


8 

interaction with EOT at the sites was discussed which might be facilitated with workshop to 

share ideas. 

c. NEES EOT Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan 

Received EOT Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan for review from NEESComm. 

d. NEES EOT – EOTS Interaction 

Participated via teleconference (12/7/11) facilitated by Rudolf Eigenmann on NEEScomm 

EOT – EOTS Interaction. Discussed some of the issues identified in the NEES Strategic and 

Implementation Plan and type of feedback that can be offered by EOTS in the review of the 

document. 

e. TARGET UNDER-‐REPRESENTED DEMOGRAPHICS 

Efforts in this area including the creation of Howard University Ambassadors and hosting 

Minority Engineering Programs (MEP) are commendable. 

f. Engage in Outreach and Education with Industry 

The partnership with PEER and NEEScomm IT web-‐based learning series regarding 

Discovering OpenSEES should prove to be a valuable tool to broaden its application. 

g. Create Database of Earthquake Engineering Research Publications 

This is a great higher level effort that broadens the presence of NEES and serves as a 

valuable tool for both the authors and the potential data users. 

h. NEEShub 

The content of NEEShub continues to be improving and becoming more user-‐friendly in 

identifying available materials on the web. The archival of past seminars is useful for 

technology transfer to students and practitioners. 

Comments and Suggestions 

a. Overall comment 

The NEEShub intro page states, “Our primary focus is on the research community and 

practicing engineers who develop the innovations necessary to reduce the impact of seismic 

disasters. We also work diligently to encourage students of all ages to consider study in 

science and engineering and if they are already on that path, offer tools, knowledge, 

opportunity and experiences to succeed.” 

The wording of the intro makes it sound like the K-‐12, public awareness, and outreach 

are secondary. I know that is not the case, but the wording leaves an impression in that 

regard. (H) 

There is no question that NEEScomm is putting in a great deal of effort. There are a 

number of activities in each of the critical areas identified by NEEScomm EOT. A number of 

the efforts appear local to Purdue or Indiana focused (see further comments below). From 

this, one of the impressions is that NEEScomm should step back and consider EOT at a 

higher level. In some cases it is difficult to determine if some of the many individual 

activities NEEScomm has initiated might be further broadened at a national level to further 

address the broader community. As an example there has been effort with Howard 


9 

University and Minority Engineering Programs (MEP). NEEScomm should consider a way 

that these programs they initiated can be communicated to other institutions and groups 

who might learn from these models and then grow them/spread them such that the impact 

can be much broader realizing the full potential of NEES. It seems that these current 

initiatives are seeming to satisfy the targets, rather than serving as models for 

growing/spreading the programs. 

Another example of higher level thinking is given under “integrate and share knowledge 

resources”—it is not clear how the findings of the ISTEC activity will be carried further within 

NEES. 

In addition, explicit goals should be developed with potential partner agencies to 

maximize the impact of NEES through sharing web site links with outreach materials, 

through discussions with those groups to develop and detail more seminars, to explore 

potential interactions with agencies such as Project Lead the Way. NEEScomm EOT should 

have more of a higher level national presence. 

More efforts should be done to capture the EOT components that NEESR PIs are 

developing in their projects by finding a way to communicate with the PIs and uploading the 

course materials, EOT activities to NEEShub, etc. It is not clear that there is a coordinated 

effort in that regard. 

Rather than developing new curriculum at NEEScomm, it might be useful for the 

coordinator to evaluate and try to package the curriculum that is gathered to the site to 

make it easier for instructors to go to the website to choose coordinated curriculum 

content. 

Regarding assessments for conferences, REUs, curriculum, etc., it is not clear how the 

information is being used to “close the loop.” Are the assessment results evaluated to find 

ways to improve the programs or is it sufficient to find that goals are being met. Are the 

results being communicated to those who can effect change based on the feedback. 

Feedback on these issues will be sought by other members of the EOTS to determine if 

specific recommendations can be provided. 

b. Integrate and Share Knowledge and Resources (1.3) 

In review of quarterly report, there is information mentioned (e.g., ISTEC 2011 at Cornell) 

which indicates relevance of ideas on integration of simulation technology into engineering 

curricula, there were concepts identified that pertain to NEES. Needs were identified in 

terms of needing methods and funds to support activities using computational tools. No 

action plan was mentioned. Interaction between the EOT group and the Simulation Steering 

Committee (SSC) should be considered to review the recommendations (M). 

c. Collaboration highlights 

Sites and NEESComm should be applauded for developing collaborative efforts including the 

sensor calibration. It is not clear if this will be further extended across more sites, or how 

this information gets communicated to multiple sites. Possibilities for expansion should be 

considered. (M) 

d. Engage Community and Extend EOT Efforts (1.4) 

There are a number of activities highlighted that are oriented to Purdue or Indiana (e.g., 

2011 Indiana State Fair, NEES EPICS at Purdue University, Culver Academy, etc.) which could 


10 

be broadened to other communities. The activities are great, however they provide 

impression that there is a large focus on more local EOT development than broader 

development. This was discussed at 12/8 teleconference, and it was concluded that 

connecting some of the developed activities on NEEShub to other National Education 

Standards (or directly applying the link to those standards from the activities) would be 

beneficial. (M) 

e. Knowledge Transfer (3) 

There are a number of headings in the quarterly report (e.g., Contribute to Accredited 

Continuing Education Curriculum, Support Practitioners in Performance-‐Based Design) 

which indicate “no activity to report in the quarter.” It is nice to have a place holder for 

these headings, however, it is not clear from the report what the status or plans for 

activities in these “blank” categories may be. Even though there may not have been planned 

activity for the quarter, it leaves one with the perception that something is not being 

addressed. Suggest indicating that topic areas are on track with planning, even though there 

may not be a particular accomplishment. (M) 

f. Increase EOT Products within NEESacademy (4.1) 

See comments related to Engage Community and Extend EOT Efforts. In this section, there is 

focus on development of local materials. It should be commended but the plans for how this 

can be broadened to benefit the network should be emphasized in how this might serve as a 

model, etc. (H) 

g. Target Under-‐Represented Demographics (4.2) 

Efforts in this area including the creation of Howard University Ambassadors and hosting 

Minority Engineering Programs (MEP) are commendable. Assessments of these activities 

should be provided to determine their effectiveness. In addition, it is not clear if the MEP 

program invites participants from a national pool or local pool. (H) 

i. Expand Student Research Experience Opportunities (4.5) 

This NEES-‐wide REU program has been very successful. It is not clear how the suggestions 

for improvement are being communicated to the mentors or program coordinators. (L) 

h. NEES EOT – EOTS Interaction 

Participated via teleconference (12/7/11) facilitated by Rudolf Eigenmann on NEEScomm 

EOT – EOTS Interaction. Discussed some of the issues identified in the NEES Strategic and 

Implementation Plan and type of feedback that can be offered by EOTS in the review of the 

document. As discussed in the last quarterly report, it is important for NEEScomm to identify 

particular issues in which comment from EOTS is sought and to have joint meetings between 

NEEScomm EOT and the EOTS. There are plans for this activity with the review of the 

strategic plan and implementation plan in the next quarter. Future agenda items should be 

identified including feedback on usability of NEEShub, generation/evaluation of metrics, 

development and delivery of assessments, etc. Joint participation between NEEScomm EOT 

and EOTS on web conferences to follow up on the feedback would be extremely beneficial. 

(H) 


11 

3.6 Simulation Steering Committee (SSC) 

This past quarter the SSC held two teleconferences and completed its vision report entitled 

“NEES 2011 Vision Report on Computational and Hybrid Simulation: Needs and Opportunities” 

(October 31, 2011). The report is intended to help identify some of the most important needs 

for earthquake engineering researchers and practitioners, with particular attention on those 

needs that can be addressed through coordinated initiatives of NEEScomm, including 

Cyberinfrastructure deployments through the NEEShub. Further, the report provides a synthesis 

and prioritization of suggested activities and initiative areas for NEEScomm to consider. The 

report is available on NEEShub (http://nees.org/resources/3834) and has been distributed to 

the NEES community. 

The SSC is continuing to work with NEEScomm to pursue a few of the high priority needs and 

opportunities identified in the report including: 

- Providing feedback and advice to NEEScomm on the development of webinars and 

short video tutorials to educate the NEES community on the computational 

resources available through NEEShub. 

- Developing plans for a NEEShub training workshop to be held in conjunction with 

the ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, scheduled to be held at the University 

of Notre Dame from June 17-‐20, 2012. 

- Developing plans for a workshop to explore critical research needs in high 

performance computing for earthquake engineering and strategies for addressing 

these needs. Planning is underway to hold the workshop in conjunction with the 

2012 NSF CMMI and NEES Quake Summit in Boston (July 11, 2012). 

- The SSC and CIS chairs provided encouraging feedback to NEEScomm on two 

proposed “Bridge to the Future” projects, which are intended to advance NEEShub 

capabilities for high performance computing and access to high performance 

computing by the NEES research committee. 

- A member of the SSC has participated in the NEEScomm CRC and IT Core Feedback 

weekly meetings to provide feedback about the community needs for numerical and 

hybrid simulation. 


12 

4 Brief Updates from User Forum and Equipment Site Forum 

ESF report: 

Shield and Buckle attended a meeting at NSF on recompetition of major multi-‐user facilities as 

representatives of operators. The purpose of the meeting was to provide feedback to a NSF 

appointed subcommittee that determining how NSF should implement the National Science 

Board’s directive on recompetition. 

The Minnesota Equipment Site was reviewed by NEESComm under their new Site Visit Protocol. 

The Reno Equipment Site will have their review this week. The ESF is hopeful that NEEScomm 

will discuss with them how this process might be improved to get NEEScomm the information 

they need for the evaluation, while lessoning the burden on the Sites. 


13 

APPENDIX 

PAC Subcommittees and Committee Memberships 

PAC Subcommittees and Charges: Currently the PAC has six subcommittees. 

• Site Operations Subcommittee (SOS). This subcommittee will encourage 

transformational research and education in a safe and efficient environment by 

providing advice on the management of the equipment site operations and sub-‐awards. 

• Requirements Analysis and Assessment Subcommittee (RAAS). This subcommittee will 

focus on requirements gathering and evaluation for four areas that are key to the 

success of the network: site operations, cyberinfrastructure, EOT, and network impact. 

• Cyberinfrastructure subcommittee (CIS). This subcommittee will ensure that the NEES 

cyberinfrastructure is built with the best possible IT components from both industry and 

the research community, and that there is no duplication of efforts. 

• Data and Curation Subcommittee (DCS). This Subcommittee provides guidance and 

feedback to NEEScomm on all issues related to data management and curation. 

• Education Outreach and Training Subcommittee (EOTS). This subcommittee will support 

innovative and effective education, outreach, and training by providing guidance on EOT 

priorities, directions, and partnerships. 

• Simulation Steering Committee (SSC). The SSC's charge is to engage the community in 

creating a vision for computational and hybrid simulation and provide recommendations 

for NEEScomm to pursue this vision. 

Committee Memberships: 

Project Advisory Committee 

The PAC consists of the PAC chair, the chairs of all PAC 

subcommittees, two individual members, three 

representatives of each the Equipment Site Forum (ESF) 

and the User Forum (UF), and a NEEScomm staff contact 

person. 

Rudi Eigenmann (Chair) 

Name 

JoAnn Browning (RAAS Chair) 

Shirley Dyke (DCS Chair) 

Marc Eberhard (SOS Chair) 

Catherine French (EOTS Chair) 

Ruth Pordes (CIS Chair) 

Greg Deierlein (SSC Chair) 


Ann Zimmerman 

Carol Shield (ESF Chair) 

Tarek Abdoun (ESF rep.) 

Solomon Yim (ESF rep.) 

Affilliation 











RPI 



14 

John van de Lindt (UF Chair) 

Gustavo J. Parra-‐Montesinos (UF rep.) 

Richard Christenson (UF rep.) 

Gilberto Mosqueda (UF rep.) 

Silvia Mazzoni (UF rep.) 

Barbara Fossum ( Staff Contact) 



University of Connecticut 

University at Buffalo 

Degenkolb 


Cyberinfrastructure Subcommittee (CIS) 

Name 

Ruth Pordes (Chair) 

Tim Ahern 

JoAnn Browning 

John Cobb 

Shirley Dyke 

Rudi Eigenmann (ex officio) 

Tom Hacker (ex officio) 

Laura N. Lowes 


Carol Song 

Dan Stanzione 

Jamie Steidl 

Craig A. Stewart 


Affilliation 


IRIS 


Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

Tennessee 







U. Texas / TACC 

UC Santa Barbara 

Indiana University 


Data and Curation Subcommittee (DCS) 

Name 

Shirley Dyke (Chair) 

Greg Deierlein 

Rudi Eigenmann 

Yurong Guo 

Brady Cox 

Keri Ryan 

Daniel Kuchma 

Thomas Marullo 

Santiago Pujol 




Affiliation 


Stanford U. 


Hunan University, China 

U. of Arkansas 

U. of Nevada, Reno 

University of Illinois 

LeHigh U. 


Iowa Sate University 




15 

Stansislav Pejsa (ex -‐officio) 

Rajesh Thyagarajan (ex officio) 



RequirementsAnalysis and Assessment Subcommittee 

(RAAS) 

JoAnn Browning (Chair) 


Shih-‐Ho (Simon) Chao 

Oh-‐Sung Kwon 

Abe Lynn 

Ayhan Irfanoglu 

Peter Rojas 

John van de Lindt 



Name 

Barbara Fossum (Staff Contact) 

Affilliation 



University of Texas, Arlington 

University of Toronto 

California Polytechnic State 

University, San Luis Obispo 


University of California, Davis 




NEEScomm Deputy Director 

Site Operations Subcommittee (SOS) 

Name 

Marc Eberhard (Chair) 

Sherif Elfass 

Swaminathan Krishnan 

Robert Nigbor 

Gustavo J. Parra-‐Montesinos 

James Ricles 

Carol Shield 

Wei Song 

Harry Stewart 

Solomon Yim 

Scott Newbolds (Staff Contact) 

Meagan Kramer (ex-‐officio) 

Affiliation 


University of Nevada, Reno 

Caltech 

UCLA 


Lehigh 



Cornell 




Education Outreach and Training Subcommittee (EOTS) 

Name 

Catherine French (Chair) 

Diane Baxter 

John Bushey 

Affiliation 


UC San Diego 

Consultant 


16 

Jay Berger 

Scott Lathrop 

Joe Wartman 

Dan Cox 

EERI 

University of Chicago 



Simulation Steering Committee (SSC) 

Name 

Greg Deierlein (Chair) 


Juan Caicedo 

Frank McKenna 

Dominic Assimaki 

Pat Lynett 

Jian Zhang 

Narutoshi Nakata 

Silvia Mazzoni 

Laura Lowes 

Mahmoud Hachem 

Gilberto Mosqueda 

Lelio Mejia (corresponding member) 

Shirley Dyke 

Greg Rodgers (ex officio) 

Affiliation 



U. of South Carolina 

UC Berkeley 


Texas A&M U. 

UCLA 

John Hopkins U. 




U. Buffalo 

URS corp. 

Purdue U. 

Purdue U. 


Purdue University NSF Site Visit Review 

and Responses | M 


NEEScomm Responses to NSF Site Visit Report for NEES Operations 

10-‐14-‐2011 (Annual Site Visit Review, August 11-‐12, 2011) 

NSF Review Team comments are shown in italics, followed by NEEScomm initial response, and 

concluding with an update of tracking of activities related to the response during this quarter. 

1. While there has been significant progress in the development of the NEES education, outreach, and 

training (EOT) program, the EOT strategic plan still needs revision. NEES EOT cannot be all things to all 

people, particularly given the resources available. Further refinement should consider these questions: 

What are the highest priority NEES EOT goals? What efforts and staffing are needed to address and/or 

reach these goals? What quantitative data are needed to assess the impact of activities under 

consideration, undertaken or completed in terms of these goals? How should NEES EOT resources be 

distributed across the network so as to best achieve these goals? 

Initial response: These items are being addressed within the EOT Implementation plan that 

will be an extension of the EOT strategic plan. The EOT Implementation Plan is an annual 

plan that identifies a core set of activities through both the sites and NEEScomm EOT 

associated with the five aims (6 including stewardship) of the NEES strategic Plan. It 

establishes priorities for FY2012 as they are aligned with the NEES EOT strategic plan in 

support of EOT goals. Resources and staffing are then assigned to each of the prioritized 

activities. Quantitative data (Metrics) are identified to assess the overall impact of each of 

the activities in meeting the established goal. Included in the Implementation Plan is a 

process to involve the equipment sites in the assessment strategies and tools by soliciting 

feedback from the sites and distributing these tools and strategies to the sites. It is planned 

to allocate some funds to the equipment sites for high impact network EOT through 

supplements again this year, pending successful proposals. The revised EOT strategic plan 

and Annual Implementation Plan will be reviewed by the PAC EOT-‐S and implemented upon 

review. Estimated completion date: December 1, 2011. 

Update: All the input has been processed and a final EOT strategic plan has been written. 

This plan has been discussed with the NSF program director and various site visit team 

members. The final approved version has been posted to the NEEShub. In addition, the 

NEES EOT management and implementation of EOT strategies have been documented and 

shared with all NEES ES EOT coordinators to align their activities with the overall EOT 

strategic plan. This includes the highest EOT priorities to enable the ES EOT coordinators to 

develop activities to support both the local requirements from their universities and the 

NEES EOT goals through the ES annual work plan and requests for annual supplemental 

funding. NEEScomm will continue to work with ES EOT to allocate scarce resources across 

the network in support of NEES EOT highest priorities. Additionally, NEEScomm will work 

in cooperation with ES EOT coordinators to develop and share assessment tools to gather 

quantitative data to measure impact of activities both for short-‐term low impact events to 

long-‐term high impact events across the network. 

2. Similarly, there has been significant progress in NEES IT development. However, a few issues have 

arisen that need some attention. The incorporation and development of the simulations component of IT 

are a bit haphazard and opportunistic rather than community needs driven. Data curation activities are 

still under-‐resourced. All equipment sites report having cybersecurity plans or utilize institutional 

security plans; not all sites have fully implemented them. A new usability study of the Project 

Warehouse user interface is needed, especially with regard to searching for data. 

Update: 


Simulation – Release 3.5 provided additional capabilities to the Simulation infrastructure in 

areas such as venue selection (NEEShub, OSG, Hansen), the ability to submit in a 

synchronous or asynchronous mode, and four different parallel processing options. The 

NEEScomm IT team continues to utilize the Simulation Steering Committee’s final report on 

Simulation strategic direction to set the course for work in Year 3. Work continues on use 

and promotion of the simulation capabilities. A webinar on batchsubmit was offered in 

February to give the community ideas and advice about the advanced features available 

through batchsubmit. One-‐on-‐one assistance was given to three earthquake engineering 

graduate students to guide them in making code modifications so their programs could 

effectively run via batchsubmit. 

Data Curation – A full-‐time Earthquake Engineer was hired to assist the NEEScomm Data 

Curator. The Earthquake Engineer reviews Project data/metadata to ensure quality from an 

engineering standpoint and works with researchers on data curation questions. For less 

complicated data curation tasks, two engineering graduate students support the Data 

Curator. The Data Curator and Earthquake Engineer continue to work together to fine-‐tune 

work done by the supporting graduate students. This work was identified as the TQA 

(Technical Quality Assurance) process and involves the graduate student looking for the 

presence of key documentation properties and metadata on experiments and recording their 

findings in a detailed spreadsheet. An advisory board for Data Curation and Data 

Management called the CAB (Curation Advisory Board), was assembled during the second 

quarter of FY2013. The CAB had its inaugural session on March 5, 2012. The CAB consists of 

five external members together and members of the NEES Curation Group. The goals of the 

CAB are to assist NEEScomm IT in identifying software solutions related to Preservation and 

Long-‐term Access and to review policies and documents related to digital preservation 

planning at NEES. 

Cybersecurity – The cybersecurity plan at a site or the institutional cybersecurity plan that a 

site follows is almost always a lengthy document with many subjective points. The level of 

effort needed to verify the above for each site exceeds the level that can be supported with 

current staffing for cybersecurity operations in NEEScomm. NEEScomm IT expects that the 

local IT organization of the university, beyond the NEES Site IT manager, will aid in the 

process. The cybersecurity scans completed for all sites, and the continual low-‐intensity 

scans planned for the coming year, verify that all the Site NEES machines conform to the 

following high-‐level requirements: 

1. They do not have any known but unresolved security vulnerabilities. 

2. They are protected behind firewalls. 

Further, NEEScomm IT will, in response to this site visit report suggestion, conduct a 

webcast to review security guidelines for securing machines across the various operating 

systems found at the sites. 

the NEEScomm IT team started the process of planning for for this year’s security 

assessments. Minor modifications will be made to the planning and reporting process to 

make adjustments for findings from the August 2011 NEEScomm Site Visit findings. 

Usability Study of Project Warehouse -‐ NEEScomm IT worked with an outside company 

(TecEd) from Ann Arbor, MI to plan a NEEShub Usability study focused on the Project 

Warehouse, home page, search, and data upload. TecEd plans to conduct the usability study 

remotely (via WebEx) with four researchers, four graduate students, and four practitioners. 

IRB approval for the study was received in late March. The study should start in early April 

and be complete by late April. Easily implementable results of the study may be incorporated 

into Release 4 (June 2012). 


3. NEEScomm should review and revise the Balanced Scorecard with the strategic goal of providing 

meaningful measures of impact and becoming a useful management tool to drive the performance and 

behavior of everyone involved in NEES-‐-‐-‐at headquarters, at the sites, and among the users. Better 

metrics for site availability and utilization should be implemented. The cyberinfrastructure metrics that 

are presented, such as page views, have some utility and are easy to obtain, but it may not be indicative 

of the true adoption/impact of the IT infrastructure. While they are much more difficult to obtain, 

metrics showing the impact of the science, innovations, new algorithms, etc., would be more meaningful. 

Response: The Operations Team and the NEES Strategic Council review the balanced 

scorecard on a quarterly basis. A review of the relevancy and efficacy of the associated 

metrics is inherent to the review process. Given the newness of the metrics, we wanted to 

provide time to collect data from which trends could be developed. 

A detailed review of the NEEShub Balanced Scorecard metrics occurred in September 2011. 

A revised set of metrics was reviewed by the Strategic Council and subsequently approved. 

The revised metrics are intended to better demonstrate impact through data download, data 

upload, and tool usage metrics. Many of the revised metrics will be made available in the 

2011 Q4 Quarterly Report. 

Additionally, NEEScomm is adding a metric on site utilization. This metric will build on data 

that was reported in the annual report. Finally, the metric on publications is being revised 

and will now be reported annually as opposed to quarterly. 

No further action required 

4. NEES still suffers from a lack of diversity at all levels. This is true in engineering in general and will 

continue to be an issue for the future. Persistent attention and effort are required. 

Update: NEEScomm believes that the percentage of females involved in NEES and in 

leadership positions is a clear strength of our organization. We have also successfully 

attracted participants of Hispanic origin. We have been less successful recruiting other 

underrepresented groups, in part because the percentage of African-‐American, Native 

American and Pacific Islander earthquake engineers is low. To increase the participation of 

under-‐represented groups, we will consult with a wide range of mentors and leaders to 

identify and appoint suitable candidates for new appointments. 

Comprehensive diversity data has been collected from both NSF Science and Engineering 

Labor Force report from 2012 indicators and from the Diversity Project of the National 

Association of Engineers. Using this data as a solid benchmark, NEEScomm and NEES as a 

whole is doing well recruiting qualified individuals into the project. We will continue to 

work in the areas where we have in the past been less successful. However, the lack of 

qualified under-‐represented groups continues to be a concern throughout the engineering 

community. The following comparison is provided. 


Diversity Comparison 

Axis Title 

100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

Male Female Hispanic 

African 

American 

Asian 

American 

Non-‐ 

Hispanic 

White 

Native 

American 

Other/ 

Multi 

NEES % 74.0% 26.0% 9.0% 1.3% 0.9% 84.3% 0.0% 0.0% 

U.S. Engineers % 87.0% 13.0% 3.5% 2.6% 10.9% 82.7% 0.3% 0.0% 

 

NEES is continuing to focus on hiring practices that will increase our diversity and focus on 

under-‐representative groups. Encouraging educational and outreach activities, collaborative 

programs and partnerships to attract these groups to the STEM disciplines and specifically 

engineering is a priority. As stated before, we have done well with recruiting participants of 

Hispanic origin but less so in the area of African-‐Americans, Asian-‐Americans, Pacific 

Islanders and others. However, compared to the larger pool of qualified engineers we 

compare favorably. We will continue to use this diversity data as a benchmark to monitor 

our diversity efforts throughout the NEES network. 

5. Communications between NEEScomm and the sites have improved, but more can be done. For 

example, changes in NEEScomm staff, especially staff designated as contact staff for the sites, must be 

communicated to the sites immediately. 

Update: NEEScomm agrees that communication with the sites needs to be improved. To this 

end, NEEScomm has already distributed key personnel changes (Business Office and Site 

Operations) to the sites. Additionally, NEEScomm would like to pursue more formalized, 

regular communication with each of the equipment sites. NEEScomm will work with the Site 

Operations Subcommittee to identify the best strategy for implementation. Finally, 

NEEScomm Site Operations will work with the sites to update the communication plan. 

Further, NEEScomm EOT has implemented a monthly tele-‐conference with the equipment 

site EOT coordinators, EOT Co-‐Leaders, NEEScomm EOT director and other interested 

persons. NEEScomm will continue to improve communications. 

6. The number of injuries and incidents at the equipment sites should be reduced toward the target 

metric of zero, and attention must be paid to investigating, communicating, and systematically 

eliminating root causes. Humans will make errors; however, management must ensure those errors do 

not result in injuries. 


Update: NEEScomm is always endeavoring towards the reduction of that the number of 

safety incidents and has done much to underscore the importance of safety in the network 

and will continue work to put an even greater emphasis on this critical issue. To this end, 

NEEScomm will implement a network-‐wide, online safety-‐training program. Additionally, 

with the concurrence of NSF, NEEScomm would like to invest a portion of the capital 

equipment account to address safety-‐related upgrades as was done in FY11. Further, the 

Site Operations Subcommittee will review and update the NEES Network-‐wide Safety Policy 

to ensure it addresses all relevant safety issues. Finally, NEEScomm will work with the sites 

to identify additional safety improvements to provide more uniform safety standards across 

the network. 

Quotes are being received from on-‐line safety training providers. Once the quotes have been 

submitted, NEEScomm will make a recommendation for a provider. NEEScomm is using a 

portion of the capital equipment account to provide safety-‐related supplemental funding for 

FY12. The SOS is reviewing the NEES safety policy. NEEScomm selected five proposals for 

funding safety supplements at the NEES equipment sites. These proposals represent nearly 

a quarter of a million dollars in safety enhancements and improvements that will be made to 

the NEES network this fiscal year. NEEScomm requested and received approval from NSF to 

re-‐budget these funds from the capital equipment account. 

7. As NEEScomm noted, the uncertain future of the network post-‐2014 presents a threat to successful 

operations. Thus, it is imperative that NEEScomm develop an exit strategy that ensures continued 

smooth operations and successful completion of all activities. Major planning activities currently 

underway by the National Research Council and STPI will provide useful input for this effort. 

Update: As we indicated during the annual site visit review, the uncertain future of the 

network post-‐2014 indeed presents a major threat to successful operations. The first step 

to determine the risk caused by the uncertain future of NEES post-‐2014 is to clearly 

establish what needs to be protected and preserved, the sensitivity of what is being 

protected and to what extent. 

First, post-‐2014 and assuming the National Science Foundation (NSF) decides not to 

continue funding an earthquake engineering research infrastructure, the following items 

must be protected and preserved: 

• Project Warehouse, the NEES data repository 

• Collaborative tools on the NEEShub, i.e. group space 

• Numerical simulation tools and models on the NEEShub 

• Other NEEShub resources, including tools, documents, and databases 

• Remote participation tools on the NEEShub, i.e. tele-‐presence, RDV, Data Turbine, 

NEESdaq, etc. 

• Educational tools, i.e. learning modules, PowerPoint presentations, etc. 

In addition, until 30 September 2014, the following items must be preserved: 

• Shared-‐use access to the NEES Sites 

• Equipment and Staff at the Sites 

• NEEScomm Center to manage site operations, NEES cyberinfrastructure, and 

education and outreach activities 


University of Minnesota NSF Site Visit Review 

and Responses | N 


National Science Foundation 

Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation 

Cooperative Agreement CMMI-‐0927178 

NEES Operations FY 2010 – FY 2014 

Purdue University: Julio Ramirez, PI 

Site Visit Review of NEES Operations: NEES Facility Operated by University of Minnesota 

Dr. Carol Shield, PI 

December 15-‐16, 2011 

Site Visit Team 

Dr. Henri Gavin 

W.H. Gardner, Jr. Associate Professor 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Duke University 

Durham, NC 

Dr. Vijaya Gopu 

Professor and Edward G. Schlieder 

Endowed Chair in Civil Engineering 

Louisiana Transportation Research Center 

University of New Orleans 

New Orleans, LA 

Dr. Joann Jacullo-‐Noto 

Director, M.A.T. Program 

Caspersen School of Graduate Studies 

Drew University 

Madison, NJ 

Dr. Benjamin Schafer 

Swirnow Family Scholar 

Professor and Chair 

Department of Civil Engineering 

Johns Hopkins University 

Baltimore, MD 

Dr. Kaye Shedlock 

Consultant 

Golden, CO 

Dr. Nadim Wehbe 

Professor and ACI Fellow 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

South Dakota State University 

Brookings, SD 

Dr. Max Porter 

University Professor 

Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental 

Engineering 


Ames, IA 

National Science Foundation Staff 

Dr. Joy Pauschke (Site Visit Coordinator) 

NEES Program Director 

Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing 

Innovation 

Dr. Kishor Mehta 

HMSE Program Director 

Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing 

Innovation 

Dr. Kristin Ludwig 

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow 

BFA/Large Facilities Office 


A. Summary of Site Visit: One paragraph summarizing date and location of site visit and 

major activities during the site visit (e.g., observed an experiment being conducted, visited a 

field site, met with users, etc.). 

A site visit review of the NEES Multi-‐Axial Subassemblage Testing System (MAST Laboratory), 

operated by the University of Minnesota (UMn), was conducted on December 15-‐16, 2011, at 

the UMn Twin Cities campus. On the first day, the site visit team (SVT) met with equipment site 

(ES) and NEEScomm staff. After welcoming remarks from the UMn Dean of the College of 

Science and Engineering and the Chair of the Civil Engineering Department, the PI of the ES 

presented an overview of the MAST Laboratory. Afterwards, the SVT visited the MAST 

Laboratory and inspected the test facility. The project engineers/managers at MAST explained 

to the SVT the unique features and capabilities of the test facility. They also presented videos 

captured during different tests conducted at the facility to illustrate the process involved to set-up 

the test specimens/instrumentation and the complex functioning of the actuators to impose 

multi-‐directional loading on the test specimens. The ES PI and the facility staff highlighted the 

precautions taken at the site to ensure safety of the staff and students and the challenges faced 

to maintain a high level of utilization of the facility. 

Following the tour, the ES staff provided an overview of the ES operations, cyberinfrastructure, 

and EOT. The NEEScomm Director of Site Operations provided an overview of the NEEScomm 

site visit protocol and site visit of the ES in September 2011. Adequate time was allowed for 

Q&A. The SVT listened to WebEx presentations made by two users -‐ one who had used the ES 

and another who was scheduled to use the ES -‐ regarding their experiences in interacting with 

the ES staff to conduct their tests. The users answered the questions posed by the SVT. There 

was considerable interaction between the SVT and the ES team during the review. At the end 

of the day, the SVT provided the ES a list of questions to address overnight. 

The ES staff provided responses to the questions at the beginning of the second day, and this 

was followed by additional discussion among the SVT and ES teams. The SVT then went into 

closed session to develop summary recommendations. A debriefing by NSF and the SVT was 

provided to NEEScomm and the ES at the end of the second day. 

B. Site Visit Team Recommendation (check one of the following outcomes) 

__X_ Continue facility operations, with minor issues to be addressed 

____ Continue facility operations, with major issues to be addressed 

____ Phase down facility operations (specify period for phase-‐down) 

2 


C. Summary Recommendations and Areas for Improvement (with recommended schedule for 

completion) 

1. The ES should establish long-‐term community support and demand via user training and 

development and posting of user rates to strongly position MAST for post-‐2014 success as a 

facility. 

Site Response: The ES is currently working on developing a business plan for post-‐2014 

operations. The ES is developing base costs based on several different scenario and service 

levels. Without NSF support for O&M, testing at the ES will be too expensive for 

researchers or private firms in its current mode of operation. The ES will be working with 

the University of Minnesota administration to look at funding/business models that have 

been successful at the University in the past. However, the ES must first understand the 

basic costs for minimum service before these discussions can proceed. The ES will be 

looking at removing a large amount of Telepresence Systems from operations for significant 

cost savings on hardware, software, licenses and personnel, while still being able to perform 

the same structural tests. The end product of this planning should be a funding model that 

may or may not be based on user rates, as much of what occurs at the lab is so extremely 

project specific that user rates may not be an appropriate model. The ES will also be 

contacting likely users of the laboratory (e.g. NIST) to see what role they may play in the 

site's funding future. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm will provide whatever help possible to support this 

initiative. 

2. The ES should obtain support for the construction of the storage mezzanine as soon as 

possible. 

Site Response: The ES has submitted a supplement request to NEESComm on 1/19/2012 to 

fund the storage mezzanine. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm has received the supplement request, and it is under 

review. 

3. The physical footprint of the laboratory is a limiting factor for post-‐2014 success. The ES 

should develop a near-‐term plan for laboratory expansion. 

Site Response: The ES believes that the storage mezzanine will significantly help space 

issues. However, based on the recommendation of the SVT, the ES has begun the planning 

for a possible expansion. The ES envisions that the only viable expansion to the laboratory 

would be to the West. The new section of the laboratory would be connected to the 

existing laboratory via a 19 foot wide doorway between existing building columns. The new 

area would be slab on grade, similar to the existing staging area. This area would be used 

for specimen construction, freeing the existing staging area for support of the specimen in 

the testing machine. A space that was approximately 30 ft x 50 ft would be appropriate for 

3 


the new staging area. This space should have 5 ft wide walkways all the way around, and 

should also include an additional 2-‐3 ft. all the way around for storage racks and shelving. 

The addition will require an overhead crane, likely with a 50-‐60 kip capacity. The ES Staff 

has had some discussions with University Administration, who have shown little interest 

providing the land or funding for any expansion of the laboratory at this time, given the 

uncertainty of NSF funding post 2014. Perhaps if/when NSF commits to post 2014 funding 

the University would look more favorably on the idea. In the meantime, the ES will 

continue flushing out ideas on a laboratory expansion. 

4. The vacant IT position needs to be filled in an appropriate and timely fashion. 

Site Response: The ES is vigorously working to hire a new software developer. The position 

has been posted on both the University of Minnesota employment website and NEEShub, 

advertised extensively through Dice, Career Builder, LinkedIn and Monster, and promoted 

to potential applicants through direct contact with colleagues. This has resulted in a strong 

pool of applicants, with a set of on-‐site interviews scheduled for early-‐mid February 2012. 

Until the position is filled, the ES is using a plan it has in place to make sure IT lab operations 

are not disrupted. Arrangements are in place for IT staff within the College of Science and 

Engineering to provide additional systems administrative support to the ES both in terms of 

routine system maintenance and emergency response services. Under this plan, the ES can 

maintain full operational status for an extended period. 

5. A retention plan for the very talented ES staff is critical for success through 2014 and to 

increase the likelihood of post-‐2014 success. New avenues for ES staff hiring should be 

aggressively pursued. 

Site Response: The ES is bound by the University of Minnesota HR policies. Under these 

policies, the University will not provide any incentive funding to retain ES staff through 

September 2014. The ES feels very strongly that NEESComm needs to address this issue 

network-‐wide. The ES PI, as chair of the ES Forum, has begun working with other ES PIs to 

determine local University Policies that will have to be taken into account when developing 

a network-‐wide retention plan. 

Because of Mr. Bergson’s long time commitment to the Department of Civil Engineering, 

the Chair of the Department has committed to funding ES Site Manager Bergson for one 

year after NSF funding ends to provide a time to transition Mr. Bergson’s funding into 

another stable source. The Department has no intention of providing similar funding for 

any of the other ES Staff. This ES functions at a high level because it has been able to retain 

its core staff. However, the ES cannot function with a staff of one (the SM), nor can it 

function at the same level it is functioning now with the current Site Manager and a staff of 

temporary employees (contractors or graduate students). The ES is not sure what else the 

SVT might be referring to as “new avenues” of staff hiring. 

NEEScomm Response: Staff retention network-‐wide is a huge concern for NEEScomm and 

all the sites. NEEScomm is investigating several strategies to mitigate this risk. 

4 


6. The ES should organize and conduct a workshop on formatting/uploading experimental 

data. 

Site Response: NEEScomm has conducted, as part of its Project Warehouse, workshops on 

formatting and uploading experimental data. Some of this material is presented as 

NEEShub Tutorials through the Project Warehouse User Guide, outlined below: 

The ES is willing to partner with NEEScomm in presenting future workshops on this topic. 

The ES also plans to have all of its IT and Project Management Staff participate in one of the 

NEESComm IT data curation workshops so they can provide a better resource to the ES 

users post test. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm has these utilities available through the hub. NEEScomm 

will continue to hold workshops in conjunction with the sites on curating data. 

7. NEEScomm must strategize and coordinate EOT activities and also assess EOT across the 

sites to ensure that the work is conducted in a high quality and rigorous manner. 

Site Response: The ES believes this is an issue for NEESComm to address. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm EOT reviews all sites annual work plans and extracts all 

EOT activities from each site to monitor and advise as necessary with support through 

NEESacademy, monthly EOT conference calls, periodic EOT email Blasts and the annual EOT 

workshop in conjunction with other EOT activities at the annual meeting. Additionally, 

during the NEEScomm site visits, the ES sites EOT activities, assessments and plans are 

reviewed and discussed to provide additional support as requested. The University of 

Minnesota is unique in that the Chair of the PAC subcommittee for EOT is the EOT 

coordinator at this equipment site. Working in partnership with EOT subcommittee, plans, 

strategies, agenda of meetings, etc are shared with the Chair of the EOT-‐S and discussed 

5 


during periodic conference calls with not only the NEEScomm EOT director but also the 

NEES EOT PI and Co-‐PI. No further action is required. 

8. An aggressive back-‐up plan of system operations with off-‐site storage is necessary. 

Site Response: The ES already has an extensive backup strategy in place involving backup of 

all experimental data, applications software, and OS systems configurations nightly to an 

on-‐site two cluster highly redundant SAN system. One cluster is primarily dedicated to 

backing up the experimental data and the second cluster for backup up of applications 

software and OS configurations. In addition, all experimental data, applications software, 

and OS configurations are backed up to a tape library system. Incremental backups to this 

tape system are done nightly, with full backups done weekly on Sundays. Once per month 

the most recent full backup is exported to additional tapes that are then kept in a secure 

offsite location approximately 2/3 mile away from the ES. The ES has recently acquired a 

third SAN cluster that will be located in a distant secure off-‐site location. This cluster will 

provide nightly backups of experimental data, applications software, and OS configurations. 

Installation and implementation of this third backup cluster will occur this spring. 

9. Given the heavy demand for the use of this ES, it is important that only tests that truly 

require the unique capabilities of the facility be considered eligible for use of the facility. 

Site Response: The ES believes this is an issue for NEESComm and the new Site Scheduling 

Committee. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm agrees that only projects that require the ES’s unique 

capabilities be scheduled there. The SSC will carefully review each project and place it in 

the appropriate facility. 

D. SWOT ANALYSIS 

Strengths and Major Accomplishments of Facility Operations (include any landmark 

experiments that could not have been done without the facility) 

• The ES at the UMn is a world class, standalone testing facility. The experimental capability 

offered by MAST has attracted high demand for its use by the earthquake engineering 

research community. 

• The facility has a comprehensive safety plan in place. Despite its high utilization, the facility 

has maintained an excellent safety record. 

• The entire staff is highly qualified and their activities are well organized and executed. 

• The engagement and commitment of the PI to the administrative and scientific functions of 

the ES is a strength. The productive and long-‐term relationship between the PIs and the 

senior staff provides continuity and excellent operation for the ES. The junior staff is 

6 


capable, positive, and an enormous strength for day-‐to-‐day operations. In short, staffing at 

this ES is a key strength. The ES PIs are role models for leadership positions. 

• Most of the experiments conducted at MAST could not have been accomplished elsewhere 

in the world. Many of those experiments have significantly impacted the state of 

knowledge in earthquake engineering and improved the safety of existing and future 

structures. The very first project concerning testing of non-‐rectangular walls under multi-directional 

loads is considered the first attempt to realistically evaluate the seismic 

performance of a commonly used structural element in multi-‐story buildings. The 

sophisticated six-‐degree-‐of-‐freedom controller at the facility has allowed for credible 

simulation of punching shear of slab-‐column connections with shear stud reinforcement. 

Such simulation was not possible in previous experiments that were the basis of current 

code requirements. The results of the punching shear study at MAST may lead to 

fundamental changes in code requirements for shear stud reinforcement. 

Weaknesses in Facility Operations 

• The lack of a post-‐2014 sustainability plan is of concern. The ES needs to make an effort to 

find alternate mechanisms of support to sustain the operation of this unique facility. The ES 

is encouraged to hold yearly workshops to encourage non-‐NEES /industry investigators to 

conduct tests at the site post-‐2014. 

Site Response: See the ES response to Recommendation 1. 

• The lack of software development for crack detection was of concern to the SVT. 

Site Response: The recent development of an automated crack detection application was 

undertaken by the ES as a software capabilities enhancement project both for on-‐site use 

and for the wider NEES community. An initial version of this application has been developed 

and is being tested. With the loss of the IT staff person this past fall who was primarily 

working on this project, further work on this project has been suspended until the new 

software development hire is in place. Once the ES IT operation is fully staffed, further 

refinements to this software are anticipated. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm will query other NEES sites to see if they have crack 

detection software that could be shared at other sites through the IT manager’s forum. 

• Space limitations at the MAST facility are hampering its effective utilization and throughput. 

Site Response: The ES agrees that project throughput could be slightly improved with 

additional space. By-‐in-‐large, the ES has been using the staging area to prepare/construct a 

specimen(s) while testing a specimen in the testing machine. The inefficiency mainly comes 

from having to frequently relocate equipment stored on the staging area floor to change 

the layout of the staging area to accommodate the tasks at hand. The ES strongly believes 

that the addition of a storage mezzanine will greatly alleviate this problem. Additional 

7 


space beyond that may help to speed up the processes of demolition of the tested 

specimen and installation of the next specimen, but in the past, this would have only had a 

minimal impact on schedule. 

• While the ES is engaged in a wide spectrum of EOT activities, NEEScomm has failed to 

provide adequate support and direction for these activities. 

Site Response: The ES believes NEESComm needs to respond to this weakness. 

NEEScomm Response: The wide diversity of local events, EOT activities, scheduling issues 

and other time constraints is best handled at the local level as both the site manager and/or 

EOT coordinator are best placed and most knowledgeable to deal with the needs and issues 

of the specific University and the population it serves. To add to the response under item 7 

above, NEEScomm EOT provides support to various ES through supplemental funding 

projects, requests for assistance, NEESacademy resources, meetings and workshops. Issues 

that required NEEScomm direction are discussed with the ES EOT coordinator and 

operations manager as necessary. At this particular site, the chair of the EOT subcommittee 

for the Project Advisory Committee is the EOT coordinator of the ES therefore little 

direction from NEEScomm is necessary. 

Opportunities that Could Strengthen Facility Operations 

• This ES has great potential for uncovering the multi-‐axial behavior of structures undergoing 

damage due to seismic loading through testing programs past 2014. 

Site Response: The ES agrees with this opportunity. See the ES response to 

Recommendation 1. 

• The ES has the opportunity now to cultivate connections that can provide support in the 

future – post-‐2014—and facilitate an effective use of the facility. 

Site Response: The ES agrees with this opportunity. But feels it needs to work with the 

University to develop a business plan before it can work on cultivating connections that can 

provide support in the future. See the ES response to Recommendation 1. 

• The ES has the opportunity to promote the use of the facility by publishing articles on 

experimental methods related to multi-‐axial testing. This effort would help position the ES 

as the technical leader in multi-‐axial testing, ground motion, and structural response. 

Site Response: The ES has already published many conference proceedings on the 

capabilities of the MAST laboratory. The ES staff has not been developing experimental 

methods; those have been developed by the projects and are the intellectual property of 

those projects. The ES facilitates tests, it does not have IP rights in the results of those tests 

8 


(and hence in the data to understand structural response). The ES will suggest to 

NEESComm that they seek a special volume of Earthquake Spectra dedicated to showcasing 

the capabilities of the NEES Laboratories. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm can certainly investigate the possibility of showcases in 

trade magazines. 

• The ES EOT activities with underrepresented groups have the potential to be a model for 

the NEES network. 

Site Response: The ES is working with NEESComm EOT to share practices and materials used 

at the site. NEESComm EOT is setting up monthly meetings in addition to the annual 

meetings to facilitate communications and sharing among the sites. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm EOT is now holding monthly meetings with the 

equipment sites. It is an opportunity to share with the network all the great things going on 

in the network. 

Threats to the Success of Facility Operations 

• The uncertainty of federal support past 2014 is the major threat. 

Site Response: The ES agrees that this is the largest threat for the ES. See the ES response 

to Recommendation 1. 

NEEScomm Response: NEEScomm wholeheartedly agrees that this issue is the biggest 

threat network-‐wide. 

• The university policy of having to provide a two-‐year notice for termination of non-‐civil 

service employees seriously hampers the ability of the ES to retain key staff members after 

October 2012. 

Site Response: University policy on notice of non-‐renewal varies by time of service. The 

only staff member that requires longer than a 6 month notice of non-‐renewal is Mr. 

Bergson. As discussed in the ES response to Recommendation 5, the Chair of the 

Department of Civil Engineering has committed to providing one year of funding for Mr. 

Bergson after the end of NSF funding. The ES does not believe that the University policy is 

the threat. The threat is the uncertainty of federal support past 2014. The ES Staff have 

been made aware that if NSF funding is not continued past 2014, it is likely that their jobs 

will be terminated. The University policy changes this only by having to issue formal non-renewal 

notices at specific times. The staff jobs and staff retention are at risk regardless of 

the University Policy. 

• The lack of a stable source of funds for Annualized Equipment Maintenance (AEM) 

negatively impacts the operation of the ES. 

9 


Site Response: The ES agrees that this is a threat but is unable to address it with the budget 

it is receiving from NEESComm without negatively affecting the current operations (i.e. 

cutting staff). 

• The passive approach taken by NEEScomm in EOT is damaging and limits the impacts of ES 

EOT across the network. 

Site Response: The ES believes NEESComm needs to respond to this threat 

NEEScomm Response: The real threat to EOT across the network is the lack of funding 

necessary to hire EOT coordinators at each site. Most of the sites EOT functions are under 

the purview of the Site Operations Manager whose responsibilities are widespread across 

all management functions such as scheduling, safety, operations, budgeting and various 

other duties and not with EOT. Thus, EOT is usually relegated to others as collateral duties, 

when time or opportunity permits, or to graduate students who may or may not have an 

interest in EOT type activities. The most successful sites with well-‐coordinated, 

documented and measureable EOT activities, are those sites who have a specific, dedicated 

(albeit part-‐time) EOT coordinator, with adequate funding, who has the responsibility for 

managing a well designed and run EOT program. Currently, funding constraints at the sites 

would allow at least a part-‐time EOT coordinator, but at the expense of reduced funding to 

support research projects, safety and site operations. Having a designated EOT coordinator 

at the sites would allow for more communication from NEEScomm and between EOT 

coordinators at the sites. It would also provide a strong working group within the EOT 

component of NEES to build, share, cooperate and collaborate both between sites and 

among sites. 

• The lack of future business models and pursuit of future support is a threat. 

Site Response: The ES agrees that this is a threat and is working on developing a feasible 

business model for post 2014 operations. For additional information, see the ES response 

to Recommendation 1. 

E. Best Practices/Effective from this Facility that would benefit Other NEES Facilities 

• The ES use of an external company experienced in construction safety to conduct an annual 

"OSHA-‐friendly" safety audit is outstanding. 

• The ES proactive leadership in the development of a thorough, collaborative, detailed test 

plan for research projects is key to the great success of the facility and all researchers who 

use it. 

• The ES safety plan is thorough, well-‐documented, and has resulted in an exemplary safety 

record. 

10 


• The ES commitment to the NEES network is outstanding. The ES, when fully staffed, 

provides approximately half-‐time IT support to NEEScomm, and ES technical staff visits 

other NEES sites annually. 

• The research project posters currently in development at this ES are very well-‐done and set 

the standard for a network-‐wide effort. These posters should be widely distributed (via 

NEEScomm) to increase knowledge about and support for NEES. 

• This ES operates at an outstanding level of transparency and integrity. 

F. NSF Merit Review Criterion: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? 

(F1 – F7 incorporates: How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within 

its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the 

project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the 

proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well 

conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?) 

F.1 Interactions between NEEScomm and Facility 

Reviewers: please provide your review by addressing the criteria below in an integrated text rather than addressing 

each criterion separately. 

a. What is the quality of the interactions between NEEScomm and the facility to form a productive working 

partnership for all aspects of operations? 

b. Does NEEScomm provide adequate oversight of this facility’s operations and are adequate controls in place for 

tracking performance at the network-‐level? 

c. What is the quality of interactions of the facility with the other 13 facilities to make NEES into a network rather 

than a collection of individual and independently operating facilities? 

d. Is there evidence that the facility provides NEEScomm with facility information and/or participation needed for 

NEEScomm to meet the NSF reporting and review requirements? 

e. How has the facility helped to advance network-‐wide capabilities, in terms of experimental or software 

capabilities? 

f. How well does the facility coordinate the scheduling of shared-‐use research and education projects with the 

NEEScomm? 

Overall, the interactions between NEEScomm and the MAST Facility have been good with 

cooperation between the two resulting in a good working partnership with respect to 

operations and communication between the two entities. A NEEScomm review of the MAST 

facility was performed in September 2011. The five review areas were EH&S, Facility 

Management, Budget, IT, and EOT. In the area of EH&S, a recommendation was to work with 

UMn’s office to implement suggestions from the safety audit and a best practice was the use of 

an experienced outside source for construction safety to conduct an independent annual safety 

audit. 

NEEScomm recommended that plans be submitted to mitigate the space issues. These space 

issues are primarily based on the lack of space for staging of specimens, construction of 

specimens, and storage of equipment and apparatus. Other sections of this report contain 

more about these issues. 

NEEScomm provides some oversight to the facility’s operations. User surveys are in place for 

11 


the tracking of performance; however, NEEScomm needs to share these evaluations with the ES 

in a more timely fashion. NEEScomm needs to provide EOT support to the MAST personnel. 

Also, NEEScomm needs to provide feedback and suggested guidance on EOT activities, based 

upon experiences from other research and education institutions. 

In general, the quality of the interactions of the MAST facility personnel has been excellent as 

demonstrated by the travel of two staff members each year to another NEES facility site to 

exchange experiences and knowledge, such as the sharing of the Krypton (and new-‐named 

camera sensors) and Real-‐time Data Viewer (RDV) technology. 

F.2 Overall Facility Operations 



a. Does the facility operate with annual facility goals, work breakdown structure (WBS), work plan, priorities, and 

performance metrics that lead to effective site operations? 

b. Does the facility operate as a shared-‐use facility, available for experimentation on site or in the field and 

through telepresence, for researchers from other organizations? This includes providing equipment, 

instrumentation, and sensors; data acquisition; local data storage; technician support; information technology; 

space for specimen construction and demolition; and office space for visiting faculty and students. How are 

priorities for shared use time decided among NEEScomm, the facility, and the users, and has this been an 

effective approach? 

c. What is the evidence that the facility complies with all university, government, and/or awardee required 

environmental, safety, and health standards, regulations, and monitoring requirements, including maintaining 

safety equipment and web-‐posted safety plans that facility staff and users must follow. 

d. Did the facility meet the NSF GPRA goal of operational at least 90% of the past year? If not, did the site 

adequately address this in the annual work plan for next year’s operations? 

This ES operates exceptionally well. Users of this ES cited the "superior support, and I have used 

3 NEES sites. This is the best." and "very good coordination and very good communication." The 

ES is a standalone facility that is very well run, and is recognized throughout the user 

community as being a very desirable laboratory to utilize. As such, it is completely booked 

through 2014 with NEESR projects. The last NEESR grants that will use this ES were awarded in 

2010; since then, the ES and NEESR have been turning away requests. This level of demand and 

successful performance are the greatest evidence of effective, high-‐quality operation as a 

shared-‐use facility. 

This ES has a straightforward, yet flexible Annual Work Plan (AWP), based on a sensible WBS 

and performance metrics. The flexibility is necessary, since the final AWP depends on feedback 

from the NEES Site Scheduling Committee. Planning and performance at this ES are of such high 

caliber that they easily deal with the annual schedule uncertainty, and even managed to add a 

short, high profile experiment during an unanticipated schedule opening in 2011. This ES has 

met or exceeded its GPRA goal of being operational at least 90% of the time every year since 

2007, and averages 94% for the past 5 years. 

The ES staff works with all funded research teams to develop thorough, realistic test plans that 

insure all necessary and appropriate staffing (research team and ES), equipment, 

instrumentation, and telepresence are in place as the test begins. This planning also insures 

that all desired data are collected and stored successfully. The ES provides working space for 

12 


visitors and specimen construction and demolition, but both types are limited. The control 

room is adequate, but crowded. The size of the specimen construction/demolition/storage 

space is a serious issue. It is simply too small and may be a limiting factor for future success. 

This is a unique facility to test large structures, yet there is no "boneyard" or capability to 

construct multiple very large test "swap in-‐swap out" structures simultaneously. A storage 

mezzanine is a necessary improvement. Longer-‐term facility success will likely require a larger 

facility footprint. 

The ES Safety Plan is exemplary. The well-‐documented Safety Plan (posted on the web) includes 

annual updating, equipment inspections, a "surprise, OHSA-‐friendly" safety inspection by an 

independent construction safety consultant, and staff safety training. The ES has a zero-violation 

safety record for all years with one minor incident years ago, which was easily 

corrected and not repeated. 

13 


F.3 Staffing 



a. Does the facility operate with well qualified personnel? [Staffing at each facility may include a site Principal 

Investigator, a full-‐time site operations manager, a full-‐time information technology administrator, 

technician(s), and other technical staff.] 

b. Are the duties of each faculty and staff position at the facility clearly identified and is the need for each position 

justified from the WBS and annual work plan? 

c. Has there been turnover in facility staff, and if so, how has this impacted operations? 

d. If the facility employs a post-‐doc(s), is the mentoring plan(s) being effectively implemented? 

The PI, co-‐PIs and senior staff are highly qualified and extremely dedicated. The duties of each 

position are clearly identified and the role of each staff member is well justified as 

demonstrated in the WBS and AWP. 

Except for the currently vacant Telepresence Engineer position, there has been no significant 

turnover in staffing at the MAST site. The PI, co-‐PIs, SOM and safety officer, and IT manager 

have been serving in their positions since almost the start of operations at MAST. While the 

vacancy in Telepresence has been temporarily filled by delegating more duties to the IT 

manager, filling this vacancy is greatly needed to allow for the development of crack detection 

technology and to alleviate the overload on the IT manager. 

The current project engineers/managers at MAST exhibited enthusiasm about their assigned 

duties and showed a thorough knowledge of safety and operation protocols of the facility. 

However, due to long-‐term career uncertainties associated with the nature of the project 

manager position, the PIs may need to provide long-‐term career mentoring. 

The facility does not employ post-‐docs. 

F.4 Equipment 



a. Does the facility maintain an inventory of equipment, instrumentation, sensors, personnel, documentation, 

contact information, and other information for users in a network-‐wide facility database? 

b. Does all the equipment in the inventory currently function for its intended use? 

c. Have there been any major equipment failures or losses, and if so, how is repair or replacement being handled? 

d. Does the facility adequately ensure the physical security of all equipment hardware? Is equipment inventory 

control adequately handled? 

e. What is the quality of the plan for maintaining all equipment, instrumentation, sensors, software, data 

acquisition, computers, and documentation developed or acquired during the MREFC or operations phases, 

including routine calibrations? 

In general, the SVT found the inventory, availability, maintenance, replacement (as needed), 

and security of the equipment at the ES to be exemplary. The inventory of equipment is readily 

available on the ES web site and in the ES’ Proposal Writer’s Guide. The inventory is easy to find 

and accurate. Contact information relevant to visitors as well as proposers is also easy to find 

on the ES web site. 

The ES team has been extremely conscientious in insuring the equipment continues to function 

14 


over the life of the site. No major equipment failures or losses have occurred. The PI at the ES 

takes a proactive policy stance to insure all equipment (particularly easily damaged sensors) is 

repaired when it is broken, not when the equipment is next needed. The ES project 

engineers/managers follow through on this policy as evidenced by user feedback, direct tour of 

the laboratory by the SVT, and the response of the project engineers/managers to questions 

from a member of the SVT. Such a policy is highly commendable. 

The ES project engineers/managers also handle all check-‐in/check-‐out of the equipment and 

inventory control. Since the ES is a standalone facility, this process is relatively straightforward. 

The willingness of the ES staff to handle the break down and check-‐in of equipment after a test 

(as the graduate student or PI conducting the tests then pivots towards processing the data, 

going back to their home institution, etc.) is commendable, and demonstrates an awareness of 

practical details required for smooth running of the facility. 

Physical security of the facility is maintained by: its standalone status, the fact only a small 

number of people have access to the facility, strict rules about the presence of ES (MAST) staff 

at all times, the fact that the laboratory keeps regular hours (after hours work, testing, etc., is 

rare and always in the presence of staff), and a simple first-‐in last-‐out lock the doors strategy. 

The ES maintains an excellent “Guide to Maintenance, Calibration, and Repair of the MAST Test 

System Equipment” that was shared with the SVT. This guide provides a comprehensive plan for 

maintaining all equipment at the ES – equipment is interpreted broadly to cover all aspects of 

the ES facility spanning from the 6-‐DOF MTS hydraulic equipment, through the sensors and data 

acquisition, and construction equipment, as well as the office equipment and physical facility. 

For each item, maintenance, calibration (as appropriate), and repair plans are documented, and 

have been employed over the life of the ES. 

Calibration is completed with care at the ES. The calibration procedure for the major equipment 

(which is not every year) is appropriate given the nature of the equipment and the downtime 

cost. The SVT is cognizant that standards of calibration (e.g., ISO standards) are becoming more 

rigorous in the profession, and the ES is encouraged to stay current even if they themselves are 

not certified (note, ISO laboratory certification is not expected by the SVT). The practice of 

using graduate students for all sensor calibration is regarded as an important item by the SVT. 

The SVT encourages the ES to: (1) keep their internal “LVDT Calibration Procedure” document 

(mentioned in the EOT presentation page 15) up to ISO 17025 standards; (2) insure ES staff are 

fully aware of the ISO 17025 standards, including analysis of measurement error, and able to 

oversee the graduate student performing calibration; and (3) have ES staff spot check a 

practical number of graduate student performed calibrations. The ES is conscientious and 

careful with regard to calibration; these recommendations are made in the spirit of the ES 

maintaining its position as the gold standard with respect to structural testing. 

Covering the expenses for AEM has, and continues, to require significant financial gymnastics 

by the ES PI. To date, the PI has managed to maintain AEM funding, but this remains a 

challenge going forward. The SVT is concerned that sufficient funds need to be made available 

from NEEScomm for this activity. This item is discussed further in F.6. 

15 


F.5 Information Technology Operations 



a. Is all the facility software functioning? 

b. Does the facility adequately maintain all facility software, including version control? 

c. Does the facility have an adequate plan for overall data management? 

d. Does the facility have a functioning high performance Internet2 connection? 

e. What is the quality of telepresence capabilities at the facility, and is telepresence being utilized? 

f. Does the facility comply with NEEScomm’s cybersecurity requirements, and its own institutional requirements? 

Does the facility know who to contact if there is an incident? 

The MAST ES is engaged in the development and customization of data-‐acquisition, actuator 

control, and data visualization software for its laboratory, for NEES at large, and for a much 

broader scientific community. In doing so, the laboratory maintains full functionality of the 

basic resources fundamental for any equipment site (data acquisition, telepresence, data 

visualization, web services, and backup). 

The ES is currently the lead developer of the RDV. RDV enables the display and analysis of 

time-‐synchronized data (including numerical, textual, video, audio and still images) in user-customizable 

formats, including XY, time-‐history, and 3D plots. RDV is becoming the standard 

interface for browsing and interpreting large and complex data sets archived at NEEShub and 

for viewing data remotely during experiments. In the months that MAST has led the 

development of RDV, it has expanded in functionality through the addition of several new 

features. The user base for RDV is now expanding beyond earthquake engineering, and the ES 

personnel have recently expanded RDV functionality for researchers in biology and 

environmental sciences. 

MAST staff have developed data acquisition software, built upon a library of publicly available 

data-‐acquisition API's. This software enables a test-‐by-‐test customization of the data-‐display 

during tests. Additional custom software has extended the capability of commercial multi-‐axis 

hydraulic actuator control systems, designed for shake tables, for quasi-‐static ramp-‐and-‐hold 

tests. 

Additional data management software tools developed by MAST IT staff include Data Turbine 

Utilities, FlexTPS, and the PEN tool. 

ES staff has been active in guiding the development of these data acquisition, control, and 

visualization tools, which are now becoming relatively mature. Versions of the source code 

have been tracked and saved through sub-‐versioning and bug-‐tracking systems. The ES 

maintains redundant hardware testbeds so that laboratory staff can verify the functionality of 

new versions prior to implementation in the laboratory. 

Telepresence equipment includes ten video cameras, four still cameras, and six microphones. 

Video cameras, still cameras, and microphones are installed on four towers that can be placed 

anywhere within the laboratory. Motorized platforms attached to the towers can be used to 

adjust height of the cameras and microphones. Two additional video cameras provide a broad 

16 


view of the laboratory. The pan, tilt, and zoom of video cameras may be adjusted via web 

browsers. Further, software developed by MAST staff enables the remote monitoring and 

control of the laboratory hydraulics by submitting new target displacements and pausing the 

test at will. After receiving training in the telepresence operations, offsite researchers have 

capitalized on these capabilities by executing and monitoring tests remotely. 

The connection to Internet2 via hardware firewalls adheres to the University's cyber-‐security 

standards. 

In terms of managing the information technology operations, the ES has instituted an 

automated multi-‐layer backup scheme (nightly, weekly, and monthly) of all software and data 

to tape with off-‐site storage. ES staff uploads raw experimental data to off-‐site hard drives 

prior to uploading the data to NEEShub. Raw data is retained on ES servers for one year after 

the end of each experiment. The ES is strongly encouraged to develop a remote back-‐up 

particularly for ES system operations. Current off-‐site back-‐up status is not adequate. 

ES staff has provided significant support to researchers in processing and formatting data to 

adhere to archival standards. 

F.6 Budget 



a. Is the facility’s operating budget for the current year well justified budget, in accordance with the WBS and 

annual work plans? Are expenditures tracked quarterly against the WBS? 

b. Given the budget for the prior year of operations and the allocations of different activities during the shared 

use time, were the budget and allocations justified? 

c. Does the facility appropriately account for Program Income? Does the facility assign appropriate proportion of 

the costs for preventive maintenance; calibration; repairs; and equipment, instrumentation, and sensor 

replacement and upgrades to the NSF-‐supported NEES operations award and to the university’s program 

income? 

d. Does the facility maintain an annualized equipment maintenance budget for upgrade or replacement of minor 

equipment, instrumentation, computers, and sensors, and how has this budget been spent during the past 

three years? 

e. Does the facility assign appropriate user fee structures for academic, industry, government, international, and 

other researchers for costs not covered by the NEES operations subaward? 

f. Do both NEEScomm and the facility have adequate budget controls in place for monitoring this facility’s 

operations? Who is responsible for monitoring this subaward budget at NEEScomm and at the facility? 

The overall budget appears appropriate and well managed. Management of the required work 

plans for the PI users of the MAST facility has been excellent. The ES PI tracks expenditures for 

the MAST operation on a regular basis and the allocations appear justified. 

The accounting is very good; the SVT supports the PI’s plan to train a CE department staff 

member for assistance. 

Funds need to be obtained for the construction of a storage mezzanine which will contribute to 

solving the space issues. The timeframe is such that this construction needs to be done ASAP. 

Funds to solve larger space issues at the ES should be pursued. 

17 


A plan for improving the lighting of the MAST Laboratory should be implemented. 

The AEM needs more planning than simply using the money saved from an open position. The 

goal of $300,000 seems reasonable; however, funds need to be set aside for the annual 

equipment and maintenance. 

There is no outside income from projects other than those from NSF. Therefore, there are no 

user fees for industry and others outside of the NSF domain. However, such fees should be 

developed for possible future activities after September 2014. 

Oversight by the Minnesota’s compliance program was recognized as a “best practice” by 

NEEScomm for purchase order, personnel activity reports, and general compliance procedures. 

F.7 Usage and User Support 



a. Has the facility been well used during its lifetime? Has there been use of the site by funding agencies (federal, 

state, or local) other than NSF or by the private sector? What has been the shared use allocation time during 

the lifetime of the facility, and during the past year, for: research projects; education, outreach and training 

activities; maintenance; and other activities? 

b. What is the quality of support that the facility provides to users during all phases of experimentation, which 

may including planning, instrumentation set-‐up, testing protocols, testing, local data archiving, and centrally 

archiving experimental data (users are responsible for curation and permanent data archival in the NEES data 

repository)? 

c. What is the quality of interactions that users have had with facility staff? 

d. Has the facility accommodated remote users through telepresence capabilities and on site visits? Are there 

adequate resources for guest users, e.g., office space, computer accounts, etc., as needed? 

The MAST ES is highly regarded for maintaining and operating an active laboratory in support of 

NSF-‐funded NEES research. The ES has served NSF-‐funded NEES research exclusively. The ES 

has followed preventative maintenance schedules, which involve NIST-‐traceable load-‐cell 

calibration, MTS service of actuators, servo-‐valves, pumps, and the cooling tower, and user-calibration 

of string-‐pots and LVDTs. Because of this, the site has had only four days of 

unscheduled downtime in its seven years of service. To minimize testing delays, the ES is 

absolutely strict in requiring that researchers establish detailed test plans prior to test 

scheduling. The ES works closely with researchers in this process by scheduling teleconferences 

and WebEx meetings every other week. 

Users are uniformly grateful for the proactive approach and the attention the ES gives to 

coordinating their projects. Users have been “extremely impressed” by the professionalism 

that the ES employs in negotiating the gray areas of ES/researcher responsibilities. According 

to one researcher, the MAST ES is “superior in respect to all my experiences with the NEES 

laboratories.” During the fabrication, installation and instrumentation of test specimens, ES 

staff works directly with graduate students of the offsite research team. Another researcher 

remarked that the MAST ES staff has contributed to experiments in ways that the technical staff 

at his institution would not. Overall, interactions between the ES staff and users have been 

18 


“outstanding.” Users have made full use of the ES telepresence capabilities. In one case, a 

researcher indicated a preference for attending tests in person; however, the MAST facility is 

short on control room space, but does provide office space and Internet access for visiting 

researchers. 

G. NSF Merit Review Criterion: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? 

How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? 

How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, 

disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as 

facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance 

scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? 

1. What is the quality of the facility web site? Does is have current information for users, including any user 

fees? 

2. How has the facility participated in education and outreach activities coordinated by the NEEScomm (e.g., 

REUs) or locally organized by the institution and facility, and what has been the impact of those activities? 

Have any of the activities broadened the participation of underrepresented groups in science and engineering? 

3. Has the facility provided periodic facility training workshops? How many new users have been trained during 

the past year on the use of the facility? What training materials has the facility developed and what is the 

quality of these materials? 

The ES is commended for addressing broader impacts in the professional area as well as in the 

areas of serving educators and the general public. The SVT recognizes the significant effort this 

work demands from a small but high quality ES team. 

The contributions in the professional area were highlighted by the recent slab-‐column tests 

conducted in the facility that have the potential to contribute to building code changes. The 

dialog developing in leading journals regarding the test findings is very promising. 

The work in FY 2008 with the four teachers from Fond du Lac and the participation in their 

district camp for 40 students engaging them in earthquake engineering related activities are 

praiseworthy. The lessons learned from this work are well stated and should guide the 

continuation of ongoing work with this Native American community beyond current visits to 

the ES. The ES explored ways to work with Project Lead the Way. This exploration is also 

promising and praiseworthy. However, no explanation has been provided as to why this 

opportunity to build the STEM pipeline was not developed into a valuable EOT project for the 

ES. 

The high level of education and outreach activity is reflected in their annual reports. The budget 

for EOT at 1% of that for the ES is limited, and so the site is commended for accomplishing 

multiple activities viewed as high impact by the ES with limited funds. 

The ES participation in the network REU project and contributions to multiple network 

activities, including the co-‐PI leading the EOT PAC, demonstrate commitment to network 

collaboration. Multiple other forms of contribution to the network are well documented. 

Outreach to researchers has been achieved through workshops and full scheduling of 

laboratory time through 2014. The SVT recommends that these workshops be continued and 

19 


University of Nevada Reno NSF Site Visit 

Review and Responses | O 



Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation 

Cooperative Agreement CMMI-0927178 - NEES Operations FY 2010 – FY 2014 

Purdue University: Dr. Julio Ramirez 

Site Visit Review of NEES Operations: NEES Facility Operated by University of Nevada, Reno 

Dr. Ian Buckle, PI 

February 22-23, 2012 

Site Visit Team 

SITE VISIT REPORT 

Dr. Adam Crewe 

Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering 

Bristol, UK 

Dr. Vijaya Gopu 

Professor and Edward G. Schlieder 

Endowed Chair in Civil Engineering 

Louisiana Transportation Research Center 

University of New Orleans 

New Orleans, LA 

Dr. Kent Harries 

Associate Professor 

Structural Engineering and Mechanics 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

University of Pittsburgh 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Dr. Sami Masri 

Professor 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

University of Southern California 

Los Angeles, CA 

Dr. Rudolf Seracino 


Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental 

Engineering 

North Carolina State University 

Raleigh, NC 

Dr. Kaye Shedlock 

Consultant 

Golden, CO 

Dr. Joann Jacullo-Noto 

Director, M.A.T. Program 

Caspersen School of Graduate Studies 

Drew University 

Madison, NJ 

National Science Foundation Staff 

Dr. Joy Pauschke (Site Visit Coordinator) 

NEES Program Director 

Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation 

1 


A. Summary of Site Visit: One paragraph summarizing date and location of site visit and major 

activities during the site visit (e.g., observed an experiment being conducted, visited a field site, met 

with users, etc.). 

A site visit review of the NEES Large-Scale Structures Laboratory (LSSL), operated by the University of 

Nevada at Reno (UNR), was conducted on February 22-23, 2012, at the UNR campus. On the first day, 

the site visit team (SVT) met with equipment site (ES) and NEEScomm staff. After welcoming remarks 

from the UNR Dean of the College of Engineering and the Chair of the Civil and Environmental 

Engineering Department, the ES PI presented an overview of the LSSL. Afterwards, the SVT visited the 

LSSL and inspected the test facility. The ES PI explained to the SVT the unique features and capabilities 

of the test facility. The ES staff subjected a prototype, a 40% scale model of a three-span curved bridge 

supported on four shake tables, to a series of different earthquake motions. The tests demonstrated 

the unique capabilities of the facility. The ES PI and staff discussed the measures taken in the facility to 

ensure safety of the staff and students. The challenges involved in maintaining high level of utilization 

of the shake tables became evident from witnessing the tests. 

Following the tour, the ES staff provided an overview of the ES operations, cyberinfrastructure, and 

education, outreach and training (EOT) activities. After the staff presentations, the NEEScomm Director 

discussed the value and contributions of the NEES network. The SVT listened to the presentations made 

by two users – one internal and one external to UNR – regarding the work they conducted at the ES and 

their experiences in interacting with the ES staff. The ES PI presented an overview of the November 

2011 NEEScomm site visit report and the response of the ES to the recommendations made in the 

report. In the day’s final presentation, the ES PI discussed the broader impacts of NEES at UNR and 

presented a SWOT analysis for the ES. Adequate time was allowed for Q&A. There was considerable 

interaction between the SVT and the ES team during the review. At the end of the day, the SVT 

provided the ES a list of questions to address overnight. 

The ES staff provided responses to the questions at the beginning of the second day, and this was 

followed by additional discussion among the SVT and ES teams. The SVT then went into closed session 

to develop summary recommendations. During the second day, the SVT had the opportunity to witness 

a few additional tests conducted on the prototype curved bridge. A debriefing by NSF and the SVT was 

provided to NEEScomm and the ES at the end of the second day. 

The SVT appreciates that the documentation provided in the ES briefing booklet was of a very high 

quality, well presented, and very useful to facilitate the SVT’s evaluation. 

B. Site Visit Team Recommendation (check one of the following outcomes) 

__X_ Continue facility operations, with minor issues to be addressed 

____ Continue facility operations, with major issues to be addressed 

____ Phase down facility operations (specify period for phase-down) 

2 


C. Summary Recommendations and Areas for Improvement (with recommended schedule for 

completion) 

1. This ES is very likely to have a post-2014 future by simply continuing to do what they have been 

doing. The SVT recommends that the management address the minor issues cited, broaden and 

strengthen their community profile and user base, and continue to produce outstanding 

experimental results. 

2. NEEScomm is not integrating this ES and others into a comprehensive program for EOT activity 

development and assessment. The persistence of this situation is significantly limiting the collection 

of evidence of impacts achieved through systematic assessment of EOT. 

3. A retention plan should be developed for the ES’ highly qualified staff through FY 2014. 

4. The ES should implement better internal systems for monitoring and invoicing external program 

income. 

5. Update the ES web site to be current. 

D. SWOT ANALYSIS 

Strengths and Major Accomplishments of Facility Operations (include any landmark experiments that 

could not have been done without the facility) 

The primary strengths of the ES are the facility itself and its personnel. The facility is state-of-theart 

and unique in terms of its array of four reconfigurable shake tables supported by robust 

instrumentation, DAQ, and cyberinfrastructure. Further, the facility would not be as successful as it 

is if it were not for the high level of competence of the staff and the leadership of the management 

team. 

Several of their projects are examples of landmark experiments that could not have been possible 

without the facility and the personnel. These include the current 40% scale three-span curvedbridge 

project and the development of unique two-dimensional mass rigs to provide inertial loads. 

The overall quality of the ES’ work and its reputation is demonstrated by the site’s ability to 

leverage funding from NIST and DOE for the construction of a new building, which will enhance its 

strengths. 

The site is an active member of the NEES program and is well supported by all levels of the UNR 

administration. 

Weaknesses in Facility Operations 

Lack of diversity in the research project portfolio. While the ES is conducting excellent state-of-theart 

tests on bridge structures, it would be of value to increase the types of structures tested. 

Absence of a robust post-2014 business plan. 

3 


Lack of a strategic plan from NEEScomm to enhance outreach to practitioners and involvement of 

underrepresented groups that integrates site EOT activities. 

Lack of an integrated plan and support from NEEScomm in the EOT area; in particular, the 

unavailability of network-wide assessment methods/practices. 

Opportunities that Could Strengthen Facility Operations 

The ES has the opportunity to engage in research work on non-structural extended systems. 

The ES has an excellent opportunity to market its capabilities to a worldwide clientele. This effort 

will enable the ES to position itself as the leader in multi-shake table testing. 

If cost effective, in order to attract additional industry funding, the ES should consider securing ISO 

certification for the laboratory. 

Threats to the Success of Facility Operations 

The lack of a proactive approach by NEEScomm in EOT is limiting the impact of ES EOT activities 

across the NEES network. 

E. Best Practices/Effective from this Facility that would benefit Other NEES Facilities 

The extensive ES technical staff cross-training is outstanding. 

The fully automated data acquisition system contributes greatly to the success of this ES. 

Another best practice is the automated calibration and storage of calibration information. 

The ES has a very good safety program, including an admirably comprehensive safety manual. 

The collaboration with ES users is excellent. The equipment tracking list, operations internal 

tracking, and related planning procedures are key to the successful management of large-scale and 

complex research projects at this ES. 

The SVT agrees with the best practices cited by the NEESComm 2011 site visit report, especially the 

strong IT collaboration, the use of SAP, and the comprehensive IT inventory. 

F. NSF Merit Review Criterion: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? 

(F1 – F7 incorporates: How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within 

its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the 

project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the 

proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well 

conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?) 

4 


F.1 Interactions between NEEScomm and Facility 

a. What is the quality of the interactions between NEEScomm and the facility to form a productive working 

partnership for all aspects of operations? 

b. Does NEEScomm provide adequate oversight of this facility’s operations and are adequate controls in place for 

tracking performance at the network-level? 

c. What is the quality of interactions of the facility with the other 13 facilities to make NEES into a network rather 

than a collection of individual and independently operating facilities? 

d. Is there evidence that the facility provides NEEScomm with facility information and/or participation needed for 

NEEScomm to meet the NSF reporting and review requirements? 

e. How has the facility helped to advance network-wide capabilities, in terms of experimental or software 

capabilities? 

f. How well does the facility coordinate the scheduling of shared-use research and education projects with the 

NEEScomm? 

The ES is interacting with NEEScomm in a satisfactory manner to form a strong and productive 

partnership that is achieving the broad aims of NEES with the exception of EOT activities. Specifically, 

this facility has helped to advance the network-wide capabilities, in the experimental field (by assisting 

several other NEES facilities such as Buffalo and UCSD), as well as developing useful software tools to 

enhance the display and synchronization of time-stamped video and sensor data (the Data Video 

Viewer). 

NEEScomm should provide the site with further assistance in education projects and EOT 

standardized/simplified assessment procedures. Furthermore, the SVT recommends that NEEScomm 

develop a more streamlined system of reporting, so as to reduce the apparently cumbersome 

procedures that are currently in use. 

F.2 Overall Facility Operations 

a. Does the facility operate with annual facility goals, work breakdown structure (WBS), work plan, priorities, and 

performance metrics that lead to effective site operations? 

b. Does the facility operate as a shared-use facility, available for experimentation on site or in the field and 

through telepresence, for researchers from other organizations? This includes providing equipment, 

instrumentation, and sensors; data acquisition; local data storage; technician support; information technology; 

space for specimen construction and demolition; and office space for visiting faculty and students. How are 

priorities for shared use time decided among NEEScomm, the facility, and the users, and has this been an 

effective approach? 

c. What is the evidence that the facility complies with all university, government, and/or awardee required 

environmental, safety, and health standards, regulations, and monitoring requirements, including maintaining 

safety equipment and web-posted safety plans that facility staff and users must follow. 

d. Did the facility meet the NSF GPRA goal of operational at least 90% of the past year? If not, did the site 

adequately address this in the annual work plan for next year’s operations? 

The ES operates efficiently and effectively, guided by a work plan and WBS based on clear annual facility 

goals. The ES is a shared use facility that has been fully utilized throughout its lifetime. Demand from 

NSF, other government agencies, and industry has been high, and the ES has generally been able to 

accommodate it. 

The ES provides well maintained equipment, instrumentation, automated data acquisition and storage, 

and telepresence, and most importantly, a first-rate staff. Specimen construction and visitor office 

space is adequate. Construction of a new lab, including increased specimen construction space and 

improved visitor accommodation, is underway. 

5 


Priorities for shared use time are initially determined by ES staff, with NEESR projects receiving highest 

priority. The ES schedule recommendations go to the scheduling committee for finalization. The ES 

maintains flexibility to insert appropriate short projects when time becomes available. This has been an 

effective approach throughout the life of this ES. 

Safety is a high priority at this ES. The effectiveness of its approach is evident in the excellent safety 

record. Employees are trained in safety procedures when hired, and safety consciousness is part of the 

daily operating procedures. Updated training occurs regularly and as needed by laboratory changes. 

The ES has averaged 90% operational (its GPRA goal) for the past five years, and is on track to exceed 

that this year, as it did last year. 

F.3 Staffing 

a. Does the facility operate with well qualified personnel? [Staffing at each facility may include a site Principal 

Investigator, a full-time site operations manager, a full-time information technology administrator, 

technician(s), and other technical staff.] 

b. Are the duties of each faculty and staff position at the facility clearly identified and is the need for each 

position justified from the WBS and annual work plan? 

c. Has there been turnover in facility staff, and if so, how has these impacted operations? 

d. If the facility employs a post-doc(s), is the mentoring plan(s) being effectively implemented? 

The ES operates efficiently with a relatively small but remarkably well-qualified staff. Some concern was 

raised within the SVT that there is little redundancy, particularly with respect the detailed technical 

operation of the facility. Mitigating this concern, however, is the reported cross-training of the 

technical staff, the degree of which appears to be exemplary. The ES appears to have addressed the 

previous (NEESComm) concern with redundancy in the IT aspects of the ES. 

The part-time EOT coordinator is currently overburdened. NEEScomm should provide additional 

support and assistance with assessment of EOT at this site. 

The SVT recommends that a retention plan be developed for their highly qualified staff through FY 

2014. Doing so may also help to mitigate the reported morale issues related to post-2014 uncertainty. 

F.4 Equipment 

a. Does the facility maintain an inventory of equipment, instrumentation, sensors, personnel, documentation, 

contact information, and other information for users in a network-wide facility database? 

b. Does all the equipment in the inventory currently function for its intended use? 

c. Have there been any major equipment failures or losses, and if so, how is repair or replacement being handled? 

d. Does the facility adequately ensure the physical security of all equipment hardware? Is equipment inventory 

control adequately handled? 

e. What is the quality of the plan for maintaining all equipment, instrumentation, sensors, software, data 

acquisition, computers, and documentation developed or acquired during the MREFC or operations phases, 

including routine calibrations? 

This ES is a unique facility, comprising four relocatable shake tables, which has been used to perform 

many innovative tests over the past few years. A site user’s guide, including detailed information about 

the site facilities, is available to help with design of tests and is available to all potential site users. The 

equipment is well maintained and a significant effort has been made to monitor and improve the 

performance of the test facility. This monitoring has meant that major equipment failures have been 

avoided by employing a program of planned maintenance. There have been some minor unanticipated 

6 


equipment failures, but because the ES keeps spares for many items, such as actuator control cards, 

down-time for the facility has been minimized. 

The ES maintains a good level of security and only trained staff is allowed to operate the shake tables 

and hydraulic actuators. The DAQ servers are also located in physically secure areas. A comprehensive 

inventory of all sensors exists (including photos to ease identification) and detailed specifications of the 

instruments are available on the ES web site. All the instrument locations are tracked and kept in 

locked storage when not in use. The instruments have also been upgraded to include TEDS 

functionality, which has improved the speed of test setup and reduced the potential for errors. The ES 

is continually looking at ways to improve efficiencies, an example being that the DAQ system turns itself 

on automatically at the start of a test, which eliminates the risk of data not being collected. 

A five-year replacement plan is in place to ensure the servers, teleconferencing equipment, DAQ and 

sensors are maintained. All sensors are calibrated annually (to nationally traceable standards) by local 

staff who have all the expertise necessary to fully maintain the whole system. The ES is essentially 

running an ISO system for instrumentation calibration, but the formal ISO paperwork is not in place. 

There is therefore an opportunity for the site to achieve formal accreditation, which would be of value 

to clients seeking commercial testing of products. 

In the near future, the shake tables will be moved to a new laboratory, including a larger fabrication 

yard, which will improve research throughput. The site will also be using the move as an opportunity to 

upgrade several aspects of shake table equipment. 

F.5 Information Technology Operations 

a. Is all the facility software functioning? 

b. Does the facility adequately maintain all facility software, including version control? 

c. Does the facility have an adequate plan for overall data management? 

d. Does the facility have a functioning high performance Internet2 connection? 

e. What is the quality of telepresence capabilities at the facility, and is telepresence being utilized? 

f. Does the facility comply with NEEScomm’s cybersecurity requirements, and its own institutional requirements? 

Does the facility know who to contact if there is an incident? 

a. Is the facility’s operating budget for the current year well justified budget, in accordance with the WBS and 

annual work plans? Are expenditures tracked quarterly against the WBS? 

b. Given the budget for the prior year of operations and the allocations of different activities during the shared 

use time, were the budget and allocations justified? 

c. Does the facility appropriately account for Program Income? Does the facility assign appropriate proportion of 

the costs for preventive maintenance; calibration; repairs; and equipment, instrumentation, and sensor 

replacement and upgrades to the NSF-supported NEES operations award and to the university’s program 

income? 

d. Does the facility maintain an annualized equipment maintenance budget for upgrade or replacement of minor 

equipment, instrumentation, computers, and sensors, and how has this budget been spent during the past 

three years? 

7 


e. Does the facility assign appropriate user fee structures for academic, industry, government, international, and 

other researchers for costs not covered by the NEES operations subaward? 

f. Do both NEEScomm and the facility have adequate budget controls in place for monitoring this facility’s 

operations? Who is responsible for monitoring this subaward budget at NEEScomm and at the facility? 

The ES maintains a well-defined annual work plan (AWP), which is split into various activities including 

support for research, maintenance, capacity building, etc. Budgets are defined for each activity and 

progress is tracked quarterly in each area. The costs reported in the last three ES annual work plans are 

all justified and appear reasonable with appropriate resources being allocated for the various activities. 

The single shake table move in FY11 did represent a significant proportion (approx. 20%) of the whole 

site budget, but this move was necessary to enable subsequent research projects. However, this does 

indicate that the cost of moving all four shake tables to the new building in 2013 is likely to form a large 

proportion of that year’s operating budget, and this is likely to impact the operation of the facility. 

The ES generates some external income from non-NEES projects, but it is not completely clear how the 

income from these projects is being accounted for. In its review, NEEScomm also identified that 

invoicing for this work was not timely, and the SVT echoes this concern. UNR is developing better 

internal systems for monitoring and invoicing external income, and the SVT recommends that these be 

implemented as soon as possible. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see that income coming from non- 

NEES projects is being used to supplement NEES funding and improve the capabilities of the facility. 

Fees for using the ES, based on an equivalent annual cost, are clearly stated on the ES web site and are 

broken down into facility and personnel costs. Fees for both NEESR and non-NEES users are clearly 

identified. The ES operations manager is monitoring the budget at very fine level, thereby minimizing 

the impact of any delays in testing. 

F.7 Usage and User Support 

a. Has the facility been well used during its lifetime? Has there been use of the site by funding agencies (federal, 

state, or local) other than NSF or by the private sector? What has been the shared use allocation time during 

the lifetime of the facility, and during the past year, for: research projects; education, outreach and training 

activities; maintenance; and other activities? 

b. What is the quality of support that the facility provides to users during all phases of experimentation, which 

may including planning, instrumentation set-up, testing protocols, testing, local data archiving, and centrally 

archiving experimental data (users are responsible for curation and permanent data archival in the NEES data 

repository)? 

c. What is the quality of interactions that users have had with facility staff? 

d. Has the facility accommodated remote users through telepresence capabilities and on site visits? Are there 

adequate resources for guest users, e.g., office space, computer accounts, etc., as needed? 

The ES has been operating at or very near capacity throughout its lifetime. It is worth noting that 

private sector projects have been turned-away due to the high demand and usage by projects funded 

by NSF and other agencies, such as FHWA. Maintenance activities are well planned and scheduled to 

minimize disruption. The LSSL is also the focal point for many EOT activities. The SVT is concerned that 

the projects appear to be highly UNR faculty centric. Efficiency of the site has improved significantly 

over time with the development and implementation of procedures for relocating shake tables, and the 

automated procedures for calibration and “plug-and-play” TEDS instrumentation. All aspects of the 

support provided by the ES are of a high standard and typically exceed what might be reasonably 

expected. All feedback from users was positive, albeit from a relatively small sample. Similarly, the 

telepresence capabilities and on-site facilities for visitors are of a high standard, and are likely to 

improve with the completion of the new building. 

8 


G. NSF Merit Review Criterion: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? 

How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? 

How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, 

disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as 

facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance 

scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? 

1. What is the quality of the facility web site? Does is have current information for users, including any user fees? 

2. How has the facility participated in education and outreach activities coordinated by the NEEScomm (e.g., 

REUs) or locally organized by the institution and facility, and what has been the impact of those activities? 

Have any of the activities broadened the participation of underrepresented groups in science and engineering? 

3. Has the facility provided periodic facility training workshops? How many new users have been trained during 

the past year on the use of the facility? What training materials has the facility developed and what is the 

quality of these materials? 

The research outcomes enabled by the ES are well established. The impact on code, standard and 

specification development is a clear measure of this. 

The ES has consistently provided outreach to the education community and the general public through 

the use of media coverage of ES events, tours for education groups at all levels (K-12 through college), 

and for international visitors. The use of summer camps as an effective outreach to the K-10 student 

group is one example of this effort. These science camps have been funded by NEEScomm for two 

different years from the EOT supplemental funds budget. The ES leverages a central UNR office, which 

manages several such camps at the university. The many tours the ES provides are also handled by a 

central university office that is providing schools with tours of multiple labs at the university. This is 

also an effective use of a university resource to provide the much needed assistance in logistics for 

outreach. 

The ES has participated well in network activities such as attendance at yearly NEES meetings, 

participation in monthly teleconference meetings of EOT coordinators, and other special day activities 

focused on careers in engineering. Participation in the network REU Project is positive. The ES is 

encouraged to continue these important education and outreach activities and expand the participation 

of underrepresented groups in them. 

The site has submitted proposals from 2008 to 2012 for EOT supplemental awards. This is positive and 

shows a willingness to conduct education and outreach using network funds. This should be continued. 

The ES has provided some researcher workshops in collaboration with other equipment sites engaged in 

similar research. Two such workshops were provided, and it was reported that two of the researchers 

in attendance did propose projects and received funding. The SVT raised questions regarding why 

additional researcher workshops were not provided and why an assessment of the training by those in 

attendance was not conducted. For 2011, a video of the 2010 workshop was provided on the web site 

rather than offering a workshop. Tracking the number of individuals who view this video should be 

conducted to determine whether this is effective. 

9 


A concern was raised regarding the late receipt of funding from the EOT Supplemental Fund. This 

resulted in a lost opportunity for the ES. The carry forward funds were not facilitated by NEEScomm in 

a timely manner. A plan for enabling this plan to move forward in EOT needs to be provided by 

NEEScomm. 

Outreach to underrepresented groups to ensure their participation is not conducted in a deliberate 

manner either through partnerships which the ES or NEEScomm has established. Tracking of 

participation of individuals from underrepresented groups for all EOT activities would significantly 

strengthen the evidence of achieved broader impacts for the ES. 

The assessment of EOT is not well addressed at this time. A plan for assessment is needed. Specific 

models of assessment for each identified type of activity, i.e., summer camps, workshops, etc., should 

be provided by NEEScomm to facilitate assessment work of EOT at this ES and others. 

The SVT recognizes the important EOT activities of the ES and commends the ES for persisting in 

providing EOT activities with good leadership. However, without a well-developed plan with EOT goals, 

objectives, and expected outcomes identified and then activities assessed according to these plans, 

NEEScomm lacks evidence of impacts achieved. The ES is not receiving adequate advice and support 

from NEEScomm in EOT planning and assessment. The ES and NEESComm are encouraged to engage an 

entity familiar with formalized assessment processes. Further, NEEScomm is not integrating this ES and 

others into a comprehensive program for EOT activity development and assessment. The persistence of 

this situation is significantly limiting the collection of evidence of impacts achieved through systematic 

assessment of EOT. 

Related to EOT, the SVT notes that the NEES@UNR web site appears to be about one year out of date in 

its EOT sections, four years out of date in its news archive and as many as five years “behind” in its 

publications listing. The online calendar is not populated, sending the “wrong message” to visitors to 

the web site. 

10 


Management, Operation and Maintenance of 

NEES@UNevada-‐Reno Site 

Site Response to NSF SVT 

Recommendations 

March 2012 


Recommendation 1: 

This ES is very likely to have a post-‐2014 future by simply continuing to do what they have been doing. The SVT 

recommends that the management address the minor issues cited, broaden and strengthen their community profile 

and user base, and continue to produce outstanding experimental results. 

Site management has noted of the minor issues cited in the SV report and will work on a comprehensive plan to ensure 

successful operation post 2014. 


NEEScomm is not integrating this ES and others into a comprehensive program for EOT activity development and 

assessment. The persistence of this situation is significantly limiting the collection of evidence of impacts achieved 

through systematic assessment of EOT. 

(Response provided by NEEScomm) 

NEEScomm’s comprehensive program for EOT across the network starts with setting the major EOT network priority for 

year. This is discussed with all ES EOT coordinators through the recently instituted monthly EOT meetings. 

Opportunities available to the ES in support of this priority are from both ES ideas and NEEScomm recommended 

activities. Resources from the ES and NEEScomm are reviewed to aid in the development of these activities and what 

mutual support other ES can provide presenting opportunities for collaborative efforts between ES. Through further 

discussions, assessment strategies are addressed that would measure impact and support of the overall NEES EOT 

strategic plan. The activities are then incorporated by the ES into their AWP. NEEScomm reviews their AWP submission 

for assessment strategies, impact, strategic plan alignment and funding constraints. During the April EOT meeting, the 

major priority for year 4 (FY-‐13) was addressed (Knowledge Transfer and Workforce Development). Recommendations 

were made for ES EOT activities to support this network priority through each ES AWP for FY13. 

Comprehensive assessment for all NEES EOT programs is currently done with a major effort to obtain IRB approval for 

each assessment instrument/activity/location. NEEScomm has provided to each ES assessment strategies for a full 

range of activities and examples of these are located https://nees.org/education/assessment-‐and-‐evaluation/surveys. 

Assessment practices and strategies are being shared with the sites at the monthly EOT meetings. 

As with each ES, NEEScomm EOT reviewed UNR AWP submitted for FY12, provided guidance and feedback to the ES on 

specific items which included requesting more coordination between UNR, UCSD, and Buffalo on costs of researcher 

workshops (this is a high priority goal for NEES EOT); evaluating UNR assessment strategies for some of their EOT 

activities; directing coordination with NEEScomm EOT for upgrades to the MYOE module and uploaded companion 

activities on NEESacademy; and requesting coordination with UCLA, OSU and UT-‐Austin for plans to participate in the 

Great Shake Out to maximize impact from the network. NEEScomm and Kelly Lyttle are developing assessment 

instruments for the UNR museum project using the expertise of informal educational specialist at the museum and 

sharing assessment strategies from other NEES informal education initiatives and subject matter experts through the 

network partnerships. In addition UNR and Kelly Lyttle are working with NEEScomm to further develop the use and 

appropriate application of the iResponse system to be implemented throughout the network. 

NEEScomm and UNR (as well as the other ES) discuss their activities and progress monthly and formally review their 

quarterly activity report input that is uploaded and compiled with other ES metric data to produce the NEES QPR. 


NEEScomm continues to work closely with Kelly Lyttle and Sherif Elfass on EOT plans and products. UNR has been one of 

our strongest partners in the REU program, consistently mentoring many students and serving as the organizer of the 

REU Orientation in 2010. UNR was one of the first sites to adopt the Make Your Own Earthquake outreach activity after 

Sandy Seale from UC Santa Barbara at the 2010 EOT workshop shared it. UNR modified the activity to fit their own 

needs and now are collaborating with the Terry Lee Wells Nevada Discovery Museum in Reno to augment their shake 

table exhibit. This UNR supplemental project is a combined effort between UNR resources, local Arizona museum 

resources and EOT-‐IT resources from NEEScomm to expand the use of MYOE lessons to informal educational venues. 

We have also worked closely with UNR staff on several major outreach events including the College of Southern Nevada 

Science & Technology Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada (April 9, 2010) that attracted 2,500 middle and high school students, 

teachers, and community members from the region, the History Channel Documentary (Mega quake 10.0, released 

January 2011) and most recently the Profile Series (in production). 

The continued monthly meetings, annual EOT workshop, emphasis on network collaboration between ES, continued 

support from NEEScomm and improved communication between ES and NEEScomm has continued to improve the 

integration of ES and NEEScomm into a comprehensive EOT program. 


A retention plan should be developed for the ES’ highly qualified staff through FY 2014. 

Site management recognizes the potential difficulty of retaining site’s highly qualified staff through FY2014 in the event 

that NSF discontinues funding for NEES operations at UNR beyond 2014. This risk is also recognized by NEEScomm and 

all equipment sites. Consequently, site management is working with NEEScomm and PIs and Site Managers of other 

equipment sites to develop a coherent and implementable retention plan. 



The ES should implement better internal systems for monitoring and invoicing external program income. 

Site management implemented a system for monitoring and invoicing of non-‐NSF projects that use NEES equipment. A 

flow chart of the process (see Figure below) was submitted to NEEScomm on February 26, 2012 for review and 

comment. ES received indication from NEEScomm on February 29, 2012 that the described process is appropriate and 

sufficient to adequately track program income. 

Non-‐NSF SPONSOR 

Program Income 

Account 

1. Once a decision to 

award a contract has 

been made, OSP and 

sponsor negotiate 

contract 

9. OSP invoices 

sponsor for 

reimbursement 

of lab fees 

8. OSP credits Program 

Income account with 

lab fees 

UNR OSP 

7. IPO sent to OSP by 

Office Manager 

2. OSP informs PI 

when research 

account is setup 

PROJECT PI 

Department 

Office Manager 

6. PI requests Dept Office 

Manager to prepare IPO 

(Internal Purchase Order) 

for lab fees: credit 

Program Income account 

and debit research 

account by 30 th of the 

month 

5. Lab Director ‘invoices’ PI 

for Lab usage by 15 th of 

the month 

Lab Director 

Lab Experiment 

3. PI conducts 

experiment in Lab using 

NEES equipment 

4. Lab Manager/Site Manager reports 

personnel time and equipment usage 

for previous month to Lab Director by 

5 th of month 



Update the ES web site to be current. 

A plan to overhaul the equipment site’s website was developed in 2011. However, due to the extended absence of the 

site’s IT manager as a result of an injury, site management directed all available resources to support ongoing research 

and data upload. Meanwhile, site management updated key areas of the website as necessary. 

In January 2012, site management restructured the IT position and hired Jennifer Knowles as a temporary part-‐time 

Systems Administrator to assist the site in executing some of the planned IT activities. Rodney Porter, site full time IT 

manager, remains in charge of the website and data. However, Mr Porter became ill early in January and has not yet 

returned to work. As a result, site management, again, directed all available resources to support ongoing research and 

data upload. 

Site management is currently a recruiting student worker to assist with the website. Meanwhile, sections that need 

updating and/or improving have been identified and will be addressed on or before April 30. 


Discover Engineering Family Day Assessment | Q 


Engineering Family Day 

Ques1onnaire 

February 18, 2012 

Data analysis for K-‐6 responses 

n=375 


K – 6 th grade respondents 

(n=375) 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Was it exci1ng to build your 

structure? 

225 

129 

20 

1 

375 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Did you have fun watching to see if 

your structure survived the wave? 

264 

92 

14 

5 

375 

Count of Did the wave ac1vity help you 

understand how engineers work to keep people 

Row Labels safe? 

Definitely! 

108 

Yes 

172 

Sort of 

75 

No 

12 

Grand Total 

367 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Would you like to par1cipate in 

other engineering ac1vi1es like this 

one? 

210 

126 

31 

7 

374 


K – 6 th grade respondents 

(n=375) 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Did this ac1vity make you think about 

being an engineer when you're older? 

106 

110 

104 

53 

373 



All Respondents 

(n=420) 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Was it exci1ng to build 

your structure? 

248 

147 

22 

3 

420 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Did you have fun watching to see if 

your structure survived the wave? 

291 

107 

16 

5 

419 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Did the wave ac1vity help you understand how engineers 

work to keep people safe? 

123 

194 

82 

12 

411 


Count of Would you like to par1cipate in 

Row Labels other engineering ac1vi1es like this one? 

Definitely! 

229 

Yes 

148 

Sort of 

31 

No 

11 

Grand Total 

419 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Did this ac1vity make you think about being an 

engineer when you're older? 

115 

127 

115 

60 

417 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Before par1cipa1ng in this event, did 

you know what engineers do? 

92 

169 

98 

60 

419 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of AVer par1cipa1ng in this event, do you 

understand what engineers do? 

159 

187 

56 

17 

419 


7 th -‐8 th grade 

(n=18) 

What grade are you in? 7th -‐8th 

Row Labels 

Count of Was it exci1ng to build your structure? 

Definitely! 

9 

Yes 

7 

Sort of 

2 

Grand Total 

18 

What grade are 

you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

Grand Total 

7th -‐8th 

Count of Did you have fun watching to see if your 

structure survived the wave? 

9 

7 

2 

18 


you in? 7th -‐8th 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

Grand Total 

Count of Did the wave ac1vity help you understand how 

engineers work to keep people safe? 

6 

8 

4 

18 




Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Would you like to par1cipate in other 

engineering ac1vi1es like this one? 

8 

9 

1 

18 



Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 



3 

4 

7 

4 

18 



Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Before par1cipa1ng in this event, did 

you know what engineers do? 

6 

7 

3 

2 

18 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

Grand Total 

7th -‐8th 



7 

8 

3 

18 


4 th -‐ 6 th grade 

(n=143) 

What grade are you in? 4th -‐6th 

Row Labels 


Definitely! 

90 

Yes 

40 

Sort of 

13 

Grand Total 

143 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

4th -‐6th 



100 

35 

6 

2 

143 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

4th -‐6th 

Count of Did the wave ac1vity help you understand how engineers work 

to keep people safe? 

47 

58 

33 

2 

140 



you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

4th -‐6th 

Count of Would you like to par1cipate in other engineering 

ac1vi1es like this one? 

85 

44 

12 

2 

143 



Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 



38 

46 

43 

16 

143 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

4th -‐6th 

Count of Before par1cipa1ng in this event, did you 

know what engineers do? 

45 

60 

32 

6 

143 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

4th -‐6th 

Count of AVer par1cipa1ng in this event, do you understand 

what engineers do? 

64 

64 

12 

3 

143 


K – 3 rd grade 

(n=232) 

What grade are you in? K-‐3 

Row Labels 


Definitely! 

135 

Yes 

89 

Sort of 

7 

No 

1 

Grand Total 

232 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

K-‐3 



164 

57 

8 

3 

232 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

K-‐3 

Count of Did the wave ac1vity help you understand how engineers work 

to keep people safe? 

61 

114 

42 

10 

227 



you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

K-‐3 

Count of Would you like to par1cipate in other engineering 

ac1vi1es like this one? 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

125 Sort of 

82 No 

19 Grand Total 

5 

231 

K-‐3 

Count of Did this ac1vity make you think about being an engineer 

when you're older? 

68 

64 

61 

37 

230 

What grade are you in? 

K-‐3 


you in? 

K-‐3 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 

Count of Before par1cipa1ng in this 

event, did you know what engineers do? 

35 

93 

62 

41 

231 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

No 

Grand Total 



82 

104 

34 

11 

231 


Pre-‐K 

(n=16) 

What grade are you in? Pre-‐K 

Row Labels 


Definitely! 

7 

Yes 

8 

No 

1 

Grand Total 

16 


you in? Pre-‐K 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Grand Total 



9 

6 

15 


you in? 

Row Labels 

Definitely! 

Yes 

Sort of 

Grand Total 

Pre-‐K 

Count of Did the wave ac1vity help you understand how engineers 

work to keep people safe? 

4 

9 

2 

15 


IRIS Letter of Support | R 



The NEES REU program has operated since summer 2006 on three NSF Grants: 

• CMMI-0552992 (2006-2007) 

• EEC-0755587 (2008-2009) 

• EEC-1005054 (2010-2011) (This grant has one year remaining: 2012) 

During the 6 years of operation 144 students have participated in the REU program. The breakdown is shown in the 

charts below. The underrepresented category includes females and minorities typically underrepresented in STEM 

defined as African American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic. 

 

40 

Total Numbers of REU Students and Underrepresented Minorities 

35 

30 

25 

34 

29 29 

Total Number 

of REU 

Students 

20 

15 

10 

5 

15 

6 

22 

11 

15 

9 

18 

15 

18 

Total Number 

of Under-‐ 

represented 

Students 

0 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Response to REU Survey by Year 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

8 

5 

3 

0 

13 

9 

4 

5 

24 

14 

10 

6 

17 

8 9 

4 

A survey was sent to the last known email address for all 2006-2010 alumni. Surveys were not sent to the 2011 participants 

because at the time of the survey they had not yet completed their program. Email addresses were not available for some 

1

of the earlier participants, particularly for 2006 and 2007 when NEESinc ran the program. Therefore the survey was sent to 

94 REU alumni. As of 9/15/2011, 62 responses were received (66% response rate). 

The survey asked REU alumni about their post graduate activities in both academia and in the profession. The graphs 

below summarize the responses related to graduate education. Students have attended many of the top schools for MS 

degrees. Of the 23 students who have not pursued graduate education, five are still completing a BS degree. Of the seven 

students pursuing PhDs, three are at Stanford, and the others are a U. Illinois, U. Utah, U. Nebraska, and U. Notre Dame. 

One alumnus is currently mentoring an REU student. 

REU Students Pursuing MS or PhD 

Minority REU Students 

Pursuing MS or PhD 

22 

24 

Currently Pursuing 

MS 

Completed MS 

3 

Currently 

Pursuing MS 

Completed MS 

1 

15 

Currently Pursuing 

PhD 

Not Pursuing MS 

or PhD 

1 

3 

8 

Currently 

Pursuing PhD 

Not Pursuing MS 

or PhD 

Males vs. Females 

Pursuing or Completed MS Degree 

Males vs. Females 

Pursuing or Completed PhD 

12 

Male 

2 

Male 

Female 

Female 

27 

5 

The graphs on the next page summarize REU alumni responses about their employment and professional advancement 

with respect to earning a Professional Engineers license. Of the 29 alumni who are working, the majority is working in 

civil or structural engineering. Two alumni indicated that they are working in earthquake engineering and two indicated 

that they are looking for jobs in earthquake engineering. Of the 33 REU alumni who are not working, 19 are instead 

current in MS or PhD programs, 7 just completed a BS or MS degree in June 2011, and 4 have not yet completed their 

undergraduate degrees. The remaining 3 students earned a BS in June 2010 and have not yet pursued any graduate 

degrees. 

2

All REU Alumni Respondents: 

Professional AcKvity 

All REU Alumni Respondents: 

Earning or Earned PE 

33 

29 

Currently 

Working 

Not Currently 

Working 

42 

17 

3 

Earning PE 

Completed PE 

No PE 

Minority REU Alumni Respondents: 

Professional AcKvity 

Minority REU Alumni Respondents: 


3 

6 

Currently 

Working 

Earning or 

Earned PE 

9 

Not Currently 

Working 

12 

No PE 

Male vs. Female Respondents 

Currently Working 

Male vs. Female Respondents 


14 

15 

Male 

Female 

10 

10 

Male 

Female 

3

Students were asked if the REU program had an influence on their career path. Fifty-three (85%) indicted yes, four (6%) 

indicated no, and three (5%) did not answer this question. Examples of ways that the REU program influenced students: 

• Convinced me to pursue an advanced degree (26) 

• Showed me that I like research (16) 

• Decided to pursue civil or structural engineering (7) 

• Got excited about earthquake engineering (5) 

• Decided I wanted to have a practice oriented rather than research oriented career (2) 

Students were asked to provide optional additional comments about the program. Most were positive. Here is a 

representative sample. 

• It was a great program that without I would have not explored graduate school. I am very grateful for the 

opportunity and learning experience the REU program offered me. 

• I had the best time working at the REU Program and learned more from that program than I could have 

imagined. 

• I thoroughly enjoyed the REU program. My undergraduate education was very practical so it gave me some 

experience doing research. I was able to meet a lot of professors, professionals and peers that shared a similar 

interest in earthquake engineering. 

• The REU Program is an excellent opportunity for undergraduate students to work on real projects that have a 

direct effect on the well-being of society. 

• I thought the opportunities to attend the conference and YRS were really valuable. 

Some of the comments provided suggestions about how to improve the program. For example: 

• I think it would be valuable to more closely monitor the day to day activity of the REU student to make sure they 

are performing technical work of some sort and are not too heavily used as just another set of hands to set up a 

test. 

• I think however program wide there could be more of an emphasis on presentations and outreach to the local 

community by the REU students. This would help prepare students for real-life situations and how important 

communication is. 

• I did enjoy the program as a whole; however, I feel like my experience at my site was disappointing. I had a little 

to no interaction with any professors and the program was very unorganized. My suggestion would be to increase 

the professionalism in the REU-coordinator relationship and increase the time future REUs interact with 

professors. 

 

Based on the collected data, the REU program is achieving its goals of inspiring students to pursue advanced degrees and 

to stay in STEM careers. The program has been effective with underrepresented groups evidenced by 80% of minority 

respondents and 50% of female respondents pursuing graduate degrees. Alumni overwhelmingly (53of 62 responses) 

indicate that the REU program had an impact on their academic and career choices. 

 

 

4

The following are the data tables from which the preceding graphs were taken. 

 

Table 1: REU Students 2006-‐2011 

Year 

Total Number of 

REU Students 

Total Underrepresented 

Students 

Responding to Survey 

(Total/M/F) 

Responding to Survey 

(Minority) 

2006 15 6 0/0/0 0 

2007 22 11 8/5/3 0 

2008 15 9 13/9/4 5 

2009 34 18 24/14/10 6 

2010 29 15 17/8/9 4 

2011 29 18 Not sent to 2011 cohort 

Total 144 77 62/36/26 15 

Table 2: REU Alumni Graduate Degrees in STEM Fields 

Goal Number % of 62 

Responses 

Minority 

Students 

% of 15 Minority 

Responses 

Male/Female 

Currently Pursuing MS 24 39% 8 53% 14/10 

Completed MS 15 24% 3 20% 13/2 

Total MS 39 63% 11 73% 27/12 

Currently Pursuing PhD 7* 11% 1 7% 5/2 

Total Graduate 40 65% 12 80% 27/13 

* Only one of the 7 PhD students is not counted in the MS degrees category. 

5

Table 3: REU Alumni Professional Activity in STEM Fields 

Goal Number % of 62 

Responses 

Minority 

Students 

% of 15 Minority 

Responses 

Male/Female 

Currently Working 29 47% 6 40% 15/14 

Earning PE 17 27% 3 20% 10/7 

Earned PE 3 5% 0 0% 0/3 

6

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

WEI Offers Wood Design Course Online 

This marks official launch of WEI (Wood Education Institute) website 

CAL POLY POMONA and SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA (May 25, 2012): Wood Education Institute 

announced today the launch of its website and introduction of the online wood design course 

(WEI 401). This represents the culmination of the collaboration between the wood industry and 

Cal Poly Universities to improve wood education in undergraduate civil engineering programs 

and to assist design professionals in improving their knowledge in wood design. The WEI course 

modules were developed by faculty of several universities with initial seed investment provided 

by the Wood Product Council’s Woodworks initiative. For more information and to access the 

course please visit www.woodeducationinstitute.org. The course hosting support is provided by 

NEES (George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulations) on NEEShub. The 

course could also be accessed by visiting http://nees.org/education/wood-education-institute 

WEI 401 is a 12 week online course culminating in a two-day hands-on workshop. This course is 

intended for practicing professionals in Civil/Structural Engineering who did not have a timber 

design course in their undergraduate program or would like to refresh and update their 

knowledge. This course allows industry practitioners to learn (or review) the fundamentals of 

designing with wood in a structured self-paced environment. The course is taught within six 

two-week sessions fully online, with each session devoted to a specific topic, and culminates in 

a two-day weekend hands-on workshop (optional). The two-week per subject schedule allows 

students to pace themselves and schedule their studies to accommodate their professional and 

family commitments. Each session possess essential questions to be answered, outlines 

detailed learning objective, and provides two to five compact online streaming learning 

modules, reading assignments, practice problems, and short targeted assessments. 

The final session concludes with in person two-day weekend workshop on the Cal Poly San Luis 

Obispo Campus. The workshop will include a laboratory component, where students can 

investigate specific aspects of the behavior of wood, and a design studio component, where 

students can apply their knowledge to practical design applications. Upon successful 

completion of this course, the student will be well versed in specification of wood materials and 

design of basic wood frame structures.

Course Outline 

Start date: June 8, 2012 End date: June 22, 2012 Duration: 2 weeks 

Topic 1: Design properties of wood, grading and adjustment factors for Sawn Lumber 

Learning Objective: Using 2005 NDS, to be able to classify sawn lumber based on its use, select 

appropriate reference design values and identify all applicable adjustment factors. 

Start date: June 22, 2012 End date: July 6, 2012 Duration: 2 weeks 

Topic 2: Design properties of wood materials and adjustment factors for Engineered Wood – 

structural panels, glued laminated beams, other. 

Learning Objective: Using 2005 NDS and APA Construction Guide, to be able to specify 

structural wood panels and glued-laminated structural beams and columns; select appropriate 

stress class and combination symbols for beams and columns; select appropriate reference 

design values and identify all applicable adjustment factors. 

Start date: July 6 2012 End date: July20, 2012 Duration: 2 weeks 

Topic 3: Design for axial, bending, and combined stresses (combining tension and bending 

stresses, compression and bending stresses, and bi-axial bending). 

Learning Objective: Using 2005 NDS to be able to calculate capacity of sawn lumber and glued 

laminated timber to resist different loads and load combinations for both ASD and LRFD 

methodologies. 

Start date: July 20, 2012 End date: August 3, 2012 Duration: 2 weeks 

Topic 4: Connections Design (Nails, Bolts, and Lag Screws) 

Learning Objective: To be able to develop geometrical layout of basic wood connections for 

dowel type connections fasteners, such as bolts and lag screws and evaluate connection 

capacity 

Start date: Auguat 3, 2012 End date: August 17, 2012 Duration: 2 weeks 

Topic 5: Wood diaphragm analysis and design 

Learning Objective: Explain behavior and preferred failure modes of wood diaphragm and 

determine diaphragm capacity based on material properties, fastener type, fastener spacing, 

and construction practices using 2005 SDPWS (Seismic Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic 

Loads). 

Start date: August 17, 2012 End date: August 31, 2012 Duration: 2 weeks 

Topic 6: Wood shear-walls analysis and design (Segmented, Perforated and FTAO 

methodologies) 

Learning Objective: Be able to explain behavior of the wood-frame shear walls and using 2005 

SDPSW to be able to perform analysis and design with three methods allowed by the code. 

Start date: September 8, 2012 End date: September 9, 2012 Duration: 2 weeks 

2-day workshop (Hands on applications)

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation 

Hall for Discovery and Learning Research 

207 S. Martin Jischke Drive 


765.496.2228 | Fax: 765.496.6097 | http://www.nees.org 

Subject: MOU between Battleground Middle School and NEEScomm EOT 

Date: July 22, 2011 

This MOU is to formalize an agreement between Battleground Middle School and NEEScomm EOT team 

to provide opportunities for NEEScomm EOT to test, develop and modify as appropriate learning 

modules on Earthquake Engineering from NEES academy. It also is agreed that NEEScomm EOT will 

assist with learning module implementation and help provide classroom instruction. Battleground Middle 

School will fund normal educational classroom and teacher costs and NEEScomm will fund additional 

costs associated instructional material and implementation expenses. 

The NEES EOT team comprised of Dr. Keith Adams, Pamela McClure, Tenille Medley and Jason Lloyd 

hosted an outreach activity on Friday, April 29, 2011 at a local West Lafayette Middle School. The 

audience was for approximately 125 7 th graders who participated in the activities. Prior to the day of 

activities, a list of key words was shared with the classroom teacher to be incorporated into lessons 

leading up to the event with them. Three activities were presented to each group of students during their 

normal class period. These included demonstration on soil liquefaction and use of cross bracing and 

tuned mass dampers in tall structures. The students especially enjoyed the activity on tsunamis, as they 

were able to build a ‘structure’ out of basic supplies. Our portable tsunami wave tank (made from plastic 

sweater box) was used to test each student’s structure. Formal assessment of learning in terms of prior 

knowledge and posttests were the teacher’s responsibility. Assessment of implementation of the learning 

modules was based on feedback from the teacher and from student responses. 

Plans are being made to return to continue testing of these learning modules with Battleground Middle 

School in the spring of 2012 to provide activities dealing with her curriculum of earthquakes and the 

Great American Shakeout. We anticipate having data available in the form of a pre and posttest to assess 

learning. We have plans to construct a traveling sized wave tank from acrylic that will be utilized to 

simulate tsunamis. It is planned to extend our activities to more than the one-day to further develop and 

test individual learning objects from NEES academy. 

BeAnn Younkers, Principal, Klondike Middle School 

Dr. Keith T. Adams, Director, NEEScomm EOT






Subject: MOU between Klondike Middle School and NEEScomm EOT 


This MOU is to formalize an agreement between Klondike Middle School and NEEScomm EOT team to 

provide opportunities for NEEScomm EOT to test, develop and modify as appropriate learning modules 

on Earthquake Engineering from NEES academy. It also is agreed that NEEScomm EOT will assist with 

learning module implementation and help provide classroom instruction. Klondike will fund normal 

educational classroom and teacher costs and NEEScomm will fund additional costs associated 

instructional material and implementation expenses. 


hosted an outreach activity on Friday, April 29, 2011 at Klondike Middle School, West Lafayette, IN. 

Mrs. Sue Nail was the classroom teacher for approximately 125 7 th graders who participated in the 

activities. Prior to the day of activities, a list of key words was shared with the classroom teacher to be 

incorporated into lessons leading up to the event with them. Three activities were presented to each group 

of students during their normal class period. These included demonstration on soil liquefaction and use of 

cross bracing and tuned mass dampers in tall structures. The students especially enjoyed the activity on 

tsunamis, as they were able to build a ‘structure’ out of basic supplies. Our portable tsunami wave tank 

(made from plastic sweater box) was then used to test each student’s structure. Formal assessment of 

learning in terms of prior knowledge and posttests were the teacher’s responsibility. Assessment of 

implementation of the learning modules was based on feedback from the teacher and from student 

responses. 

Plans are being made to return to Mrs. Nail’s classroom in the spring of 2012 to provide activities dealing 

with her curriculum of earthquakes. We anticipate having data available in the form of a pre and post test 

to assess learning. We have plans to construct a traveling sized wave tank from acrylic that will be 

utilized to simulate tsunamis. It is planned to extend our activities to more than the one day to further 

develop and test individual learning objects from NEES academy. 

Christine Cannon, Principal, Klondike Middle School Dr. Keith T. Adams, Director, NEEScomm EOT






Subject: MOU between Klondike Middle School and NEEScomm EOT 


This MOU is to formalize an agreement between Klondike Middle School and NEEScomm EOT team to 

provide opportunities for NEEScomm EOT to test, develop and modify as appropriate learning modules 

on Earthquake Engineering from NEES academy. It also is agreed that NEEScomm EOT will assist with 

learning module implementation and help provide classroom instruction. Klondike will fund normal 

educational classroom and teacher costs and NEEScomm will fund additional costs associated 

instructional material and implementation expenses. 


hosted an outreach activity on Friday, April 29, 2011 at Klondike Middle School, West Lafayette, IN. 

Mrs. Sue Nail was the classroom teacher for approximately 125 7 th graders who participated in the 

activities. Prior to the day of activities, a list of key words was shared with the classroom teacher to be 

incorporated into lessons leading up to the event with them. Three activities were presented to each group 

of students during their normal class period. These included demonstration on soil liquefaction and use of 

cross bracing and tuned mass dampers in tall structures. The students especially enjoyed the activity on 

tsunamis, as they were able to build a ‘structure’ out of basic supplies. Our portable tsunami wave tank 

(made from plastic sweater box) was then used to test each student’s structure. Formal assessment of 

learning in terms of prior knowledge and posttests were the teacher’s responsibility. Assessment of 

implementation of the learning modules was based on feedback from the teacher and from student 

responses. 

Plans are being made to return to Mrs. Nail’s classroom in the spring of 2012 to provide activities dealing 

with her curriculum of earthquakes. We anticipate having data available in the form of a pre and post test 

to assess learning. We have plans to construct a traveling sized wave tank from acrylic that will be 

utilized to simulate tsunamis. It is planned to extend our activities to more than the one day to further 

develop and test individual learning objects from NEES academy. 

Christine Cannon, Principal, Klondike Middle School Dr. Keith T. Adams, Director, NEEScomm EOT

2 

 

• [I would like to see] better wireless networking. 

• Provide complementary wireless [internet access.] 

• Better/some internet access on a regular basis for participants. 

This will reduce the need to go back to the room. 

• It was unimaginable that there was no available wireless 

connection for the speakers (as well as the general attendees) 

to be able to showcase online materials and advances. 

Participants would like to have 

wireless internet access made 

available. (x4) 

• Make the specific content of the individual technical sessions 

(Presentation title, speaker) known well in advance of the 

meeting. Provide at least the slides and preferably a written 

summary of each technical session. 

• I was really interested in following some of the sessions later, 

but there was no proceeding! 

• [It would be ideal if] you could provide material related to 

presentations to the audience. 

• Most of the lectures were at the same time so I missed 

a few good lectures. 

• [Sometimes] you have to choose between two mutually 

beneficial seminars, resulting in the partial forfeiture of 

benefits that would be received by attending both. 

Participants would like to 

see technical session slides 

and descriptions prior to 

the meeting, and have these 

materials made available 

online shortly after the 

conclusion of the meeting. 

(x3) 

The overlapping technical 

session times sometimes 

precluded attending all sessions 

of interest. (x2) 

• The poster session was way too crowded. 

• Needed more space to move around at the poster session. 

The poster session room 

should be larger. (x2) 

• It was frustrating to only have 15-20 people in a room at a time during the technical breakout sessions. We 

all spent a lot of time and money to come to the conference, and it would have been nice to have a larger audience. 

• The PIs of the projects should all have been present during the NEES Showcase Project Plenary Session rather 

than graduate students. 

• A more intimate venue would be helpful. The plenary room was a bit cavernous. 

• The closed sessions should be open for students. The ACI does that, all their sessions are open to students. 

• Invite abstracts and select presentations. Do not focus only on students doing the presentations. 

• I am biased, but it would great to see more social science included in the program! I think social scientists have a 

lot to learn, and vice versa. 

• Don't let the opening session go so long. 

• SOS committee meeting needs better support for breakouts with projection. 

• Try to space them about 1 year apart so that they do not fall in the same academic year. 

• Sound-proof the breakout rooms. 

• Get a picture of all participants together! 

 

• Attendance at committee meeting via webex was useful for remote participants. 

• It was great to have so many choices of wonderful sessions to attend. No suggestions - you did an excellent job!

3 

• I thought the meetings were spectacularly well organized. 

• Thank you so much for everything. 

 

 

Participants rated the following items on a scale of 1to 6. A ranking of 6 = “Excellent.” A ranking of 1 = “Poor.” 

40 

30 

 

 

29 

24 

50 

40 

30 

 

45 

20 

10 

0 

9 

0 0 0 

10 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

20 

10 

0 

16 

7 

4 

0 1 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

 

39 

17 

12 

0 0 0 

4 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

53 

 

 

0 0 0 2 

9 7 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

 

21 

22 

19 

10 

0 

1 

0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

13 

 

 

0 1 

4 

11 

18 

26 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 

 

 

 

 

25 

20 

15 

20 

13 

20 

18 

50 

40 

30 

39 

22 

10 

5 

0 

0 0 

2 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

20 

10 

0 

7 

0 0 1 3 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 

 

 

 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

14 

0 

4 

2 

9 

19 

24 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

25 

0 0 

4 

8 

20 

15 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

60 

50 

49 

 

 

 

40 

68 

30 

20 

10 

0 

10 

5 

0 2 2 2 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2 

Yes 

No

5 

 

• [Sessions] went too long. 

• We really let the opening plenary go too long. 

• The opening plenary session was WAY too long 

(~45 min over the allotted time!). The time limits 

need to be better enforced. 

Session time limits should be 

more strictly enforced. (x3) 

• Shift some presentation time to Q&A time, 

especially since most speakers go over on time. 

• I guess that's a constant issue in conferences 

but there was very limited time for Q&A after each talk 

Participants would like to be 

allowed more time at the end of 

each session for Q&A. (x2) 

• [Sessions] started too early in the morning. 

• It would be great if, somehow, all of the sessions work 

together for timing of each speaker so audience can 

attend different speakers from different sessions. 

 

 


 

 

 

 

40 

30 

29 

24 

40 

30 

30 

23 

20 

10 

0 

5 

0 0 

2 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

9 

20 

10 

0 

5 

0 0 

3 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

8 

 

 

 

 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

6 

0 

3 

6 

11 

23 

20 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

4 

0 

3 

6 

9 

25 

21 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6

6 

• The concurrent sessions require written 

presentations to be provided to attendees so if 

we cannot attend a session then we can get the 

content at least through the written portion. 

• I would like to see a session focused on integrating 

research and practice. 

 

 


 

 

 

 

30 

25 

28 

24 

30 

25 

28 

23 

20 

20 

15 

10 

9 

7 

15 

10 

9 

9 

5 

0 

0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

5 

0 

0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 

 

 

 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

9 

0 1 0 

5 

30 

21 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

9 

0 

2 1 

8 

23 22 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 

 

The following graphs list self-reported attendance at individual technical breakout sessions. Note that not all survey 

respondents attended a breakout session in each timeslot. 

 

 

 

 

12 

10 

10 

9 

10 

12 

10 

11 

9 

8 

8 

6 

5 

6 

4 

4 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 1 

0 

#1: Reinforced Concrete 

Structures I 

#2: Accelerated Bridge 

ConstrucEon & 

TransportaEon 

#3: ComputaEonal & Hybrid 

TesEng\n#4: Geotechnical 

Engineering I 

#4: Geotechnical 

Engineering I 

#5: MulE-‐Hazard Resilience 

0 

#6: Buildings -‐ 

Nonstructural 

#7: Lifelines 

#8: Resilience 

#9: Steel Structures 

#10: Reinforced Concrete 

Structures II 

 

 

 

 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

13 13 

#11: High Performance 

CompuEng & SimulaEon 

#12: Advanced ProtecEon 

Systems 

5 

#13: Masonry & Wood 

Structures 

7 

#14: Tsunami Research I 

11 

#15: EducaEon 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

7 

#16: Geotechnical 

Engineering II 

3 

#17: Full-‐Scale TesEng 

5 

#18: Electric Power 

SubstaEons 

7 

#19: Tsunami Research II 

6 

#20: Next GeneraEon 

Nuclear Power Plants

8 

• Don’t schedule it where it conflicts with sessions. 

• NEEShub workshop is too far away from the rest of the conference 

 

 


 

 

 

 

60 

50 

51 

60 

50 

52 

40 

40 

30 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 0 2 1 3 5 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

20 

10 

0 

0 0 

3 1 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 

53 

60 

51 

40 

40 

20 

0 

0 0 2 1 1 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

5 

20 

0 

0 0 2 2 2 4 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 

 

 

29 

Yes 

10 

No

9 

• It wasn't clear from the website that the tour on 

Thursday was for the students only. 

• There should have been more frequent 

informational emails and they should have started 

earlier. 

 

 


 

 

 

 

30 

25 

26 

24 

30 

25 

24 25 

20 

20 

15 

11 

15 

11 

10 

5 

2 1 1 0 

10 

5 

4 

1 0 0 

0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

 

32 

23 

4 

1 2 

0 1 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

4 

 

 

1 1 2 

9 

13 

35 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 

 

 

• Everyone at the desk was incredibly helpful 

for me - and as a first-time attendee, it was 

most appreciated. 

 


30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

 

27 

23 

13 

0 0 1 1 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

15 

 

 

0 0 1 

3 

16 

30 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6

11 

Meeting rooms need to be 

soundproofed. (x2) 

• The insufficient soundproofing was a 

huge problem at the Convention center. 

• Concurrent sessions in adjoining rooms 

created a problem in one session with 

noise separation. 

 

• Meeting rooms were a bit small at the 

Hyatt Regency. 

 


 

 

 

 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

12 

0 0 

2 

8 

17 

28 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

10 

0 1 1 

7 

27 

21 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 

 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

4 

0 1 

5 

7 

25 25 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6

12 

 

• Committee meeting lunch arrangements were 

a bit odd, little room to sit and no selection 

for vegetarians. 

• Meeting rooms were a bit small at the 

Hyatt Regency. 

Committee meeting rooms 

should be larger. (x2) 

• Thanks a lot! 

• Some more coffee please :) 

 

 


 

 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

27 

23 

10 

4 

2 2 

0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

28 

30 

7 

2 

0 0 1 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 

35 

30 

29 

25 

21 

20 

15 

10 

7 

8 

5 

0 

0 0 1 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 

 

• The length of the meeting was good. 

• Quake Summit 2011 was awesome, totally awesome. 

• Good job guys!

13 

This survey was completed by a subset of Quake Summit 2011 survey respondents who self-identified as participants in 

the Taylor Devices and UB NEES facility field trip. 

 

 

• I had great difficulty hearing André in the lab 

(except when speaking towards me in close proximity) 

but thoroughly enjoyed the demonstrations. 

• The shaking part was really cool. There were empty 

seats in the bus, but the registration desk did not allow 

on-site registration for the field trip. 

 


 

 

 

 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

4 

0 0 

1 1 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2 

6 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 0 

1 

2 

10 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6

14 

 


the NEES committee meetings. 

 

 

• Room provided for ESF and SMF meetings was 

not big enough 

• It would have been helpful to have sent a few more 

invitations out so that committee members knew 

they were supposed to attend. 

 


 

 

 

 

12 

10 

10 10 

12 

10 

9 

11 

8 

8 

6 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0 0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2 

4 

2 

0 

1 

0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

1 

 

 

12 

10 

9 

11 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

1 

0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

1

15 

The poster session and 

reception area should 

 

be bigger. (x4) 

The following graphs list self-reported attendance at individual NEES committee meetings. Note that not all survey 

respondents attended a breakout session in each timeslot. 

 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

1 

5 

3 

5 

0 

5 

2 

6 

4 

8 

4 

Users Forum (UF) 

Site Managers Forum 

(SMF) 

Project Advisory 

Commi[ee (PAC) 

Equipment Site Forum 

(ESF) 

Data and CuraEon 

Subcommi[ee (DCS) 

Site OperaEons 

Subcommi[ee (SOS) 

SimulaEon Steering 

Commi[ee (SSC) 

Requirements, Analysis 

& Assessment 

Subcommi[ee (RAAS) 

IT Manager MeeEng (IT) 

EducaEon, Outreach & 

Training Subcommi[ee 

(EOTS) 

Cyberinfrastructure 

Subcommi[ee (CS) 

 

 


the student Symposium and poster session. 

 

• [The] poster session area was too crowded. 

• Too crowded. 

• Too crowded. 

• The area for Reception was too small. 

 

• I felt that the poster session did not gather 

that many people and some of the posters were 

somewhat "isolated" from the rest (although I 

guess that has to do with the space available 

rather than the organization). 

 

Participants rated the following items on a scale of 1to 6. A ranking of 6 = “Excellent.” A ranking of 1 = “Poor.”

16 

 

 

 

 

15 

12 12 

15 

11 

12 

10 

5 

7 

4 

10 

5 

7 

5 

0 

0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

0 

0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 

 

 

 

15 

10 

9 

10 

14 

20 

15 

10 

15 

8 8 

5 

0 

0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2 

5 

0 

0 0 

1 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

3 

 

 

 

 

15 

10 

5 

0 

3 

0 0 

1 

7 

13 

11 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

15 

10 

5 

0 

6 

0 0 0 

5 

14 

10 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 

 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

3 

1 

4 4 

6 

10 

7 

0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6

17 

 


the ASCE/SEI 7-10 Continuing Education Seminar. 

 

• The session could have included east coast practitioners. 

 

 


 

 

 

 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

0 0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

3 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

0 

 

3 

2 

1 

0 0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

1 

 

 

0 0 0 0 

N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 

2 

3

Summary of Comments from Hazards Showcase – September 7, 2011 

NSF Director, Dr. Suresh, was very pleased with the exhibits and the favorable reactions he got 

from the Hill. Here’s what he said about the Hazards Showcase: “The more than 30 exhibitors 

display the results of NSF-sponsored research. Their work is illuminating and instructive. We 

thank you for sharing your important work with us. The scale and diversity of both natural and 

human-made disasters do not fall neatly within the purview of any one segment or institution in 

society. The federal government thus steps up to the plate to provide the necessary investment to 

comprehensively address the multiple problems. The National Science Foundation’s investment 

provides a continuous pay off in local, state, and national policy and in efforts to prevent, prepare 

for, mitigate, and respond to disasters. The exhibits and presentations speak for themselves!” 

For more information and video footage of the event, please visit 

http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121618&org=NSF&from=news. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mentioned the event in his remarks on the Senate Floor on 

Thursday: “Certainly, we have to do something to help the American people in an emergency 

and figure out some other way in the future to look at how to handle other disasters. We try to 

prefund what we think will happen as a result of disasters, but these are acts of God--that is what 

we learn in law school--these hurricanes and tornadoes and floods. Along the Mississippi River, 

we have more than 3 million acres underwater. This is farmland. It is not just vacant land, it is 

farmland underwater. These people need help, and the Federal Government can help them…. I 

went down to S-120 last night, and they had a number of scientists showing some of the things 

they have developed. One of the things they have developed--and these are things they have 

done at universities, handmade pieces of magnificent equipment that do many things--is 

something they can place in the path of a storm--they have never been able to do that before--to 

determine from which direction the wind is coming and how hard it blows. Without belaboring 

the point, one of the instruments there recorded the strongest winds ever recorded in the history 

of the world--more than 300 miles an hour. That is basically what we had in Joplin, MO. There 

is no building that can withstand that. It is devastating.” 

Senator Bill Nelson was impressed with the amount of research NSF funds on hazards, 

especially on hurricanes: “All of you, the National Science Foundation, and the broader 

scientific community are our hope, to try to get through to the policy makers, decision makers 

and the Appropriators, that Science does matter.” 

Congressman Dave Loebsack (IA) issued a press release praising NSF and the Iowa Flood 

Center. He thanked NSF for inviting the University of Iowa Flood Center to participate and also 

for holding the event in general. He expressed hope that the event will be an annual one: “This 

type of event is critical to keep hazard preparedness at the forefront of the minds of policy 

makers. Their invitation, along with other leading national projects, is a testament to the great 

work the Iowa Flood Center has been doing.” Here is the link to his press release: 

http://loebsack.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=258953

17 Things the E 3 Exhibiting Effectiveness Evaluation Team Thought 

Stood Out From the Crowd on the Show Floor 

By Jefferson Davis, President, Competitive Edge 

For the first-time, NSTA provided the E 3 Exhibiting Effectiveness Evaluation program at the 2012 National 

Conference. As a special bonus, the E3 evaluation team thought it would be beneficial and educational to 

spotlight exhibits on the show floor displaying an extra dose of thoughtfulness, creativity and effectiveness. 

Please understand these are not in any ranking order, and by no stretch are they the only ones, just the ones 

that really jumped out to us as we walked through the Exhibit Hall. Enjoy! 

1. Office of Fossil Energy's visually captivating 

exhibit, using imagery, color, lighting, and 

depth. 

3. Deep Earth Academy’s creative use of a 

floor graphic that extended from the back 

wall image through the floor. 

2. Steady Grow’s themed exhibit with clear and 

concise messaging on headers. 

4. Disney Planet’s over the top thematic 

exhibit with excellent use of props, color, 

shape, and scale.

5. Google’s use of a large red flashing arrow to 

attract attention. 

8. Lego Education’s open and inviting theater 

area with cool seating. 

6. NASCAR's robotic car stem racetrack demo. 

9. FANUC’s excellent use of color, 

interchangeable back wall graphics and the dice 

picking robotic demo. 

7. Ward’s thoughtful use of a make and take 

station in the booth that was consistently busy.

10. ESTES use of their product as a furnishing 

via the rocket table. 

13. Tru Green's whimsical booth design using 

turf flooring and the character Watershed Fred. 

14. Pearson's excellent messaging execution 

in a product station. 

11. NEES tsunami simulator demonstration. 

12. National Geographic's branding integration 

of their yellow border into all aspects of their 

exhibit, including the follow the yellow brick 

floor graphics to the attendee photograph 

station with the yellow frame. 

15. Vernier’s well-designed exhibit, 

communicating their messages at three 

distinct viewing levels.

16. Texas Instruments large backlit rotating 

company identification sign and well placed 

product directional signage. 

18. Sea World / Busch Gardens: 

Live penguins & live snakes!! 

17. Carolina Bio Supplies wide array of live 

science demos and creatures. 

We hope these exhibits inspire and 

give you ideas for your exhibit. 

Hopefully, we will be able to include 

your exhibit next year!

From: Joyner, Tarri M. [mailto:tjoyner@nsf.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:17 PM 

To: McClure, Pamela C Cc: Pauschke, Joy M.; Gonzalez, Cecile J; Kossover, Zeke 

Subject: NSF at USA Science & Engineering Festival 

Dear Pamela, Keith, Jared, and Jason: 

On behalf of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, we 

want to extend our sincere thanks for your participation in the NSF exhibit at the USA Science & 

Engineering Festival in Washington, DC, April 27-‐29. “Make Your Own Earthquake” was hugely 

successful, consistently drawing a crowd. We loved your enthusiasm for interacting with visitors 

of all ages and backgrounds, and for helping visitors gain a better understanding of these natural 

disasters, as well as create their own seismic waves. Your participation reflected very positively 

on engineering research, your university and the National Science Foundation. 

We know that you invested considerable efforts in preparing for the Festival-‐-‐packing up and 

transporting the equipment and materials, traveling long distances, and arranging and breaking 

down the exhibit. We are very appreciative of all your efforts! 

Again, many thanks for your outstanding exhibit and enthusiastic participation. It was a 

pleasure working with all of you. Please let us know if you have suggestions or comments that 

would help us with planning future events. 

Sincerely, 

Tarri Joyner & Zeke Kossover (Einstein Fellow) 

Office of Legislative and Public Affairs 


703-‐292-‐7740/703-‐292-‐7742 

tjoyner@nsf.gov – zkossove@nsf.gov

THE CONSTRUCTION RESOURCE AUGUST 29, 2011 • enr.com The McGraw"Hili Companies 

Engineering News-Record 

THE TOP 225 

INTERNATIONAl 

CONTRACTORS 

Breaking into New Markets 

A 

Ild 

88"2 t Od 

30000 

66£810 iSHI 

t 0000 

M 

\ ' •• II' , \ t • \ \ • \ \ \ \ \ , , \ ' \ ' II\ \ \ ' , \ • , I , \ II,II. , II II \ , I,111.11"" , I 

11.91.0-5 H:JS************* H1ZQHXe.

RESEARCH 

Tests Show Premature Failure 

Of Shear-Stud Reinforcement 

PROBLEM AND SOLUTION Orthogonal layouts of shear stud reinforcing (left) at slall-column connections 

in flat-plate concrete frames do not perform well and should be replaced by radial layouts, says researcher. 

Structural designers say there is cause 

for concern but no reason to panic 

over research that indicates potential 

for premature failure offlat-plate concrete 

frames reinforced at slab-column 

connections with a popular shear-studson-a-rail 

detail. Engineers estimate that 

in seismic zones alone there are tens of 

millions ofsq ft offlat-plate systems reinforced 

using shear studs. The extent of 

their vulnerability to punching shear failure 

is still unknown. 

The research has made "the profession 

take pause," says Randall W Poston, principal 

oHVDP & Associates PC, Austin, 

and chair of the American Concrete Institute's 

structural concrete building code 

committee. The group is responsible 

for developing the ACI 318 

Building Code. 

The use ofshear studs has become 

mainstream for reinforcing 

against punching shear in flat 

slabs, regardless of the seismic 

hazard of the building site, say 

engineers. "Existing buildings 

[with this system] may present an 

even a bigger issue than new construction," 

says Poston. 

The main problem is the orthogonal 

shear-stud layout, which 

is published in ACI 318, says 

Gustavo]. Parra-Montesinos, a professor 

of civil engineering at the University of 

Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the researcher 

who is raising the red flag about the poor 

performance of the popular detail. The 

detail leaves areas around the columns 

completely unreinforced for shear, he 

says. 

The layout allows slab cracking to 

form off the column corners, which can 

cause premature failure, adds Cary Kopczynski 

ofthe Bellevue, Wash., structural 

firm that bears his name. The studs are 

smooth and consequently do not bond to 

the concrete. As a result, large diagonal 

shear cracks form, resulting in loss ofaggregate 

interlock at high load levels, he 

. . -::. 

says. Also, the bottom rail appears insufficient 

to anchor and develop the studs as 

intended, Kopczynski says. 

But though engineers register concern 

and support further study, they do not 

think there is an immediate threat to public 

safety. The majority of existing concrete 

buildings with shear studs in regions 

ofhigh seismicity will likely perform satisfactorily 

in a design-level earthquake, 

says Kopczynski. Most buildings have sufficient 

stiffness to control the earthquake 

induced horizontal displacements that can 

lead to punching shear problems . 

ACI 318 also requires structural engineers 

to provide bottom rebar over columns, 

post-tensioning cables directly over 

columns or both, says the engineer. These 

are also intended to prevent punching 

shear failures from occurring. 

Kopczynski nevertheless thinks there 

are buildings with slab shear-stud reinforcing 

and flexible seismic systems that 

will undergo significant lateral movements 

in large earthquakes. Though these 

buildings likely met the requirements of 

the building code they were designed to, 

the recent research is clearly a red flag 

that problems may be present, he says. 

Parra's orthogonal test specimens were 

designed according to Section 11.11.5 of 

the ACI 318-11, which first appeared in 

2008. It states: "Headed shear stud reinforcement, 

placed perpendicular to the 

plane of a slab or a footing, shall be permitted 

in slabs and footings .... " 

The orthogonal configuration is popular 

because it lines up with the reinforcing 

steel and is consequently 

relatively easy to construct. 

"The benefits in construction 

speed and popularity for maximizing 

usable space from floor 

to ceiling have made [flat-plate 

shear-studs] the system of 

choice over other building 

frame and wall systems," says 

Poston. There is less labor for 

SPECIMEN The problem with the 

shear-stud layout was discovered, 

by accident, during tests on fiberreinforced 

concrete at the University of 

Minnesota. 

enr.com August 29, 2011 • ENR • 13

installation-and at the same time reducing 

congestion in the slab-column connection 

region, he adds. 

Parra says the layout issue is not specific 

to frames in seismic zones. Gravityload 

tests produced premature failure as 

well. "There can be punching shear failures 

without earthquakes," he says. 

The engineer has a related concern 

about the AC1 code. "The code allows 

you to design for higher shear stresses if 

you use shear studs as compared to any 

other type of shear reinforcement," he 

says. "I don't think that is justified." 

His advice: "If you are using shear 

studs, consider using more uniformly 

spaced studs around the column, such as 

in a radial, not orthogonal, layout." 

Parra first discovered the premature 

failure problem by accident in 2007, during 

National Science Foundation-funded 

physical testing of fiber-reinforced concrete 

systems. "We wanted to show that 

Comparison of 

Punching-Shear 

Behaviors 

VI 

5 1--.....rt-- +-- --1'II;:#"--5J\HI---+----i 

.... '" 4 H I'-IF-'I..-'¥""'-----+---..30.-+---+----i 

w 

"" 3 

c 

w 

!::i 2 fHf---I--+----H'----I----'H -I----i 

... 

"" 1 

o 

z 

__ ____ __ 

o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 

DEFLECTION (inches) 

SOtJRCE: GUSTAVO PARRA·MONTESINOS, UNIV. OF MICHIGAN 

RADIAL WINS Tests show that a radial shear-stud 

layout performs better than an orthogonal layout. 

our solution for fiber reinforcement 

would perform as well as accepted practice 

with shear studs so we tested a shearstud 

specimen under seismic loads as a 

control," says Parra. "We got surprised by 

a very early failure." 

The test was performed at the Minneapolis-based 

Multi-Axial Subassemblage 

Testing laboratory (MASl), under a grant 

from NSF's Network for Earthquake Engineering 

Simulation (NEES). Carol K. 

Shield, director of MAST, says: "The 

specimen couldn't hold the gravity load 

during reasonably small displacements of 

the column. The code would tell you it 

should have been able to hold the gravity 

load for a larger column displacement." 

Parra and his team have performed 

subsequent tests of the detail, under seismic 

and gravity loads, also at MAST. All 

have confirmed the initial findings. 

The team is currently performing additional 

tests on a radial layout of the 

shear studs, in which the studs emanate 

from the faces and comers ofthe columns. 

The performance is greatly improved, 

says Parra. But the problem is that a radial

layout is not as constructible as an orthogonallayout. 

In a subsequent test, scheduled for 

November at MAST and funded by a 

$162,000 grant from the Charles Pankow 

Foundation, Parra will be evaluating refined 

radial shear stud layouts, in an effort 

to develop standard designs that will show 

good ductility and deformation capacity 

during earthquakes and will also be economical 

to construct. Recently, the team 

tested a radial layout that did perform better 

than the cruciform layout, but Parra 

thinks the specimen can be further refined 

to perform well without complicating design. 

Both Poston and Parra think that after 

the tests are concluded, a survey of existing 

buildings that contain the orthogonal 

shear-stud layout might be in order, to 

determine whether there is a need for remediation 

in any of the structures. "The 

most important thing is to take care of 

Code Detail 

Outermost 

r------, peripheral 

" ____ " line of studs 

", r!-', 't- , 

" " s , ,, ,, ", , 

d/2 ," r , " 

----I 1 

11- < II 

Iii .....:;,!!!.?. So 2d 1 1 

: : (typJ (typJ: : 

- 

: 

"' L --'] _I 

)X' 

" " 

(X-, ,'d/2 ' , 

, , '1 

, , 

"," 

, " , 

Av-= cross- " ' , , 

""'00".".', ----1/ 

of studs on a -------, critical 

peripheral line 

sections 

SOIlIICl: STRUCTURAl CONCRm BUILDlNG CODE (ACl318-11) 

SCRUTINIZED Shear studs in the flat slab emanate 

like a cruciform from the column (plan view). 

whatever is dangerous," says Parra. 

H he gets funding, the next round of 

research would be to develop a retrofit 

detail. Parra expects to submit a proposal 

by November for NEES funding. 

The engineer also plans to submit a 

code change proposal in time for the 2014 

update of ACI 318. But he is not waiting 

three years to spread the word about his 

findings. He has already presented his 

research to the ACI 318 subcommittee on 

shear and torsion and to others. He and 

his team also expect to publish articles in 

technical journals to draw attention to the 

situation. 

"The work Gustavo and Carol have 

reported adds to our knowledge and with 

a few more tests will certainly lead to a 

refinement and improvement of ACI 

318," says Loring Wyllie, senior principal 

of San Francisco-based Degenkolb Engineers 

and a longtime ACI 318 committee 

member. "This is the normal progression 

ofcode provisions. We are always learning 

through new research or failures we observe 

in actual earthquakes." • 

By Nadine M. Post

Earthquake alarm goes off in school 

Lafayette schools practice earthquake drill 

Updated: Wednesday, 08 Feb 2012, 12:29 AM EST Published: Tuesday, 07 Feb 2012, 7:05 PM 

EST 

Elisabeth Rentschler 

LAFAYETTE, Ind. (WLFI) -‐ An earthquake alarm is a sound no student ever wants to hear. That's 

what students at Glen Acres Elementary school heard at 11:15 a.m. on Tuesday. "Just as soon as they 

heard the sound they went ahead and dropped to the floor," said third grade teacher Megan Hatkey. 

"They got under their desks or their tables and then they just held on and sat there perfectly quiet. 

They were very well prepared." Students at Glen Acres practiced for the drill all week as part of a 

statewide earthquake drill. Although many students are too young to remember the earthquake that 

Lafayette experienced in 2008, some teachers Hatkey remember it first hand. She said that's why it 

is important to practice these drills. "It shows the kids that there is a reason to participate, even 

though we don't live in California," said Hatkey. 

Although earthquakes are not as prevalent in Indiana as they might be along the west coast; there is 

still the possibility of an earthquake. After all, Indiana does sit on top of the New Madrid Fault Line. 

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Education Training Director Keith Adams said that 

educating children here in Indiana is still important. "The more we have children in school practice 

earthquake drills, the more they bring home to the parents," said Adams. "Then, they can practice the 

earthquake drills and discuss with them their safety plans at home." 

One of the most important steps in a safety plan is taking cover under a sturdy structure. "The 

ceiling tiles, the light fixtures. Those are the things that would probably do the most damage to the 

children during an earthquake," said Adams. Â Adams said that if an earthquake happens while your 

family is at home, the same precautions still apply. "If you are at home, follow the same rules," said 

Adams. "Drop, find good cover and hold on." Adams also advises to act quickly. "There will not be 

any pre-‐warnings like we have with our tornadoes," said Adams. "Have a safety plan, practice your 

safety plan and execute it whenever possible."

EOT Management Protocol 

April 17, 2012 

Integration of NEEScomm and Equipment Site (ES) EOT is a complicated 

process of coordinating headquarters’ activities and 14 unique equipment sites that require 

constant and continuous lines of communication. 

1. Communication 

a. Continued communication between NEEScomm and ES EOT throughout the 

quarter (at least every site once a month) through emails, phone calls and 

WebEx. 

b. Assistance provided as required for 

learning modules, assessment 

strategies, planning, and 

documentation. 

c. Shared ideas and resources across 

sites and NEEScomm 

d. Shared review of developed 

resources by NEEScomm and ES EOT 

2. Site visits 

3. Supplemental funding and support 

4. Yearly EOT workshops 

5. Annual Meeting 

6. Co-‐hosted Outreach and Training events 

7. Co-‐hosted workforce development activities (e.g. REU) 

Network wide programs (High Impact) is a collaborative effort that draws upon the 

resources, talents and capabilities available across the network to accomplish activities that 

provide high visibility, high impact and long lasting positive influences to further the goals of 

NEES. It requires significant support from multiple activities and many individuals to 

successfully undertake these efforts. 

1. Research to practice Webinars 

2. REU programs 

3. Virtual Poster Sessions 

4. Learning Modules 

5. Supplemental Funded Projects 

6. Professional Workshops for Researchers 

7. Annual Meeting 

8. On-‐line courses for education and 

professional development 

9. NEES Publication archive 

10. Public Relations Campaign – Highlights and 

large public venues


April 17, 2012 

Assessment of Network wide programs is a very high priority within NEES to 

determine the best delivery methods of learning tools, research experience, and outreach 

activities. Those activities that tend to have a longer exposure to the participants also tend to 

have a greater impact on their acquisition of knowledge and positive experiences engaging in 

NEES sponsored events. While “bean counting” often times is not as important as the long 

term effects of learning, these metrics do indicate a valuable premise that NEES is not 

operating in a vacuum and our audience is growing. NEES collects these measures of impact 

from the full range of activities, measuring the simple numbers of activities and number/type 

of participants as basic indicators to the longitudinal studies across multiple years and multi-year 

trends as advanced indicators. Intermediate indicators tend to fall in between and can 

any point in time migrate up or down based on the analysis of the metrics. 

1. REU 

a. Longitudinal Studies (plus demographics): Advanced Indicator 

b. Pre/Post Assessments (plus demographics): Intermediate Indicator 

c. Number of REU activities/students/locations: Basic Indicator 

2. NEESR graduate students 

a. Longitudinal Studies (demographics included): Advanced Indicator 

3. Publications 

a. Publication Metrics: Advanced Indicator 

i. Refereed Journal 

ii. Other 

b. Citation Database Metrics: Intermediate Indicator 

c. Number of NEES Highlights published: Basic Indicator 

4. NEESacademy, Webinar and Learning Modules 

a. Post survey of Research to Practice Webinar: Advanced Indicator 

i. Number of Practitioners Participating 

ii. Number of Programs 

engaging Practitioners 

b. Usability Study of NEESacademy: 

Intermediate Indicator 

c. Number of educational material 

developed/contributed to 

NEESacademy: Intermediate Indicator 

5. Participant Support and Outreach 

a. Number of outreach activities: Basic 

Indicator 

b. Number of participants: Basic 

Indicator 

c. Number of media events: Basic 

Indicator 

6. Supplemental Funding: Advanced Indicator 

a. External review to evaluate need an impact 

b. Number of reuse resources by ES EOT 

c. Number of users impacted 

d. Cost benefit analysis 

7. Stake holders reached: Intermediate Indicator


April 17, 2012 

Strategic focus of NEEScomm and Equipment Sites EOT is a process that allows 

NEEScomm to review the NEES strategic plan and how to structure the efforts of the NEES 

sites to comply with the NEES EOT strategic plan to organize a cohesive team effort in 

support of the overall annual plan. This allows for the sharing of limited resources, skills and 

expertise across the network to ensure NEES is working towards a common goal. 

1. NEEScomm development team 

determines highest priorities for 

EOT efforts during the year 

2. This priority is discussed with the 

NEES network EOT sites prior to 

submission of their annual work 

plan 

3. Types of activities and events are 

discussed that each equipment can 

focus on during the year in support 

of the highest priorities 

4. Discussion among and between ES 

is initiated in terms of mutual 

support, cooperation and collaborative efforts 

5. These efforts are submitted for funding with their AWP submissions 

Management/Overview of Equipment Sites EOT extends the process above to 

allow NEEScomm to keep a finger on the pulse of the various EOT programs across the 

network at individual sites. It provides accountability to the sites to complete EOT activities 

detailed in the AWP and allow for the collection of metrics they report in their QAR. These 

data then are accumulated and summarized into NEEScomm’s Balanced Score Card. This 

then becomes part of the NEEScomm Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) 

1. Sites submit annual work plan (AWP) 

2. All AWP’s are reviewed by EOT 

development team to ensure 

compliance with EOT strategic plan 

and in support of both NEES and EOT 

goals 

3. Deliverables, scope and budget are 

reviewed. Recommendations are 

made to the sites. 

4. AWP re-‐submitted for approval, 

verified recommendations are 

incorporated and other changes made 

as agreed upon between NEEScomm 

and ES.


April 17, 2012 

5. AWP submitted to NSF for approval. 

6. All EOT activities extracted from AWP and put into EOT implementation plan 

7. Implementation plan verifies that all stakeholders are addressed and all activities 

from the sites, including NEEScomm, are in support of the strategic plan 

8. Quarterly, metrics are collected from all sites and NEEScomm, which are mapped to 

the goals of the strategic plan, documented, analyzed and reported to NSF via the 

NEES balanced scorecard included in the quarterly report 

9. From the metrics reported, the sites’ activities are tracked and monitored for 

compliance with the implementation plan 

10. QPR submitted to PAC-‐EOT-‐S for review, comment and recommendations for 

improvement. 

Management/Overview of NEEScomm EOT is important to fill the gaps that may 

exist from the NEES sites with subject matter experts positioned at NEEScomm to assist the 

NEES sites with development efforts and assessment strategies to help meet the planned 

activities detailed in the AWP. Using NEEScomm expertise, projects are undertaken to 

supplement and enhance the specific AWP activities from the NEES sites. These projects are 

managed in a similar manner as the NEES sites with progress and completion reported in the 

NEEScomm QPR. 

1. Annual review of Strategic Plan to 

ensure compliance 

2. Develop projects to support both 

the sites and NEES network within 

budget constraints 

3. Incorporate into Implementation 

Plan 

4. Prioritize and assign due dates and 

resources 

5. Incorporate into Portfolio 

6. NEEScomm EOT progress and 

activity monitored daily and 

weekly updates from ES via email, 

phone calls, etc. 

7. NEEScomm EOT progress and activity reported bi-‐weekly to strategic council 

8. Metrics collected (both from ES and NEEScomm), mapped to goals of the strategic 

plan, documented, analyzed and reported to NSF via the NEES balanced scorecard 

included in the quarterly report. 

9. QPR submitted to PAC-‐EOT-‐S for review, comment and recommendations for 

improvement

NEES 2011 Vision Report on Computational and Hybrid Simulation: 

Needs and Opportunities 

Prepared by NEES Subcommittee on Simulation 

Dated: October 31, 2011 

Simulation Subcommittee Members: G. Deierlein (chair), P. Arduino, D. Assimaki, J. Caicedo, 

S. Dyke, M. Hachem, A. Irfanoglu, F. McKenna, P. Lynett, L. Lowes, L. Mejia, S. Mazzoni, G. 

Mosqueda, N. Nakata, J. Zhang, G. Rogers (ex officio) 

1. Introduction 

Computational simulations, involving nonlinear analyses of civil infrastructure components and 

systems, subjected to the earthquake effects of ground motions, ground deformations and 

tsunami inundation (as appropriate), are essential to modern performance-based earthquake 

engineering research and practice. O’Rourke (2010) describes the challenges in characterizing 

multi-scale phenomena of civil infrastructure systems, with length scales spanning fifteen orders 

of magnitude – from nano-scale (10-9 m) processes in materials to mega-scale (10+6 m) 

dimensions of geographically distributed infrastructure. As only a small portion of this lengthscale 

range and other conditions can be tested in the laboratory, computational methods are 

essential to generalize detailed laboratory data on material and component behavior. Techniques 

to couple physical tests with computational models, such as hybrid simulation, and with physical 

sensor networks are likewise important. 

Performance-based earthquake engineering is an important approach to plan, develop and 

manage buildings, transportation and utility systems, and other civil infrastructure that can 

provide safe and resilient communities. Computational modeling plays an important role in 

performance-based engineering to evaluate the response of civil infrastructure facilities and 

systems to earthquakes, tsunamis and other effects. Advances in simulation to support 

performance-based design and retrofit have been significant in the last decades. However, major 

challenges are still present to both improve access and use of existing simulation technologies 

and to advance the state-of-art in these methods. 

In a recent National Research Council workshop on Grand Challenges in Earthquake 

Engineering, advances in high-performance computing and Cyberinfrastructure figured 

prominently in the discussion. White papers by DesRoches (2011), Deierlein (2011), and 

Johnson (2011) described ways that high performance computing and simulation could address 

critical earthquake engineering needs related to infrastructure, buildings, and communities. A 

common theme in these papers and the workshop discussions were the need to develop 

Page 1

computational models that could capture the underlying phenomena in more fundamental and 

accurate ways. Other white papers by Myers (2011) and Ghattas (2011) described specific 

opportunities and challenges in tapping into the unprecedented capabilities of modern peta-scale 

(10^15 flops) computers and the future promise of exa-scale (10^18 flops) computers. Among 

the key challenges that they identified are ones related to (1) develop new computational 

algorithms and approaches to take advantage of modern parallel computer architectures, and (2) 

educational and outreach needs to build the necessary expertise by software developers and 

users. The needs and challenges discussed at this recent NRC workshop were generally 

consistent with those presented in prior workshops and reports on research challenges in 

earthquake engineering (e.g., NRC 2004, Dyke et al. 2010, NEES 2007) and with broader NSF 

initiatives on simulation-based engineering and science (NSF SBSE 2006, WTEC 2009, 

http://www.wtec.org/sbes/). 

Objectives of This Report: By leveraging expertise in earthquake engineering, computational 

mechanics, and high-performance computing, NEES has the opportunity to dramatically improve 

the state-of-art in computational and hybrid simulation methods in earthquake engineering. This 

report is intended to help identify some of the most important needs for earthquake engineering 

researchers and practitioners, with particular attention on those needs that can be addressed 

through coordinated initiatives of NEEScomm, including Cyberinfrastructure deployments 

through the NEEShub. Further, the report provides a synthesis and prioritization of suggested 

activities and initiative areas for NEEScomm to consider. The report is geared towards 

earthquake engineering researchers, practicing engineers and NEEScomm staff and 

representatives from NSF and other NEHRP agencies. 

2. Needs and Opportunities 

The needs and opportunities in computational and hybrid simulation generally range from 

initiatives to facilitate more effective utilization of existing nonlinear simulation technologies to 

others that advance the state-of-art in modeling and high-performance computing. As outlined 

below, the needs and opportunities are distinguished into four major thrust areas. Distinctions 

between these are not mutually exclusive. In some cases there are similar needs described in 

multiple thrust areas, where the emphasis of need is different. 

2.1 – Improving Access to and Use of Computational Modeling: The greatest short term 

opportunity for NEES in computational simulation is to improve access to existing technologies 

and formulations by both researchers and professional engineers. Improved access will lead to 

greater understanding and utilization of advanced state-of-art computational tools that will 

enhance earthquake engineering research and practice. Outlines below are specific ways that 

access and utilization can be improved (listed roughly in order of priority as identified by the 

NEES Simulation Subcommittee): 

Page 2

- Availability of on-line “cloud” computing resources: On-line cloud computing offers 

advantages both for occasional and intense computer users. For occasional users, on-line 

computing resources can avoid the start-up costs associated with downloading, installing 

and configuring software. As such, on-line resources can promote the use of advanced 

computing capabilities by students, practitioners or other researchers who are interested 

in trying out new tools and may be put off from using new tools by the time and expertise 

needed to set up and install the tools. For intense users, on-line resources can provide 

access to parallel computers, such as Teragrid resources, that can enable greater 

utilization of advanced computing for research. NEES has begun to provide on-line 

access to computational tools through NEES-hub, and such efforts should continue and 

increase. 

- Maintenance and user support/training for OpenSees: As judged by reference citations 

in published papers, workshops and website traffic, the computational framework 

OpenSees (Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation) is probably the most 

widely used non-commercial simulation platform in earthquake engineering research 

today. With its open source architecture, OpenSees facilitates the development, sharing 

and use of new analysis formulations and computational methods. Originally developed 

with NSF-ERC funding through the PEER Center, the continued maintenance and 

support for OpenSees depends on support by the earthquake engineering research and 

engineering community. Support through NEES and the research community is critically 

important to provide (a) basic maintenance of the open source code to incorporate new 

formulations implemented by researchers and to update the system to new operating 

systems, (b) training for new users and developers, (c) extension of the software 

architecture to take advantage of emerging parallel and cloud computing resources, and 

(d) modest new developments to facilitate the integration of information and visualization 

technologies in OpenSees. 

- Case studies and sharing of models and modeling techniques: As nonlinear 

computational simulation techniques are still evolving and new to many in research, 

education and practice, there are important opportunities to educate the earthquake 

engineering community through sharing of experiences and expertise. The following are 

some specific initiatives where NEES could facilitate such sharing: 

o Develop on-line library of computational models (for OpenSees and other widely 

used programs) that have been verified/calibrated against tests to improve 

understanding of important model parameters and build more confidence in 

nonlinear simulations 

Page 3

o Develop library of analysis case studies of buildings, bridges and other facilities 

that have experienced strong ground motions, where instrumentation data and/or 

damage reports are available to reconcile the analysis results with the observed 

behavior. 

o Provide illustrative examples of good and bad (i.e., learning from mistakes) 

modeling practices. These examples could be integrated into an Internet-enabled 

social network of computational modelers to promote learning, sharing of 

information and lessons learned, and community building. 

o Coordinate or help sponsor computational studies similar to the so-called 

“shakeout” exercises (www.shakehout.org) to exercise and demonstrate 

capabilities for seismic damage estimation of large urban earthquakes. 

- Maintenance and user support/training for hybrid simulation tools (OpenFresco, UIUC 

SimCor): Hybrid simulation, which combines computational and physical simulation, is 

one of the unique hallmarks of the NEES research network. Two of the more popular 

software platforms to perform hybrid simulation are OpenFresco (an extension to the 

OpenSees framework) and UIUC SimCor. Each of these has been developed 

independently by researchers at NEES sites, and to some extent the local sites have 

provided some support for the hybrid simulation tools. As these hybrid simulation tools 

become more widely deployed and used, continuing support is needed for basic 

maintenance and training for users and developers. 

2.2 - More realistic models of materials, components and systems: While computational 

simulation has advanced considerably in recent decades, models are still limited in their ability to 

capture the highly nonlinear behavior of soils and structures under earthquake ground shaking 

and tsunami effects. In particular, existing models struggle to capture the nonlinear strength and 

stiffness degradation due to cumulative damage and multi-physics phenomena (e.g., coupled 

solid-fluid models for soil liquefaction) under random cyclic loading. In some respects, the 

research and engineering communities are stuck at a cross roads between phenomenological 

models, which represent nonlinear degradation through calibration to empirical test data, and socalled 

fundamental models, which strive to simulate behavior with highly detailed models that 

are more closely formulated around the underlying mechanics and material behavior. Both 

approaches, phenomenological and fundamental, have merit and should be pursued, though the 

longer term and lasting advancements are likely to come about through fundamental models. 

Specific research needs that should be considered in formulating priorities for NEES and other 

NSF programs include the following (listed roughly in order of priority as identified by the 

NEES Simulation Subcommittee): 

Page 4

- Focused initiatives on fundamental model development: The development of more 

realistic fundamental (physics-based) models, which can capture the onset of damage 

through collapse, are critical to the future of earthquake engineering research. Such 

development will require focused initiatives where the research community can identify 

and address critical developments in model formulations, characterization of materials, 

and computational strategies to address issues that are common to different types of 

materials and components. 

- Multi-scale and multi-phenomena simulation: As described by O’Rourke (2008), 

behavior and modeling of physical infrastructure entails length scales spanning up to 

fifteen orders of magnitude, which necessitates the use of multi-scale modeling 

techniques. Moreover, multi-phenomena models are required to simulate situations 

where the response is governed by one or more basic types of physics or phenomena. For 

example, multi-phase modeling of solid-fluid interaction is required to accurately model 

soil liquefaction or tsunami effects on structures. Alternatively, performance simulation 

of distributed infrastructure may require the coupled simulation of entirely different 

phenomena, such as the impact of damage to building and transportation infrastructure on 

traffic demands and network capacity. Computational approaches and facilities are 

needed to facilitate multi-scale and multi-phenomena simulations, which may involve 

sharing of common data formats between different simulation platforms. 

- Automated optimized model parameter calculations: As models become more complex 

with larger numbers of model parameters that need to be calibrated to cyclic test data, 

there is a need for automated (or semi-automated) model parameter determination based 

on optimization algorithms based on error minimization between analysis data and 

measured test data. This need is particularly relevant to NEES given its focus on lab 

testing and archiving of test data. Moreover, depending on the size of the models, the 

required optimizations may push the need for high-performance parallel computing. 

- More complete and high-fidelity simulations: Due to the limitations of modeling and 

computing capabilities, much of the high-performance simulation efforts to date entail 

either (a) detailed modeling of small portions of a structure or region, or (b) simplified 

models of large geographic regions. To advance the research and practice of earthquake 

engineering and risk mitigation, it is important to extend the limits of current 

technologies to perform more realistic and comprehensive simulations of both individual 

facilities and large inventories of facilities that are at risk from earthquakes and tsunamis. 

- Support tools for optimized seismic design: Effective utilization of nonlinear simulation 

techniques for design will require new optimization technologies to proportion structures 

Page 5

so as to achieve the desired earthquake performance with the most economical solution. 

Existing design optimization technologies are generally limited to elastic analysis, where 

there is a linear relationship between the applied loads and the design limit state checks. 

The challenge is to adapt existing optimization algorithms, or to develop entirely new 

approaches, that will enable optimization of systems where (1) the performance outcome 

is nonlinearly related to the analysis input, and (2) there are multiple sources of 

uncertainty that should be considered 

2.3 High performance computing architecture and systems: Related to, but somewhat 

distinct from, the need for improved simulation models is the need for numerical algorithms and 

supporting information technologies to enable high performance parallel computing. Today’s 

fastest computers are capable of peta-scale (10^15 flops) computations, and exascale (10^18 

flops) computers are expected by 2018. While earth scientists have made remarkable progress 

in applying high performance computing to simulate earthquake fault ruptures and tsunamis with 

long wavelength wave propagation, progress has been much slower in applying high 

performance computing to the simulation of structures, ground deformations, local tsunami 

effects, and interactions between structures and foundations and structures and tsunamis. 

- Development of new equation formulations and solvers: In part, the lack of progress in 

high performance computing relates to the prevalent use of implicit sparse equations 

solvers in structural dynamics and the difficulty in configuring these solvers to take 

advantage of massively parallel GPU computer architectures. It has been suggested that 

to overcome this problem will require a fundamental rethinking about how structural 

systems are modeled and solved. Solutions to this may employ entirely new types of 

solvers and, perhaps, reformulation of the models themselves (e.g., adaptive meshfree 

methods have been suggested as an alternative to standard finite element methods). 

- Data management and visualization technologies: In addition to improvements to 

numerical solvers, advancements in information technologies are required to develop, 

manage, and visualize large models with massive data sets. Perhaps more than any other 

need, the required research and development to facilitate high performance computing 

will require a focused and sustained effort that involves a critical mass of researchers 

with a wide skill set, ranging from experts in earthquake engineering and computational 

mechanics to numerical methods, databases, modeling and visualization. 

2.4 Software interoperability for computational and hybrid simulation: Owing to the wide 

range of disciplines and specialty areas involved in earthquake engineering, interoperability 

between computational software, databases, and sensors will be essential to engage the 

earthquake engineering community and thereby realize the benefits of advanced simulations. 

Page 6

Specific opportunities and suggested initiatives in this regard include (listed roughly in order of 

priority as identified by the NEES Simulation Subcommittee): 

- Real-Time Hybrid Simulation: Real-time hybrid simulation will allow more realistic 

testing and simulation of materials and structures, including soils, whose response is rate 

dependent. Several of the existing NEES equipment sites are pioneers in the 

development of hybrid simulation, including enhancements in hardware and software to 

facilitate real-time (fast) hybrid simulation. The developments at individual sites could 

be leveraged through activities to share knowledge and develop standards that would 

promote the development of real-time technologies. 

- Access to on-line computing resources through the NEEShub: Development of an API to 

facilitate seamless communication between local and network computing resources and 

software (e.g., locally run Matlab scripts with parallel computing resources of NEEShub) 

would promote more effective utilization of high performance parallel computing and 

convenient management of data sets that are stored on-line at NEES. 

- Distributed hybrid simulation: Improved interoperability between software platforms has 

obvious benefits toward facilitating more widespread use of distributed hybrid simulation 

between different labs and research groups. OpenFresco and UIUC SimCor provide 

some facilities for integration of different analysis codes. It would be desirable to 

achieve more standardized and seamless interoperability to mix software and 

communication platforms. 

- Integration of BIM technologies with computational models and data bases: Building 

Information Model (BIM) technologies, which are becoming more prevalent in building 

design and construction, may offer a cost-effective and practical solution for developing 

common model representations for computational and physical simulations. As NEES 

and the earthquake engineering community looks ahead towards greater integration of 

physical testing, computational modeling, sensor data, and performance assessment of 

buildings, it should explore the use of a platform organized with existing BIM 

technologies. 

- Integration of computational simulation and sensor measurements: Integration of 

computation models with sensor information has several important applications. 

Whether sensor data is from laboratory tests or actual buildings, improved integration can 

facilitate faster and more accurate computational model calibration and model updating. 

For laboratory specimens, this can provide benefits for improved hybrid simulation 

and/or for data interpretation and control of testing. For data from real buildings, 

improved integration can facilitate health monitoring and condition assessment, including 

Page 7

eal-time (or near real-time) assessments. Model updating with data from existing 

buildings can also be important for solving inverse problems, where the goal is to infer 

something about the input ground motions and earthquake source parameters from the 

observed building response. As development of effective instrumentation requires 

careful planning, simulation could be used to test, evaluate and refine the effectiveness of 

proposed instrumentation plans. 

3. Suggested Activities and Priorities 

Based on the research and development needs described above, included below are suggested 

activities where NEEScomm can have an impact either through pursuit of specific initiatives or 

by encouraging and facilitating the initiatives among the broader NEES and earthquake 

engineering community. The activities are roughly distinguished between (a) short term 

activities that could begin soon and be completed within a year or so, (b) moderate term 

activities that require more preparation and resources that could be completed during the next 

three to five years, and (c) longer term activities, where NEEScomm and the NEES community 

can invest in activities to sustain NEES-type network capabilities beyond 2014. 

3.1 Short Term (1 yr, listed roughly in order of priority) 

- Library of Computational and Hybrid Simulation Tools: Continue to provide and 

improve NEEShub facilities to identify, catalog and make available the wide range of 

computational modeling available to the NEES research and engineering community. 

Facilities for on-line user feedback and commentary on these tools would help 

promote interest, use and further development of the tools. 

- OpenSees: Continue to support OpenSees as an open source computational platform 

to develop, share and apply models for simulating structures and soils subjected to 

earthquake effects. Support needs include basic maintenance of the open source 

software platform, appropriate extensions to implement parallel and cloud-based 

versions of OpenSees on NEEShub, user support and training, including on-line web 

resources. 

- NEEShub Computing Portal: Develop NEEShub portal to enable NEES researchers 

to access on-line (cloud) computing resources of NEEShub and the NSF Teragrid. 

Initially, this portal would provide access to OpenSees and other popular (noncommercial) 

research and educational software. In the future, opportunities for 

licensing and running commercial software could be explored. 

Page 8

- Simulation Workshops and Webinars: Promote and, where appropriate, support and 

host, workshops and/or webinars on topics related to computational simulation in 

earthquake engineering, including general knowledge, training on software coding, 

training on analysis modeling. 

- Standards for Hybrid and Distributed Simulations: Encourage and coordinate the 

development of standards that will facilitate effective development and 

implementation of technologies for hybrid simulation (computational to physical 

simulation) and distributed simulation (between alternative computational platforms). 

- On-Line Collaboration Space for Computational Simulation: Promote activities and 

implement collaboration tools on NEEShub to promote creation of a community of 

researchers and practitioners interested in computational simulation. One potential 

model for a collaboration environment is the www.imechanica.org site, which is 

popular with researchers and educators to share ideas, notes and other information on 

mechanics. 

- High Performance Computing: Host or co-sponsor workshops to promote highperformance 

computing that includes participants from earthquake engineering, 

computational mechanics, and high-performance computing communities. The 

workshop may include international participants, such as collaborators from Japan 

who are involved in creating an E-simulator (computational counterpart to E- 

Defense) on the latest K-computer technology. 

- Sharing of Computational Models: Provide resources on NEEShub to encourage and 

facilitate sharing of verified/calibrated computational models, benchmark problems, 

and data re-use from both tests and detailed analyses. Facilities for data re-use should 

include ones linked to physical test data in the NEES Project Warehouse as well as 

archived data sets of detailed computational analyses. 

- Blind Analysis Competitions: Promote and, where appropriate, support and host, 

blind analysis or other competitions to build awareness and interest in computational 

simulation and coding. 

- Grand Challenges in Computational Simulation: Work with the NEES research and 

engineering community to identify “grand challenges” in computational simulation 

and strategies to develop research initiatives to tackle these grand challenges. To the 

extent possible, these grand challenges should be described in very specific terms, 

such as through unsolved benchmark problems, that could encourage researchers to 

propose solutions to the challenges. 

Page 9

3.2 Moderate Term (3-5 yr, listed roughly in order of priority) 

- Characterization of Uncertainties: While it is well known that response of structures 

and soils are highly variable, methods to rigorously characterize the underlying 

uncertainties that contribute to the variability are not well developed. Practical and 

economic constraints of physical testing make it difficult to undertake comprehensive 

parameter studies to accurately characterize the uncertainties. Therefore, 

computational simulations can play an important role in examining the influence of 

uncertainties in material parameters, boundary conditions, random input loadings and 

other effects on the resulting response. For the same reasons that NEEScomm and 

the NEES community can facilitate research to characterize model parameters (see 

previous comment), they are likewise well positioned to lead efforts to improve 

understanding and knowledge on techniques to characterize uncertainties in 

earthquake engineering simulations. 

- Visualization of Computational Simulations: NEEScomm and NSF should support or 

otherwise facilitate the development of tools for visualization tools to make nonlinear 

simulation technologies more accessible to researchers, engineers and students. 

These tools may be built upon general commercial software (e.g., GID for visualizing 

FEM analyses) or specialty software developed by NEEScomm and/or NEES 

researchers. 

- Computational Model Calibration: Calibration of computational model parameters 

for earthquake engineering is complicated by the highly nonlinear behavior exhibited 

under random cyclic loading. As NEES seeks to promote the synthesis between 

computational and physical simulations, the NEES community is uniquely positioned 

to lead the development of tools to facilitate automated (or semi-automated) of model 

parameters by modern optimization methods that minimize errors between measured 

and simulated results. NEEScomm can promote activity in this area through 

workshops, development and sharing of tools for model parameter calibration. 

- Scholarship on Computation Simulation: Following on the “grand challenge” issues 

identified in the year 1 priorities, NEEScomm should encourage and support the 

scholarly publications that focus on tough problems in scaling up complex nonlinear 

simulations (degrading systems, parallel algorithms, convergence, optimization/fitting 

of model parameters to experiments). This could be promoted through special issue 

publications of existing journals or the creation of an on-line journal by the NEES 

community. 

Page 10

- Graphical User Interfaces (GUI): One of the recurring requests of computational 

user surveys is for GUI’s to facilitate use and understanding of advanced 

computational tools. While GUI’s are difficult and expensive to develop, 

NEEScomm should leverage opportunities to seek external funding and collaborate 

with researchers and software developers to create and improve access to GUI’s for 

OpenSees and other research software. 

- API (or web-services) to On-line Computing: As expertise and experience grows in 

using on-line computing tools through NEEShub, the next stage of development 

would be to create API plug-ins to facilitate more seamless connections between local 

computing devices and NEEShub and NSF Tera-grid resources. 

3.3 Longer Term (> 5 yr, beyond 2014, listed roughly in order of priority) 

- Ubiquitous Nonlinear Computational Simulation: Resources for nonlinear 

computational simulation should be developed to the point that high-fidelity nonlinear 

models become common place in earthquake engineering research, education and 

practice. To achieve this will require ready access to verified/calibrated simulation 

models and model parameters along with the computational infrastructure to create 

the models, conduct the analyses, and manage and visualize the output data. 

NEEScomm can play an integral role in providing the NEEShub infrastructure and 

fostering research community initiatives to achieve this vision. 

- High Performance Computing: Steps should be taken by the NEES community to 

articulate a common vision for high performance computing that (1) identifies 

specific opportunities where advanced simulations can lead to meaningful 

advancements in earthquake engineering and risk mitigation, (2) identifies research 

challenges to realize the vision of high-fidelity large-scale simulations, and (3) 

identifies the earthquake engineering research community educational and 

infrastructure needs to implement high performance computing. Ideally, this vision 

would provide a roadmap of suggested strategies that NSF and other organizations 

could embrace to achieve more effective and widespread use of high performance 

computing. 

- Integrated Simulation Database: Strive to create an on-line information technology 

infrastructure that provides seamless integration of data and tools for computation and 

physical simulations and field sensing. Ideally, the technologies would provide 

integration of heterogeneous data sets from multiple sources and provides provenance 

of the data and intellectual contributions. 

Page 11

4. References 

Cummings, P.T., Glotzer, S.C. (2010), Inventing a New America through Discovery and 

innovation in Science, Engineering and Medicine: A Vision for Research and Development 

in Simulation-Based Engineering and Science in the Next Decade, World Technology 

Evaluation Center (WTEC), Baltimore, MD., 52 pgs. http://www.wtec.org/sbes-vision/RDWcolor-FINAL-04.22.10.pdf 

Dyke, S. et al. (2010), Vision 2020: An Open Space Technology Workshop on the Future of 

Earthquake Engineering, NSF Workshop Report, 49 pgs. 

https://nees.org/resources/1637/download/Vision_2020__Final_Report.pdf 

Deierlein, G.G. (2011),”Earthquake Engineering Research Needs in the Planning, Design, 

Construction and Operations of Buildings” Proceedings of Grand Challenges in Earthquake 

Engineering Research: A Community Workshop, National Academy of Sciences. 

DesRoches, R. (2011),”Grand Challenges in Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Research” 

Proceedings of Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research: A Community 

Workshop, National Academy of Sciences. 

Ghattas, O. (2011),”Uncertainty Quantification and Exascale Computing: Opportunities and 

Challenges for Earthquake Engineering” Proceedings of Grand Challenges in Earthquake 

Engineering Research: A Community Workshop, National Academy of Sciences. 

Johnson, L. (2011),”Transformative Earthquake Engineering Research and Solutions for 

Achieving Earthquake Resilient Communities” Proceedings of Grand Challenges in 

Earthquake Engineering Research: A Community Workshop, National Academy of Sciences. 

NSF-SBSE (2006), Simulation-Based Engineering Science: Revolutionizing Engineering Science 

Through Simulation, http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/reports/sbes_final_report.pdf. 

Myers, J.D. (2011),” Cyberinfrastructure‐Intensive Approaches to Grand Challenge Earthquake 

Engineering Research” Proceedings of Grand Challenges in Earthquake Engineering 

Research: A Community Workshop, National Academy of Sciences. 

O’Rourke, T. D. (2010). “Geohazards and large, geographically distributed systems”, 

Geotechnique 60, No. 7, 505–543 

WTEC (2009), International Assessment of Research and Development in Simulation-Based 

Engineering and Science, World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) Panel Report, 

http://www.wtec.org/sbes/SBES‐GlobalFinalReport.pdf. 

Page 12

Thalia Anagnos 

Professor of General Engineering 

San Jose State University 

San Jose, CA 95192-0205 

thalia.anagnos@sjsu.edu 

Professional Preparation: 

University of California at San Diego Applied Mechanics B.A. 1978 

Stanford University Civil Engineering M.S. 1979 

Stanford University Civil Engineering Ph.D 1985 

Academic/Professional Appointments 

San Jose State University, San Jose, California. Professor General Engineering Program, 2005-present, 

Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Chair 1992-2000, Professor 1993-2005, Associate 

Professor 1988-1993, Assistant Professor 1984-1988. 

University of Western Australia, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Perth, Australia. Visiting Scholar, 7/91- 

12/91. 

Stanford University, Visiting Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 1988 

Honors/Awards: 

SJSU Outstanding Professor 2012 

SJSU Provost’s Award for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning - Honorable Mention 2008 & 2010 

SJSU Teacher Scholar – 2003 

College of Engineering Outstanding Service Award – 2000 

Distinguished Alumnus Stanford University – 1991 

Excellence in Engineering Education – SJSU Engineering Alumni, Tau Beta Pi, Ca Eta – 1990 

Five Publications Most Closely Related to Proposal 

Anagnos. T., Lyman-Holt, A., & Brophy, S. (2012). WIP: Linking a Geographically Distributed REU 

Program with Networking and Collaboration Tools, Proc. Amer. Soc. Eng. Education Annual Conf., 

San Antonio, Texas. 

Anagnos, T., & Brophy, S. (2010). NEES Academy: An Educational Cyberinfrastructure for the 

Earthquake Engineering Community, Proc. 9 th National & 10 th Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Eng., 

Toronto, Canada. 

Rietherman, R., Anagnos, T., & Meluch, W. (2008). Building Bridges between Civil Engineers and 

Science Museums, Consortium of Universities for Res. in Earthquake Eng. (CUREE), Richmond, 

CA. 

Lee, M.D., Anagnos, T., & McMullin, K. (2008). Educational Modules to Explore Soil-Structure 

Interaction and Nonlinear Behavior of Columns, 14 th World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Beijing, China. 

Anagnos, T., & McMullin, K. (2006) Integrating NEES Research into Advanced Analysis and Design 

Courses, Proceedings 8 th Nat. Conf. on Eq. Eng., San Francisco, CA.. 

Five Additional Significant Publications 

Anagnos, T., Comerio, M., Goulet, C., May, P.J., Greene, M., McCormick, D.L., & Bonowitz, D. (2012). 

Developing Regional Building Inventories: Lessons from the Field, Earthquake Spectra, accepted for 

publication. 

Linsdell, J., & Anagnos, T. (2010) Motivating Technical Writing through Study of the Environment, J. 

Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, New York. 

Biographical Sketch, Anagnos 1

Sheppard S. D., Tongue, B. H., & Anagnos T. (2011). Statics: Analysis and Design of Systems in 

Equilibrium, 2 nd edition.(in progress). John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Anagnos, T., Comerio, M.C., Goulet, C., Na, H., Steele, J., & Stewart, J.P. (2008). Los Angeles 

Inventory of Nonductile Concrete Buildings for Analysis of Seismic Collapse Risk Hazards, 14 th 

World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Beijing, China. 

Vaziri, P., Anagnos, T., Fratta, D., & Roblee, C. (2006). Implementation of the Education, Outreach, and 

Training Goals for the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Consortium, Proc. 

8 th Nat. Conf. Earthquake Eng., San Francisco, CA. 

Synergistic Activities 

2009- Present: Team member of project that is developing an outdoor museum about engineering of the 

Golden Gate Bridge at the south end of Golden Gate Bridge (NSF DRL-0840185) 

2003-Present: Led the effort to develop the NEES Education, Outreach, and Training (EOT) Plan, Coorganized 

workshop on NEES Diversity activities, Co-PI NEES EOT Program 

2007-2009: President of EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute) a national, nonprofit, 

technical society of engineers, geoscientists, architects, planners, public officials, and social 

scientists. EERI members include researchers, practicing professionals, educators, government 

officials, and building code regulators. Membership is over 2300. 

2003-2008: 20% of time spent on Partnerships for Student Success in Science an NSF MSP project to 

improve middle school science education in nine school districts, six of which were Title 1 districts 

and had high percentages of underrepresented students. 

2002 -2004: Co-developed and co-taught a freshman seminar for non-engineers on catastrophic events. 

Collaborators and Co-Editors During Last Four Years 

Sean Brophy - Purdue Nicole Okamoto – San Jose State U. 

Richard Chung – San Jose State U. 

Julio Ramirez - Purdue 

Mary Comerio – UC Berkeley 

Robert Reitherman-Cons. of U. Res. EQ Eng. 

(CUREE) 

Rudolf Eigenmann - Purdue Sheri Sheppard - Stanford U. 

Christine Goulet – UC Berkeley (PEER) Judith Steele – self employed 

Tara Hutchinson - UC San Diego 

Jonathan Stewart – UC Los Angeles 

Claire Komives - San Jose State U. 

Benson Tongue – UC Berkeley 

Juneseok Lee – San Jose State U. 

Lelli Van den Einde – UC San Diego 

Jeanne Linsdell – San Jose State U. 

Alicia Lyman-Holt – Oregon State University 

Kurt McMullin -San Jose State U. 

Jack Moehle – UC Berkeley 

Graduate Advisor 

Anne Kiremidjian, Stanford University 

Graduate Students Supervised over Last Five Years 

Diana Pancholi, San Jose State 

Jeanne Jones, USGS 

Matt Lee, currently at City of Brisbane 

Sven Rosenberg, current affiliation unknown 

Total Number of Graduate Students Supervised: 0 Ph.D., 8 MS 

Biographical Sketch, Anagnos 2

Erin L. Bassett 

Database Administrator 

Purdue University - NEEScomm 

DLRC 333, West Lafayette, IN 47907 

Professional Experience 

2012-present Database Administrator, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 

2011-2012 Warehouse Database Administrator & Data Architect, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 

2005-2011 Data/System Quality Engineer, Eli Lilly & Company, Indianapolis, Indiana 

2000-2005 Sr. Database Administrator, Eli Lilly & Company, Indianapolis, Indiana 

1999-2000 Sr. Database Administrator, Virtual Financial, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana 

1998-1999 Sr. Database Administrator/Tier 3 Customer Support, Tivoli Systems, Indianapolis, Indiana 

1994-1998 Sr. Environmental Manager/Data Analyst, Indiana Dept. Environmental Mgmt., Indianapolis, Indiana 

Professional Preparation 

Taylor University, Upland, IN Biology Pre-Med/Environmental Science 

Bachelor’s Science

Mari-Ellyn Brock 

Administrative Assistant 

Purdue University 207 S. Martin Jischke Drive 

Hall for Discovery and Learning Research, Suite 333 


Tel: (765) 496-2541 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: mebrock@purdue.edu 

• Serve as administrative assistant to the Director of IT. 

• Provide support for the IT and Site Ops enigneers. 

• Set up electronic meetings via WebEx. 

• Secure and prepare all documentation/forms for travel prior to as well as upon return from trips 

for IT and Site Ops deparments. 

• Serve as primary contact in coordinating electronic calendars. 

• Serve as primary contact for the planning and coordination of all meetings and special events. 

• Develop and coordinate various print and electronic communications to internal and external 

audiences. 

• Compile data; analyze information validity and accuracy; preparation of required reports by 

management 

• Maintain log and library of available software. 

• Twelve years of university experience.

PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION 

SEAN P. BROPHY 

School of Engineering Education 

Purdue University 

701 West Stadium Avenue 

West Lafayette, IN 47907-2045 

email: sbrophy@purdue.edu 

The University of Michigan - Mechanical Engineering, BSME, 1982. 

DePaul University - Computer Science (Artificial Intelligence), MSCS, 1992. 

Vanderbilt University - Education and Human Development, PhD 1998. 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 

2005 – Present Associate Professor in the School of Engineering Education – 


1999 - 2005 Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Biomedical 

Engineering – Vanderbilt University 

1998 - Present Postdoctoral Scholar with the Center for Innovative Learning 

Technologies (CILT) – Vanderbilt University 

1992 - 1998 Research Associate - Learning Technology Center of Vanderbilt 

University 

1991 - 1992 Control Systems Engineer - DAI Technologies, Inc. Lyle Illinois 

1990 - 1991 Programmer - The Institute for the Learning Sciences (ILS) at 

Northwestern University 

1990 - 1991 Teaching Assistant and Tutor - DePaul University 

1983 - 1989 Lead Engineer - Williams International 

PUBLICATION 

Brophy, S. Magana, A.J. and Strachan, A. (in press). Lectures and Simulation Laboratories to 

Improve Learners Conceptual Understanding. Advances in Engineering Education. 

Gershfeld, M, Chadwell, C. and Brophy (2012). Online modules for Wood Design courses 

through NEESacademy. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society 

of Engineering Education in San Antonio, Texas. 

Pellegrino JW, Brophy S (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: technology and 

the evolution of anchored instruction, III, pp. 277-303. 

Brophy, S., S. Klein, M. Portsmore, and C. Rogers. 2008. Advancing engineering education in 

the P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education 97 (3): 369–87.

Roselli, R. J. and Brophy, S. (2006). Effectiveness of Challenge-Based Instruction in 

Biomechanics. Journal of Engineering Education. 95(4). P 311-333. 

Brophy, S. P. (2003) Constructing Shareable Learning Materials in Bioengineering Education. 

IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Magazine. 22(4), p 66-70. 

Bransford, J. D., Brophy, S. P., & Williams, S.M. (2000). When Computer Technologies Meet 

the Learning Sciences: Issues & Opportunities. Applied Developmental Psychology, 

21(1). 

Schwartz, D. L, Brophy, S., Lin, X. & Bransford, J. D. (1999) Software for managing complex 

learning: Examples from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology 

Research and Development. 47(2). p 39-60 

SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES 

Co-Leader of Education Outreach and Training for the Network for Earthquake Engineering 

Education (NEES). Designing advanced cyber infrastructure to support engineering 

education with the earthquake engineering research community and the NEES community. 

Supporting design decisions of teams using cyber tools for representing complex systems. In 

collaboration with the NEES and the Dan DeLaurentis to support team based decision 

making associated with various phases of design. 

Exploring and developing advanced modes of learning with nanoHUB technologies used by 

the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN). 

Developing advanced learning environments leveraging 3D virtual worlds to teach complex 

systems and processes like aerospace design in collaboration with Dan DeLaurentis. 

Working to integrate learning technologies into the HUBzero technologies used by NEES 

and the NCN. 

COLLABORATORS (Last 48 mo.) 

Thalia Anagnos (San Jose State University), Gary Bertoline (Purdue University), Charles 

Chadwell (California State Polytechnic University), Dan DeLaurentis (Purdue), Larry 

Howard (ISIS at Vanderbilt University), Mikhail Gershfeld (California State Polytechnic 

University), P.K Imbrie (Purdue University), Stacy Klein (Vanderbilt/University School of 

Nashville), Matthew Lovell (Rose-Holman University), James Pellegrino (University of 

Illinois), Anthony Petrosino (University of Texas), Alejandro Strahan (Purdue University) 

Graduate Advisor: Robert Sherwood (Vanderbilt University) 

Post Doctoral Advisor: John Bransford (Vanderbilt University) Center for Innovative 

Learning Technologies

JOANN BROWNING, PH.D., P.E. 

Associate Dean of Engineering and Professor of Civil Engineering 

University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-7609 

A. Professional Preparation 

University of Kentucky Civil Engineering B.S.C.E., 1994 

University of Kentucky Civil Engineering M.S.C.E., 1995 

Purdue University Civil Engineering Ph.D., 1998 

B. Appointments 

2012 – present University of Kansas, Associate Dean of Administration for School of 

Engineering 

2010 – present University of Kansas, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural 

Engineering, Lawrence, Kansas, Professor 

2004 – 2010 University of Kansas, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural 

Engineering, Lawrence, Kansas, Associate Professor 

1998 – 2004 University of Kansas, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural 

Engineering, Lawrence, Kansas, Assistant Professor 

1995-1998 Purdue University, Civil Engineering Department, West Lafayette, Indiana, 

Graduate Research Assistant, Completed NSF Graduate Fellowship 

1994-1995 University of Kentucky, Civil Engineering Department, Lexington, Kentucky, 

Graduate Research Assistant 

1993-1994 Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott, and May, Inc. Lexington, Kentucky, Soils 

Laboratory Technician 

C. Publications 

(i) Related Publications: N/A 

(ii.) Other Publications: 

1. Darwin, D., Browning, J., O’Reilly, M., and Xing, L., “Critical Chloride Corrosion 

Threshold for Galvanized Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 106, No. 2, pp. 

176 - 183. 

2. Seliem, H. M., Hosny, A., Rizkalla, S., Zia, P., Briggs, M., Miller, S., Darwin, D., 

Browning, J., Glass, G. M., Hoyt, K., Donnelly, K., and Jirsa, J. O., “Bond characteristics 

of high-strength ASTM A 1035 Steel Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 

106, 2009, in press. 

3. Darwin, D., Browning, J., Lindquist, W., McLeod, H.A.K., Yuan, J., Toledo, M., 

Reynolds, D. “Low-Cracking High-Performance Concrete (LC-HPC) Bridge Decks – 

Case Studies over the First Six Years,” Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 

2022, Transportation Research Record, vol. 3, p. 61-69. 

4. Alemdar, Z., Browning, J. and Olafsen, J. “Photogrammetric measurements of RC 

bridge column deformations”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, Issue 8, August 2011, 

Pages 2407-2415. 

5. Browning, J., Darwin, D., Reynolds, D., and Pendergrass, B. “Lightweight Aggregate as 

Internal Curing Agent to Limit Concrete Shrinkage,” ACI Materials Journal, in press. 

D. Synergistic Activities 

1. Professional Committees: ACI 318-D, Building Code Sub-Committee for Flexure and 

Axial Loads; ACI 374, Performance Based Seismic Design for Buildings; EERI 

Committee- Traditional Education Forum; ACI 341, Earthquake Resistant Concrete 

E-1

Bridges; ACI 408, Bond and Development of Reinforcement; ACI 314, Simplified 

Design of RC Buildings (former Chair), ACI Technical Activities Committee 

2. Societies and Organizations: American Society of Civil Engineers; American Concrete 

Institute, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; CUREE, Board of Directors: 2003- 

2005, 2007-2008, 2010 – present, KU Representative; NEES, Site Operations and Shared 

Use Committee 2004-2005, Board of Directors 2008 – 2009. 

3. Teaching Workshops: NSF Workshop for Engineering Educators (WEE), September 27- 

29, 1999; “Best Practices Institute,” Center for Teaching Excellence, University of 

Kansas, 2003; ExCEEd, sponsor ASCE; FEMA Emergency Management Institute: 

Earthquake Protective Design; “Teaching Critical Thinking and Active Learning” 

workshop by Charles C. Bonwell, Ph.D. 

4. Educational Activities: CEAE Ambassador to Center for Teaching Excellence, University 

of Kansas; Project Discovery-Civil Engineering Coordinator: Engineering summer camp 

for high school girls; Advisor for KU Student Chapter – EERI; Advisor for KU student 

chapter of ACI; Co-Chair KU Structures Conference 

E. Collaborators & Other Affiliations (last 48 months) 

• Collaborators: David Darwin (KU), Luis Garcia (Colombia), Mary Beth Hueste (TA&M), 

Andres Lepage (PSU), Carl Locke (KU), Adolfo Matamoros (KU), Trung Nguyen (KU), 

Guillermo Ramirez (UTexas, Arlington), Ellen Rathji (UTA), Julio Ramirez (PU), Barb 

Fossum (PU), Thalia Anagnos (SJSU), Marc Eberhard (WU), Tom Hacker (PU), Rudi 

Eigenmann (PU) 

• Co-Editors: None 

• Graduate Advisors: Issam Harik, University of Kentucky, Mete Sozen, Purdue University 

• Advisees – Committee Chair or Co-Chair (Current affiliations unknown): 

Ph.D. (12): Chair: Zeynep Firat Alemdar (graduated); Co-Chair: Javier Balma 

(graduated), Jianxin Ji (graduated), Jingfeng Jiang (graduated), Guohui Guo (graduated), 

Lien Gong (graduated), Will Lindquist (graduated), Heather McLeod (graduated), Matt 

O’Reilly (graduated), Ben Pendergrass, Lihui Xing (graduated), Jiqiu Yuan (graduated) 

MSCE (26): Brett Baker (graduated), Sinique Betancourt (graduated), Ingo Brachmann 

(graduated), Gregory Kuntz (graduated), Jenelle Marsh (graduated), Diane Reynolds 

(graduated), Rebeccah Russell (graduated), Branden Warden (graduated); Co-Chair: Javier 

Balma (graduated), Mike Briggs (graduated), Jason Draper (graduated), Lien Gong 

(graduated), Dan Gruman (graduated), Amber Harley, Sean Hughes (graduated), Vinur 

Kaul, Will Lindquist (graduated), Heather McLeod (graduated), Shelby Miller 

(graduated), Jeff Peckover, Matt O’Reilly (graduated), Jayne Sperry, Scott Storm, Joseph 

Sturgeon (graduated), Nathan Tritsch (graduated), Maria Vaulker West (graduated) 

Undergraduate Research Students (10): Michael Bell, Jason Draper, Sean Hughes, Will 

Kritikos, Jenelle Marsh, Quentin Odes, Diane Reynolds, Rebeccah Russell, Robin Smith, 

Mike Zelezak 

F. Honors 

NSF Graduate Research Fellowhip, 1994-1997 

KU Miller Professional Development Award, 2004, 2011 

ACI Young Member Award for Professional Achievement, 2008 

Fellow of American Concrete Institute, 2009 

KU Miller Scholar Award, 2009, 2010 

KU Henry E. Gould Award for Distinguished Service to Undergrad. Eng.Eucation, 2012 

E-2

Ann Christine Catlin 

Research Scientist, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing 


acc@purdue.edu 


Seton Hill University Mathematics, magna cum laude B.S. 1977 

Notre Dame University Mathematics M.S. 1980 

Research and Professional Experience 

2007- Research Scientist, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing, Purdue University 

1991- 2006 Research Scientist, Computer Science Department, Purdue University 

1985 - 1990 Director of R&D, Network Synergies, Inc. West Lafayette, Indiana 

1980 - 1984 Manager of Analytic Methods Group, AT&T Information Systems. Lincroft, New Jersey 

Publications 

Most closely Related 

[1] T. Hacker, A. Catlin, et. al. “Developing an Effective Cyberinfrastructure for Earthquake 

Engineering: The NEEShub”, Computing in Science and Engineering. 2011 

[2] I. Srivastava, T. Fisher, A.C. Catlin, et. al. “Online Thermal Properties Database for Structure- 

Property Correlated Materials”, Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Mechanical 

Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2011, Denver, Colorado, November 11-17, 2011 

[3] K, Kuriyan, A. C. Catlin, G. Reklaitis. pharmaHUB: Building a Virtual Organization for 

Pharmaceutical Engineering and Science. Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation, Volume 4, 

Number . pp . 81-89. 2009 

[4] A.C. Catlin, E.N. Houstis and J.R. Rice. Problem Solving Environments: WebPDELab. 

SourceBook of Parallel Computing, (G. Fox, Ian Foster and J. Dongarra, eds.), Morgan 

Kaufman Publishers, pp. 429-440. 2003 

[5] E.N. Houstis, A.C. Catlin, N. Dhanjani, J.R. Rice, N. Ramakrishnan, and V. Verykios. My 

Pythia: A recommendation portal for scientific software and services. Research in Parallel 

Computing, (G. Fox and J. Dongarra, eds.), ACM Press. 2001. 

[6] E.N. Houstis, A.C. Catlin, N. Dhanjavi. G. Balakrishnan, G. Park, J.R. Rice, S. Lalis, M. 

Stamatogiannakis, and C.E. Houstis. Network-based scientific computing. The Architecture of 

Scientific Software, (R.F. Boisvert and P. Tang, eds.), Kluwer Acad. Pub., Boston. pp. 3-26. 

2001. 

[7] E.N. Houstis, A.C. Catlin, J.R. Rice, V.S. Verykios, N. Ramakrishnan, and C.E. Houstis. 

PYTHIA II: A knowledge/database system for testing and recommending scientific software. 

ACM Trans. Math. Soft., Vol 26, No. 9, (2000), pp. 227-253. Adv. Engr. Software, 2001. 

Others 

[1] E.N. Houstis, A.C. Catlin, V. Verykios, J. Rice and N. Ramakrishnan. Data Mining 

Environment for Modeling Performance of Scientific Software. Enabling Technologies for 

Computational Science, (E.N. Houstis, J.R. Rice, E. Gallopoulos, and R. Bramley, eds.), 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. pp. 261-271. 2000. 

[2] E.N. Houstis, J.R. Rice, S. Weerawarana, A.C. Catlin, P. Papachiou, K.Y. Wang, and M. 

Gaitatzes. PELLPACK: A problem solving environment for PDE based applications on 

multicomputer platforms. ACM Trans. Math. Soft., 24, (1998), 30-73. Abridged version in

Enabling Technologies for Computational Science, (E.N. Houstis, J.R. Rice, E. Gallopoulos, 

and R. Bramley, eds.), Kluwer, Boston.. pp. 171-185. 2000 

[3] S. Markus, E.N. Houstis, A.C. Catlin, J.R. Rice, P. Tsompanopoulou, E.A. Vavalis, D. 

Gottfried, K. Su, and G. Balakrishnan. An agent-based netcentric framework for multi 

disciplinary problem solving environments. International Journal of Computational 

Engineering Science. pp. 33-60. 2000. 

[4] A.C. Catlin, E.N. Houstis and J.R. Rice. Problem Solving Environments: WebPDELab. 

SourceBook of Parallel Computing, (G. Fox, Ian Foster and J. Dongarra, eds.), Morgan 

Kaufman Publishers, pp. 429-440. 2003. 

[5] E. Houstis, A. C. Catlin, P. Tsompanopoulou, D. Gottfried, G. Balakrishnan, K. Su, and J. 

Rice. GasTurbnLab: a multidisciplinary problem solving environment for gas turbine engine 

design on a network of non-homogeneous machines. Journal of Computational and Applied 

Mathematics, 149(1), pp 83-100. 2002. 

Number of Articles Published in Peer Review Journals 43 

Significant Awards and Honors 

• Purdue University Excellence in Research Award: Cancer Care Engineering, 2011 

• State of Indiana Techpoint Mira Award for Educational Contribution to Technology, 2005 

• Purdue University School of Science Award for Extraordinary Achievement, 2004 


• Cancer Care Engineering, supported by the Department of Defense. An IT infrastructure for 

collaborative research improves cancer care delivery, encompassing clinical research teams 

for sample acquisition, scientific laboratory workflow in biological data analysis, predictive 

modeling, and physician decision support. (http://ccehub.org). 

• Infusion Pump Informatics, supported by the Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering. 

This project advances analysis, visualization and knowledge building for alert data generated 

by IV pump operations. We are creating a comparative database and informatics system in a 

HUB-based environment, supporting interactive comparative visualization, sophisticated 

statistical analysis of the raw data, and taxonomy standardization (http://catalyzecare.org). 

• Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, supported by the NSF. This project 

addresses grand challenges in earthquake engineering research and education by working 

collaboratively with the NEES community to advance fundamental research and stimulate 

innovation. (http://nees.org). 

• Excipient Pharmaceutical Knowledge Base, supported by the FDA. A publically available 

database is developed for the pharmaceutical community, offering support for data 

contribution, exploration, analysis and visualization for excipient property measurements. 

The database contains materials, material properties and experimental results that are useful 

for formulation development and excipient comparison. (http://pharmahub.org). 

• Chile Earthquake Ground Motion and Performance Database, supported by NIST. An 

interactive database is created for observations, photos, diagrams and reports made after the 

Chile Earthquake of 2010 by reconnaissance teams. The database will support data collection, 

data exploration and photo gallery viewing, with search and annotation capabilities. The 

observed building performance has implications for U.S. model building codes and design 

practices. (http://nees.org). 

• Camp Calcium Database, supported by NIH. The database presents twenty years of 

publications and their underlying data, both raw and derived, used to investigate key 

questions from the Connie Weaver Laboratory studies of factors that improve building bone 

during the rapid growth period of adolescence. Searchable data, graphs and approximating 

functions are included in the publicly available database. (https://www.indianactsi.org).

Cheng Song 

Earthquake Engineer 

NEEScomm 207 S. Martin Jischke Drive 


Tel: (765) 464-9531 

E-mail: song74@purdue.edu 


Hunan University, China Civil Engineering BSCE 2008 

Purdue University Civil Engineering MSCE 2011 

Professional Appointments 

2011-present Earthquake Engineer, NEEScomm 

2010-2011 Graduate Research Assistant, Purdue University 

Five Most Closely Related Publications 

C. Song, S. Pujol, A. Lepage, The Collapse of the Alto Río Building during the 27 February 2010 

Maule Chile Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, EERI (submitted in March 2011, under review). 


One of Mr. Song's research efforts deals with seismic performance of shear wall buildings. A 15- 

story reinforced concrete shear wall building that collapsed in the 2010 Maule Chile earthquake was 

investigated and the splice failure in the first story of the building was discussed to contribute to 

future design for similar cases. 

Mr. Song has also been involved in contributing a shear wall performance database on NEEShub. The 

shear wall database consists of shear wall tests from China, Japan, and U.S.. 

Mr. Song also served as a graduate research assistant of NEEScomm, working with interdisciplinary 

teams to enhance NEEShub website. The work includes collecting and verifying NEES projects

information, fitting test data into web applications on NEEShub, building databases, and helping the 

IT team to improve web tools on NEEShub. 

Collaborators and Co-Editors during Last Four Years 

Dr. Santiago Pujol (Purdue University); 


Santiago Pujol

Wei Song 

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation (NEES) 

Discovery Learning and Research Center #333 


West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA 

Tel : (765) 496-2583 

Fax: (765) 496-6097 

Email: songwei@purdue.edu 


Tongji University Civil Engineering (Emphasis on Structure) B.S. 2001 

Tongji University Structural Engineering M.S. 2004 

Washington University 

in St. Louis System Sciences and Mathematics M.S. 2008 

Purdue University Civil Engineering (Emphasis on Structure) Ph.D. 2011 

Appointments 

2011.9 – Now Site Operations Engineer, George E. Brown, Jr. Network for 

Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), Purdue University 

2011.8 – 2011.9 Post Doctoral Research Associate, School of Civil 

Engineering, Purdue University 

Publications 

Five Most Relevant Publications 

1. Song, W., and Dyke, S.J. (submitted).“Experimental Investigation on Model 

Updating of Nonlinear Hysteretic Systems for Predictive Analysis,” Submitted to 

International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics. 

2. Song, W., and Dyke, S.J. (submitted).“Optimal Feedback Design For Nonlinear 

Stochastic Systems Using Pseudospectral Method,” Submitted to International 

Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 

3. Song, W., Dyke, S.J., and Harmon, T. (submitted).“Application of Nonlinear Model 

Updating for A Reinforced Concrete (RC) Shear Wall,” Submitted to Journal of 

Engineering Mechanics, ASCE. 

4. Song, W., Dyke, S.J., Yun, G.J., and Harmon, T. (2009).“Improved Damage 

Localization and Quantification Using Subset Selection,” Journal of Engineering 

Mechanics, ASCE, 135(6): 548-560. 

5. Song, W., So, M., Dyke,S.J., Harmon, T., and Yun, G.J. (2008).“Nonlinear RC 

Structure Model Updating Using Ambient Vibration Data,” ACI Special Publication, 

Health Monitoring Systems and Sensors for Assessing Concrete (ACI Committee 

236), SP 252: 99-124. 

Five Other Recent Publications 

1. Song, W. and Dyke, S. J. (2011) “Application of pseudospectral method in stochastic 

optimal control of nonlinear structural systems,” 2011 American Control Conference, 

San Francisco, California, June 29- July 1, 2011. 

2. Yan, G., Dyke, S.J., Song, W., Hackmann, G., and Lu, C. (2009) “Structural 

Damage Localization with Tolerance to Large Time Synchronization Errors in 

WSNs,” Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp: 3926-3931, 2009

American Control Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, June 10-12, 2009. 

3. Song, W.and Dyke, S.J. (2008)“Discrete-Time ARMAv Model-Based Optimal 

Sensor Placement,” AIP Conference Proceedings, 1020(1): 129-136, 2008 Seismic 

Engineering Conference Commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria 

Earthquake, Reggio Calabria (Italy), July 8–11 2008. 

4. Song, W., Dyke, S.J., Harmon, T., and So, M. (2009)“Nonlinear Model Updating in 

Concrete Structures based on Ambient Response Data,” Proceedings of 27th 

International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, Florida, February 9-12, 2009. 

5. Song, W. and Dyke, S.J. (2008)“Optimal Sensor Placement for Output-only 

Structural Health Monitoring,” Proceedings of Asian-Pacific Network of Centers for 

Research in Smart Structure Technology (ANCRiSST), Waseda University, Tokyo, 

Japan,June24-25, 2008. 


• Member, NEES Site Operations Subcommittee, 2009-2011. Main tasks include: 1) 

review and discussion of equipment site Annual Work Plans (AWP’s); 2) review site 

operation policies and shared-use requests 

• Secretary and founding member, NEES Users Forum,2009-2011. The Users Forum 

acts as a liaison between users, sites, and the broader earthquake engineering 

community. 

• Conference Secretariat and Member of Organizing Committee, NSF-sponsored 

Workshop: Vision 2020: An Open Space Technology (OST) Workshop on the Future 

of Earthquake Engineering, January 25-26, 2010 in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Responsibilities: 1) assist with workshop planning and preparation; 2) communicate 

with all invited participants; 3) facilitate and document workshop activities; and 4) 

report development. 

• Graduate Council Representative, Graduate School of Washington University in St. 

Louis, 2008. Acts as a member of a discussion forum on all matters pertaining to the 

Graduate School, subject to review by the legislative branch of the Graduate School 

• Leader of Student Volunteers, American Control Conference 2009 (ACC'09), June 

2009. Responsibilities: 1) coordinate with the conference organizing committee to 

identify the organization issues and needs; 2) lead and supervise volunteer activities; 

3) interact with conference participants and act as liaison to the organizing committee. 

Collaborators & Other Affiliations 

Collaborators 

Shirley Dyke (Ph.D. advisor, Purdue University); Jeff Scruggs (University of Michigan, 

Ann Arbor); Jinsong Pei (University of Oklahoma)

SHIRLEY J. DYKE 

Purdue University phone: (765) 494-7434 

School of Mechanical Engineering cell: (765) 588-7877 

585 Purdue Mall email: sdyke@purdue.edu 

Mechanical Engineering Building 

http://engineering.purdue.edu/iisl/ 



University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Aeronautical & Astronautical Engrg, B.S., 1991. 

University of Notre Dame, Civil Engineering, Ph.D., 1996. 

PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS 

Professor. School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, 2009-present. 

Edward C. Dicke Professor of Engineering. Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and 

Structural Engineering, Washington University, 2004–2009 

Professor. Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Structural Engineering, Washington 

University, 2003–2004 

Associate Professor. Department of Civil Engineering, Washington University, 2001–2003 

Assistant Professor. Department of Civil Engineering, Washington University, 1996–2001 

Visiting Researcher. Dept. de Mech. Solidos, Univ. del Valle, Cali, Colombia, Nov., 1997 

PUBLICATIONS 

Five Most Relevant Publications 

G. Hackmann, F. Sun, N. Castaneda, C. Lu and S.J. Dyke. “A Holistic Approach to 

Decentralized Structural Damage Localization Using Wireless Sensor Networks,” Computer 

Communications, Elsevier (in press). 

X. Gao, N.E. Castaneda, S.J. Dyke, S. Xi, C.D. Gill, C. Lu, “Experimental Validation of a 

Scaled Instrumentation for Real-time Hybrid Testing,” Proc. Amer. Control 

Conf. June 2011. 

S.J. Dyke, J. Ricles, B.F. Spencer, A. Agrawal, R. Christenson. “Control Strategies and Real 

Time Hybrid Testing Techniques for Large Scale Structural Systems,” Proceedings of the 

Civil Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, Jan 4-7, 2011. 

S.J. Dyke, B. Stojadinovic, P. Arduino, M. Garlock, N. Luco, J.A. Ramirez and S. Yim. 2020 

VISION for Earthquake Engineering, Report to the National Science Foundation on 

Recommended Future Directions for Earthquake Engineering Research, October 2010. 

A.J. Friedman, J. Zhang, Y. Cha, B. Phillips, Y. Chae, Z. Jiang, A. Agrawal, S.J. Dyke, J. 

Ricles, B.F. Spencer, R. Sause and R. Christenson, "Accommodating MR Damper 

Dynamics for Control of Large Scale Structural Systems" 5th World Conf. on Struc. Control 

and Mon, Tokyo, Japan July 11-14, 2010 (also https://nees.org/resources/676). 

Five Other Recent Publications 

G. Yan, S.J. Dyke and A. Irfanoglu. “Experimental Validation of a Damage Detection 

Approach on a Full-Scale Highway Sign Support Truss” Mech. Sys. and Signal Processing: 

Special Issue on Interdisc. and Integr. in SHM, doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2011.10.008 (2011). 

S.J. Dyke, X. Gao, Z. Jiang, R. Christenson and S. Courter “Cyberinfrastructure Tools in 

Engineering Education for Teleoperation Experiments,” Proc. of the International 

Conference on Engineering Education Research, Melbourne, Australia, Dec. 8-10, 2007. 

S.J. Dyke, R. Christenson, Z. Jiang, X. Gao and Z. Feinstein. “Tele-operation Tools for 

Bench-scale Shake Tables for Instruction in Earthquake Engineering,” Seismological

Research Letters, Seismological Society of America, Vol 78, Number 4, July-August, 2007. 

A. Turner, S. Courter, S.J. Dyke, “Classroom Implementation and Assessment on Student 

Learning of Innovative Shake Table Laboratory Instruction,” Proceedings of the American 

Society for Engineering Education, ASEE, Vancouver, June 26-29, 2011. 

W. Song and S.J. Dyke. “Experimental Investigation of Model Updating of Nonlinear 

Hysteretic Systems for Predictive Analysis” Structural Safety (submitted October 2011). 


Chairperson, NEEScomm Data and Curation Subcommittee (2009-2011) charged with 

collecting community input and guiding NEEShub developments related to data and 

curation. 

Director, University Consortium on Instructional Shake Tables, formed an international 

community created to improve earthquake engineering education through the innovative 

utilization of instructional shake tables. New funding (NSF-CCLI program) is facilitating the 

expansion of this effort to fully utilize NEES IT capabilities for undergrad education activities. 

Chairperson, NEES Education, Outreach and Training Committee (2005-2006). 12 member 

committee dedicated to EOT activities. The EOTC developing an implementation plan for 

the NEES community that is based on the EOT Strategic Plan. 

System Integration Team (2003-2004): developed user-requirements and performed 

assessment of NEES System Integration Tools developed for this cyberinfrastructure 

program, developing, coordinating and summarizing surveys to non-NEES site users and 

providing extensive feedback to other SI team members. 

REU Program Director: coordinating Washington University Civil Engineering Department’s 

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program, 1998-2008; and developed an 

REU program in Japan for students from around the US to participate in international 

research activities Advanced Technology (REUJAT), 2002-2008. 

COLLABORATORS & OTHER AFFILIATIONS 

Collaborators and Co-Editors: C. Lu and C. Gill (WashU-CSE), Bin Wu (Harbin Inst. Tech), J. 

Ramirez (Purdue), R. Christenson (U. Connecticut), J. Ricles and R Sause (Lehigh), A. 

Agrawal (CUNY), Y. Fujino (U. Tokyo), L.A. Bergman (UIUC), S. Courter (U. Wisconsin), 

P. Thomson (Univ. del Valle, Colombia), Faycal Ikhouane (Univ. of Catalonia, Spain),. 

Graduate Advisor: B.F. Spencer Jr. (UIUC, Ph.D. advisor) 

Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor 

Graduate Students: Wei Song (PhD 11), Xiuyu Gao (PhD 11), Anthony Friedman (PhD 

12), Ali Ozdagli (PhD 12), Gaby Ou (PhD 13), Zhuoxiong Sun (PhD 13), Hu Huan (MS 

12), Sriram Krishnan (MS 12); Diego Giraldo (MS 02, DSc 06), Yumei Wang (DSc 06), 

Nestor Castanada (PhD 12;MS 08), Waleed Barnawi (MS 08) 

Total: Doctoral (4 completed, 7 in progress), Masters (11) 

Postdoctoral Researchers: Guirong Yan (2008-09); GunJin Yun (2006-07); Bong-Hwan 

Koh (2004-05); Ping Tan (CUNY, N.Y. 2001-03); Seok-Jun Moon (KAIST, Korea 2003); 

Undergraduate (REU), High School Student and RET Research Advisor 

Undergraduate Researchers (over 25 total): Chris Beeler (12), Jian Ouyang (12), Le Yu 

(10), Zach Feinstein (09), Elizabeth Boulton (10), Mallory Moore (09), 

High School Researchers (10 total): Q. Thames, B. Minden, M. Williams, A. Hope, S. 

Tereshchenko, E. Thaisrivongs, P. Wang, T. Huegerich, B. Austrin-Willis, C. Whyte 

High School Teachers: C. Jackson (04), E. Mulanax (02), G. Murray (02), 

Visiting Researchers: Barbara Nepote (Italy); Carlos Monroy (Spain); Luca Giacosa 

(Italy); Andy Richardson (Florida A&M); Kohei Takamura (Japan); Rodolfo Villamizar 

(Spain); Mauricio Zapateiro (Spain); Faycal Ikhouane (Spain); Nam Hoang (Vietnam)

Vipin Dwivedi 

207 South Martin Jischke Drive, Room 333, West Lafayette, IN 47907 

Ph: 765-496-3615 

E-Mail: vdwivedi@purdue.edu 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SYNOPSIS: Over 11 years of diverse experience in developing IT solutions for achieving business goals. Result oriented 

analytical professional with a proven track record in technology, leadership and management. Strong capacity to work with 

business users, technical developers and senior management 

EDUCATION: 

M.S., Electronics Engineering Technology, The University of Memphis December 1999 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Shri G.S. Institute of Technology & Science, Indore (India) July 1996 

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: 

May 2010 – Present 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 

Site Operations Data Analyst, Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation 

(NEEScomm) 

Achievements: Streamlined and enhanced reporting of Annual Work Plans (AWP) and Quarterly Financial Reports 

(QFR). Ensure accuracy and consistency of data and information across all network sites for several reporting 

requirements 

Oct 2005 – Oct 2009 

Monsanto Company, Muscatine, Iowa 

Senior Systems Analyst, Process Control & Information Technology 

Achievements: Led the design, development and support initiatives on several intranet applications. Successfully 

reduced systems maintenance cost by migrating legacy applications on to a new more robust and manageable 

architecture. Worked with director level stakeholder to develop IT solutions 

Mar 2004 – Oct 2005 

University of Illinois at Urbana – Champaign, Champaign, Illinois 

Management Methods Analyst, Office of Student Financial Aid 

Achievements: Managed and supervised the development and enhancement of several secured web applications used 

by 50,000+ users, handling funds in excess of $300 million. Successfully achieved cost reduction, process efficiency 

and improved productivity by automating manual processes. Led a team of 5 analysts and developers. Performed 

business process modeling, use case analysis, scope & specification reviews, system development & deployment 

Aug 2003 - Mar 2004 

MCI (now Verizon), Clinton, Mississippi 

Senior Applications Developer, Corporate Systems Architecture 

Achievements: Spearheaded the design and development tasks for the “Internal Accounts Repository” project used for 

housing internal non-billable accounts. Successfully gathered functional and business requirements and translated them 

into technical specifications. Used Rapid Application Development (RAD), enhancing MCI’s ability to restructure and 

improve internal controls 

Dec 2002 - Aug 2003 


Systems Administrator, Real Estate Management 

Achievements: Improved the systems features and performance by providing technical and functional support. 

Scheduled real-time business and financial reports, streamlining MCI’s strategic decision-making process and ability to 

consolidate and manage its real estate assets

Vipin Dwivedi Page | 2 

Apr 2000 - Dec 2002 


Applications Developer, World Commerce Strategy 

Achievements: Successfully customized, developed and deployed Ariba 6.x and Ariba 7.x, significantly reducing cost 

and lead time for electronic procurement, travel and expense reimbursements and approval process for expenditure. 

Mentored and trained junior developers and successfully transitioned the legacy travel and expense system into Ariba 

System 

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING: 

♦ Customization of Ariba Buyer (for Ariba 6.x and Ariba 7.x) 

♦ Training in Advanced Java 

♦ Microsoft .NET technologies 

♦ Aspen InfoPlus.21 Foundation 

AFFILIATIONS: 

♦ Member – Monsanto International Toastmasters (Nov 2005 – Oct 2009) 

♦ Secretary – Graduate Student Association, The University of Memphis (Aug 1998 – Dec 1999)

MARC O. EBERHARD 

Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering 

University of Washington 

233 More Hall, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195 

(206) 543-4815; FAX: (206) 543-1543 

eberhard@u.washington.edu 


University of California, Berkeley Civil Engineering/Materials Science and Eng. BS, 1984 

University of Illinois, Urbana Civil Engineering MSCE, 1987 

University of Illinois, Urbana Civil Engineering PhD, 1989 

Appointments 

2004-present Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle 

1996-2004 Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle 

1989-1996 Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle 

1997-1998 Visiting Scholar, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, U.C., Berkeley 

1985-1989 Research Assistant, University of Illinois at Urbana 

1985 Assistant Bridge Engineer, California Department of Transportation Bridge 

Design Division, Sacramento 

1984 Summer Engineer, Earl and Wright Consulting Engineers, San Francisco, 

California 

1983 Engineering Aide, Materials Science and Engineering, U.C., Berkeley, California 

1982 Summer Engineer, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation 

District, Hayward, California 

Closely Related Publications 

• Haraldsson, O.S., Janes, T.M.*, Eberhard, M.O., and Stanton, J.F."Seismic Resistance of Socket 

Connection between Footing and Precast Column," To appear in Journal of Bridge Engineering, 

ASCE, 2012 

• Pang, B.K., Eberhard, M.O., and Stanton, J.F., “Large-Bar Connection for Precast Bridge Bents in 

Seismic Regions,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, May-June, 2010, pp 231-239. 

• Steuck, K., Stanton, J.F. and Eberhard, M.O., “Anchorage of Large-Diameter Reinforcing Bars in 

Ducts,” ACI Structural Journal, July-August, 2009, pp 506-513. 

• Johnson, N., Ranf, R.T., Saiidi, S., Sanders, D. and Eberhard, M., “Seismic Testing of a Two- 

Span Reinforced Concrete Bridge,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, March-April 2008, pp 

173-182. 

• Eberhard, M.O. and Marsh, M.L. (1997), "Lateral-Load Response of a Reinforced Concrete 

Bridge," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, April, Vol. 123, No. 4, pp. 451-460. 

Other Significant Publications 

• DesRoches, R., Comerio, M., Eberhard, M., Mooney, W., Rix, G., “Overview of the 2010 Haiti 

Earthquake (2011),” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, October, 

pp 1-21. 

• Elwood K.J. and Eberhard, M.O., “Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI 

Structural Journal, July-August 2009, pp 476-484. 

• Ranf, R.T., Eberhard, M. and Malone, S., "Post-Earthquake Prioritization of Bridge Inspections." 

Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, February 2007, pp 131-146. 

• Berry, M.P. and Eberhard, M.O., "A Practical Performance Model for Bar Buckling," Journal of 

Structural Engineering, ASCE, July 2005, Vol. 131, No. 7, pp 1060-1070.

• Eberhard, M.O. and Sozen, M.A., "A Behavior-Based Method to Determine Design Shear in 

Earthquake-Resistant Walls," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, February 1993, Vol. 119, 

No. 2, pp. 619-640. (Received 1994 ASCE Raymond C. Reese Research Prize). 

1. Synergistic Activities 

• Team Leader, USGS/EERI Advance Reconnaissance Team, Haiti Earthquake of 

January 2010. Co-leader of EERI-NSF RAPID and Research Needs Workshop (2010). 

• NEEScomm. George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation 

(NEES). Interim Director of Site Operations (2009), Chair Project Advisory Committee 

(2009-2010), Chair, Subcomm. on Site Operations (2009-present), Member Strategic 

Council (2010-present). 

• NEESinc. George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). 

Chair, Site Operations Committee (2005-2007). NEESinc Board of Directors (2007- 

2010). Vice-President (2008-2010). 

• Developed website with results of tests of approximately 500 reinforced concrete 

columns. Material properties, geometry, observed damage and force-displacement 

response can be downloaded at: http://www.ce.washington.edu/~peera1. (2002- 

present). 

• Co-coordinator of the Nisqually Earthquake Clearinghouse at the U. of Washington. 

Coordinated activities of seismologists, geologists, geotechnical engineers, structural 

engineers and socio-economic researchers. http://www.ce.washington.edu/~nisqually. 

(2001). 


Mary Comerio, Univ. of California, Berkeley 

Reggie DesRoches, Georgia Institute of Tech. 

Kenneth Elwood, Univ. of British Columbia 

Ayhan Irfanoglu, Purdue Univ. 

Sumumo Kono, Kyoto University 

Stephen Mahin, Univ. of California, Berkeley 

Lee Marsh, Berger-ABAM Engineers 

Walter Mooney, USGS 

Claudia Ostertag, Univ. of California, Berkeley 

Santiago Pujol, Purdue Univ. 

Jose Restrepo, Univ. of California, San Diego 

Glenn Rix, Georgia Institute of Tech. 

Saiid Saiidi, Univ. of Nevada, Reno 

David Sanders, Univ. of Nevada, Reno 

Thesis Advisor 

Mete Sozen, Purdue University 

Graduate Students Advised 

Ph.D. and Postgraduate Students: 9 Master's Thesis: 38 

Barr, Paul, Ph.D., Utah State University 

Berry, Michael, Ph.D., Montana State University 

De la Colina, Jaime, Scholar, UNAM, Mexico 

Haraldsson, Olafur (in progress) 

Hung, Tran Viet (in progress) 

Marsh, Lee, Scholar, Berger-ABAM Consulting Eng. 

Newtson, Craig, Ph.D., New Mexico State University 

Price, Tom, Ph.D., City University of New York 

Ranf, R. Tyler, Ph.D., MKA Consulting Engineers 

P. Barr, M. Berry, S. Bjornsson, H. Camarillo, L. 

Cohagen, W. Cone, P. Davis, E. Eirnarsson, E. 

Fekete, G. Finnsson, D.Hieber, O. Haraldsson, G. 

Hjartarson, T. Hudgings, N. Hang, T. Hung, T. 

Janes, P. Knaebel, A. Lebsock, J. MacLardy, J. 

Meader, B. Meigs, A. Mookerjee, J. Nelson, S. Ng, 

J. Nobuto, T. Odonovan, J. Pang, M. Parrish, G. 

Pla, Z. Price, S. Rodehaver, M. Rosa, S. Ryter, K. 

Steuck, T. Tomasson, P. Trochalakis, J. Wacker.

Rudolf Eigenmann 


ETH Zürich, Switzerland: 

Ph.D., Computer Science / Electrical Engineering (1988) 

Diploma in Electrical Engineering (1980) 

Appointments: 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 

Professor, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, since 2003 

Technical/Interim Director, Computing Research Institute, since 2007–2011 

Associate Professor, and Chair, Computer Area, School of ECE, 1999–2003 

Associate Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1998–2003 

Assistant Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1995–1998 

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 

Visiting Research Associate Professor, 

Coordinated Science Laboratory, 1992–1995 

Visiting Assistant Professor and Senior Software Engineer, 

Center for Supercomputing Research and Development, 1988–1992 

ETH Zürich, Switzerland 

Research Associate, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, 1988 

Directly Related Publications: 

1. Hacker, T.J., Eigenmann, R., Bagchi, S., Irfanoglu, A., Pujol, S., Catlin, A. and Rathje, E., “The 

NEEShub Cyberinfrastructure for Earthquake Engineering,” Computing in Science & Engineering, 

vol:13, no:4, pages 67–78, 2011. 

2. R. Eigenmannn, T. Hacker and E. Rathje, “NEES Cyberinfrastructure: A Foundation for Innovative 

Research and Education,” 2010 US-CANADA joint conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, 

Canada, July 2010. 

3. Xiaojuan Ren and Rudolf Eigenmann, “iShare - Open Internet Sharing Built on Peer-to-Peer and 

Web,” European Grid Conference, pages 1117–1127, February, 2005. 

4. Jose A. B. Fortes, Nirav H. Kapadia, Rudolf Eigenmann, et. al., “On the Use of Simulation and Parallelization 

Tools in Computer Architecture and Programming Courses,” The Computers in Education 

Journal, January/March, 2001, pages 19–27. 

5. Insung Park, Nirav H. Kapadia, Renato J. Figueiredo, Rudolf Eigenmann and José A. B. Fortes, 

“Towards an Integrated, Web-executable Parallel Programming Tool Environment”, Proc. of SC2000: 

High-Performance Computing and Networking Conference, 2000, 12 pages. 

Other Significant Publications: 

1. Seyong Lee and Rudolf Eigenmann, “OpenMPC: Extended OpenMP for Efficient Programming and 

Tuning on GPUs”, International Journal of Computational Science and Engineering, 2012. 

2. Chirag Dave, Hansang Bae, Seung-Jai Min, Seyong Lee, Rudolf Eigenmann and Samuel Midkiff, “Cetus: 

A Source-to-Source Compiler Infrastructure for Multicores,” IEEE Computer, vol. 42, 2009, pages 

36–42. 

3. Mohamed Sayeed, Hansang Bae, Yili Zheng, Brian Armstrong, Rudolf Eigenmann, and Faisal Saied, 

“Measuring high-performance computing with real applications,” IEEE Computation in Science and 

Engineering, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 60–69, 2008. 

4. Xiaojuan Ren, Seyong Lee, Rudolf Eigenmann, and Saurabh Bagchi, “Prediction of resource availability 

in fine-grained cycle sharing systems and empirical evaluation,” Journal of Grid Computing, vol. 5, 

pp. 173–195, 2007.

5. Troy Johnson and Rudolf Eigenman, “Context-Sensitive Domain-Independent Algorithm Composition 

and Selection”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and 

Implementation, 2006. 

Synergistic Activities: 

• Interim/technical Director of the Computing Research Institute (CRI) 2007/2011: CRI is Purdue’s center 

for high-performance computing research. The center takes a leading role in facilitating large-scale, 

interdisciplinary research projects in computational science and engineering. Initiated the NEEScomm 

project in this role, leading to Purdue’s largest externally funded project ($105M). 

• Conference/Workshop Chair/Vice-chair: Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming 

(General Chair PPoPP2003), International Conference on Parallel Processing (Program Chair 

2004, Vice-Chair 2002, 2008), Workshop on Languages and Compilers for High-Performance Computing 

(Co-Chair LCPC2004), Workshop on High-Level Interfaces for Parallel Systems (Chair HIPS2002), 

Workshop on OpenMP Applications and Tools (Chair 2000, 2008). 

• Developed the open-source Cetus and Polaris compiler infrastructures. The infrastructures have been 

used world-wide by many projects as robust platforms for compiler research. 

• Developed the “Parallel Programming Hub”, a web-based infrastructure that makes available via standard 

web browsers research tools for the development of parallel computer applications. Co-developed 

the underlying infrastructure, PUNCH, which has evolved into Purdue’s nanoHub (nanohub.org) and 

the general “hub technology”. This technology underlies a large and growing number of cyberinfrastructures 

in diverse areas of science and engineering, including the NEEShub. 

• Teaching experience: In addition to 24 years of teaching experience as a faculty member at Purdue University 

and the University of Illinois, experience includes teaching tutorials at international conferences, 

such as Supercomputing (several tutorials over the past 15 years), PPoPP, ICS, and PACT. 

Non-Purdue collaborators over the last 48 months: David Padua, (University of Illinois); Jose Fortes 

(Univ. of Florida), Hironori Kasahara, (Waseda Univ., Japan), Mitsuhisa Sato (Univ. of Tsukuba, Japan), 

Barbara Chapman (Univ. of Houston), Matthijs van Waveren (Fujitsu), Jesus Labarta, Eduard Ayguade, 

(Polytechnical University of Catalunya (UPC, Spain), Lawrence Rauchwerger (Texas A&M U.), H.J. Siegel, 

Anthony A. Maciejewski (Colorado State U.), Thalia Anagnos (San Jose State U.), Marc Eberhard (U. 

Washington), Ruth Pordes (Fermi Lab.), Ann Zimmerman (U. Michigan), JoAnn Browning (U. Kansas), 

Ellen Rathje (U. Texas). 

Advisees: Brian Armstrong (Ph.D., Simulex), Vishal Aslot (M.S. IBM), Seon Wook Kim (Ph.D. Korea 

Univ.), Insung Park (Ph.D. Microsoft), Michael Voss (Ph.D. Univ. of Toronto), William Blume (Ph.D. 

Hewlett Packard), Jee M. Ku (M.S. University of Illinois), Thomas Lawrence (M.S. Microsoft), Bill Pottenger 

(M.S. Lehigh University), Gregg Skinner (M.S. NEC), Wessam Hassanein (Ph.D. U. Calgary), Shoukat Ali 

(Ph.D. U.. Missouri), Jong-Kook Kim (Ph.D. Korea University), Zhelong Pan (Ph.D. VMWare), Xiaojuan 

Ren (Ph.D. VMWare), Troy Johnson (Ph.D. Cray Inc.), Ayon Basumallik (Ph.D. Marvell Inc.), Seung-Jai 

Min (Lawrence Berkeley Labs), Sang-Ik Lee (Intel), Seyong Lee (Oak Ridge National Lab). 

Advisors: Helmar Burkhart (Ph.D: University of Basel, Switzerland), Walter Guggenbuehl (Ph.D: ETH 

Zurich, Switzerland)

Barbara Fossum 

Deputy Center Director, NEES 


(765) 494-6408 

bfossum@purdue.edu 


University of Illinois Political Science B.A. 1976 

Parkland College Advanced Certification 1990 

in Computer Graphics and Scientific Visualization 

University of Illinois 

Graduate Coursework in mathematics and computer science 


2009 – Present Deputy Center Director, George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering 

Simulation 

2005-2009 Managing Director, Cyber Center; and Managing Director, Computer Research 

Institute, Purdue University 

2004-2005 Research and Development Manager, Texas Advanced Computing Center, TeraGrid Site 

Lead, NSF Extensible Terascale Facilities Project, University of Texas at Austin 

2001-2004 Associate Program Director, Advanced Computational Research (ACR) Division; 

Adjunct Program Director, Computer-Communications Research Division (CCR); ITR 

Program manager, graphics and visualization program, National Science Foundation, 

Washington, DC 

2001 Senior Projects Manager, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 

University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois 

1998-2001 Program Manager, High-Performance Computational Science, Committee on Institutional Cooperation 

1993-1998 Director, Visualization Facility; Research Scientist, National Center for Supercomputing Applications 

(NCSA), Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology 

Publications Most Closely Related to Proposal 

Govindaraju, R.S., B. Engel, D. Ebert, B. Fossum, M. Huber, C. Jafvert, V. Merwade, D. Niyogi, L. Oliver, S. 

Prabhakar, G. Rochon, C. Song, L. Zhao (2008). "A vision of cyberinfrastlUcture for end-toend environmental 

explorations (C4E4)." ASCE Journal ofHydrologic Engineering, doi: 1O.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:1(53), 

14(1), pp. 53-64. 

Govindaraju, R., B. Engel, D. Ebert, B. Fossum, M. Huber, C. Jafvert, V. Merwade, D. Niyogi, L. Oliver, 

S. Prabhakar, G. Rochon, C. Song, L. Zhao, "Cyberinfrastmcture for End-to-End Enviromnental Explorations 

(C4E4)", postel' presented at the Joint Workshop for WATERS Network Test Beds and CUAHSI Hydrologic 

Information Systems, Austin, TX, November 15-17, 2006. 


• Within the Cyber Center: manage large collaborative projects and proposals, organize symposia and 

workshops, set strategy for new funding opportunities, maintain and manage budgets for Cyber and 

Computer Research Institute, work to collaborate with international partners, and synthesize, support, 

direct interdisciplinary teams to response to sponsored funding opportunities 

• Participate in site review panels for large sponsored research projects, (GEON, NEESit, SCEC), interact 

with NSF Program directors across all of NSF 

• Former Program manager for large distributed group of 13 tier-l research institutions to facilitate 

collaboration and synergy between competitive universities in the area of High Performance Computing 

• Community Conference Participation in SCXY Conference series in all aspects of conference management 

including Broadening Engagement Co-Chair, Technical Program Co-Chair, Infrastructure Co-Chair, 

Housing and Travel Chair 

• Invited presentations at international locations including Mumbai, Delhi, and Bangalore, India, Hong Kong 

and Beijing, China.


Purdue University Collaborators 

Govindaraju, R.S., B. Engel, D. Ebert, M. Huber, C. Jafverl, V. Merwade, D. Niyogi, L. Oliver, S. Prabhakar, G. Rochon, C. 

Song, L. Zhao, Mourad Ouzzani, Tanu Malik, Ahmed Elmagarmid,

Thomas J. Hacker 

Associate Professor of Computer and Information Technology 

Purdue University 401 N. Grant Street 

Knoy Hall of Technology, West Lafayette, IN 47907 

Tel: (765) 494-4465 Fax: (765) 496-1212 

E-mail: tjhacker@purdue.edu 


Oakland University, Rochester, MI Computer Science B.S. 1989 

Oakland University, Rochester, MI Physics, Mathematics Minor B.S. 1989 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Computer Science and Engineering M.S. 1993 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Computer Science and Engineering Ph.D. 2004 


2011-present Associate Professor, Computer & Information Technology, Purdue University 

2009-present Co-Leader for Information Technology, NSF Network for Earthquake Engineering 

Simulation (NEES) 

2007-2011 Assistant Professor, Computer & Information Technology, Purdue University 

2007-present Assistant Research Professor, Purdue Discovery Park Cyber Center, Courtesy Appt. 

2006-2007 Assistant Research Professor, Discovery Park Cyber Center, Purdue University 

2004-2006 Associate Director, Research and Academic Computing, Indiana University 

2002-2004 Research Assistant, Visible Human Project/Center for Information Technology 

Integration, University of Michigan 

1996-2004 Systems Project Coordinator, Center for Advanced Computing, University of Michigan 

1994-1996 Staff Software Engineer, Storage Technology Corporation 

1993-1994 Systems Programmer, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK Canada 

1991-1993 Systems Research Programmer II, Center for Information Technology Integration, 

University of Michigan 


Hacker, T. J., Eigenmann, R., Irfanoglu, A., Pujol, S., Rathje, E., Catlin, A., Bahchi, 

S. (2011). Developing an Effective Cyberinfrastructure for Earthquake Engineering: The NEEShub, 

IEEE Computing in Science & Engineering. 13(4), 67-78, Invited paper. 

Hacker, T. J., Romero, R., and Caruthers, C. (2009). An Analysis of Clustered Failures on Large 

Supercomputing Systems. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing,2009. Vol 69, Issue 7, p. 

652-665, Elsevier. 

Malik, Q. H., Perova, N., Hacker, T. J., Streveler, R. A., Magana, A. J., Vogt, P. L. & 

Bessenbacher, A. M. (2011), Creating a Virtual Learning Community with HUB Architecture: 

CLEERhub as a Case Study, Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal 

(KM&EL), Vol.3, No. 4, December 2011 

Eigenmann R., Hacker, T.J., & Rathje, E. (2010). NEES Cyberinfrastructure: A Foundation for 

Innovative Research and Education . Proceedings of the 9th US / 10th Canadian Conference on 

Earthquake Engineering Toronto, ON., July 2010 

St. John, J, and Hacker, T. (2012). Developing Virtual Clusters for High Performance Computing 

Using Open Nebula. Proceedings of the 119th ASEE Annual Conference and Exhibition, June 10- 

13, San Antonio, TX.

Five Additional Publications 

Hacker, T.J., and Mahadik, K. (2011). Flexible Resource Allocation for Reliable Virtual Cluster 

Computing Systems, Proceedings of the 2010 ACM/IEEE International Conference for High 

Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC11), November 12 – 18, 2011. 

Seattle, WA. 

Kumar, M., Hacker, T., Springer, J., Marshall, B. (July 2011). Kernel level support for workflow 

patterns. IEEE 2011 Fifth International Workshop on Scientific Workflows Washington, DC. 

Hacker, T.J. (2011). Exploring the Use of Virtual Machines and Virtual Clusters for 

High Performance Computing Education. Proceedings of the 118th ASEE Annual Conference and 

Exhibition, June 26-29, Vancouver, B.C, Canada. 

Hacker T.J., Romero, R., Neilsen, J. (2012). Secure Live Migration of Parallel Applications Using 

Container Based Virtual Machines, International Journal of Space-Based and Situated Computing, 

Inderscience Publishing,2(1), 45-57. Invited paper. 

Hacker, T. J., and Springer, J. (2011). Turning the Tide of the Data Deluge. 1st Workshop on Highperformance 

Computing Meets Databases, Supercomputing 2011, November 18, 2011, Seattle, WA. 


1. Co-Leader for Information Technology for the NSF George E. Brown Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation, NEEScomm, Purdue University. 

2. Program Committee member for SC12 HPC Educators Program 

3. Member of the Open Science Grid Council. 

4. Program committee member for NSF XSEDE Conference (2012), IEEE eScience (2012), 

IEEE/ACM Supercomputing (SC07, SC09), 2005-2008 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on 

Grid Computing Grid conference; Reviewer, Journal for Parallel and Distributed Computing, 

ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, Future Generation Computing 

Systems (FGCS), ACM SIGITE, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Computing, 

Cluster Computing, and International Journal for High Performance Computing Applications. 

5. Co-Chair for Supercomputing (SC10) Symposium for High Performance Computing Workforce 

Development, SC10, New Orleans, LA, November, 2010. 


William Adamson (University of Michigan), Andrew D. Arenson (Indiana University), Brian Athey 

(University of Michigan), Beth Kirschner (University of Michigan), Matt Mathis (PSC), Brian Noble 

(University of Michigan), John V. Samuel (Indiana University), Anurag Shankar (Indiana University), 

Stephen Simms (Indiana University), Craig Stewart (Indiana University), Jennifer Schopf (NSF), Ray 

Bair (Argonne National Lab), Norbert Neumeister (Purdue University), Zdzislaw Meglicki (Indiana 

University), Matt Link (Indiana University), Scott McCaulay (Indiana University), Matthew Huber 

(Purdue), Scott Brandt (Purdue), Gerhard Klimeck (Purdue), John Springer (Purdue), Shannon Schlueter 

(Purdue), Michael Kane (Purdue), Chris Carothers (RPI), Carol Song (Purdue), Sharon Glotzer 

(Michigan), Rudi Eigenmann (Purdue), Barb Fossum (Purdue), Ellen Rathje (U-Texas), Julio Ramirez 

(Purdue), Kay Hunt (Purdue), Thalia Anagnos (San Jose State University) 

Graduate and PostDoctoral Advisors 

(U-Michigan) Brian Noble; Brian Athey 

Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor (for the following people in the last 5 years): 

(All Purdue) Preston Smith, Fabian Romeo, Amruta Shiroor, Manish Kumar, Aniruddh Ghatpande, 

Kanak Mahadik, Jason St. John.

EDUCATION 

GEORGE A. HOWLETT 

Rosen Center for Advanced Computing 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 

PH: (765) 494-6058; FAX: (765) 496-2273 Email: gah@purdue.edu 

State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY Computer Science BA 1994 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 

2007-present Senior Software Engineer, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing, Purdue 

2006-2007 Software Engineer, Ripcode Inc. 

2004-2006 Senior Systems Verification Engineer, Intel Corporation 

2003-2004 Consultant, Creekside Technologies 

2000-2003 Principal Software Engineer, Silcon Metrics 

1998-2000 Senior Consultant, Cadence Design Systems 

1988-1998 Member of Technical Staff, Bell Labs Innovations for Lucent Technologies 

1986-1988 Systems Programmer, Twin City International 

1985-1986 System Analyst, Huntingdon Analytical Services Inc. 

HONORS AND AWARDS 

CURRENT RESEARCH INTERESTS include software design and techniques, high-performance 

computing, user interface design, scientific visualization, and programming languages. 

RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS 

1. Mark Harrison (editor), Tcl/Tk Tools, contributed chapter “The BLT Toolkit”, O'Reilly & 

Associates, September 1997, ISBN 1565922182. 

2. G. A. Howlett, “Data Objects”, Proceeding of the TCL/TK 1998 Workshop, San Diego, 

California, September 1998. 

3. G. A. Howlett, “A Table-based Layout Editor”, Proceedings of the TCL/TK 1995 Workshop, 

Toronto, Canada, July 6-9 1995. 

4. G. A. Howlett, “Packages: Adding Namespaces to Tcl”, Proceedings of the TCL/TK 1994 

Workshop, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 23-25, 1994. 

5. G. A. Howlett, “Visual Programming in TCAD ”, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual AT&T 

Software Symposium, Holmdel, New Jersey, October 12-13, 1993. 

6. G. A. Howlett, “A Table Geometry Manager for the Tk Toolkit”, Proceedings of the TCL/TK 

1993 Workshop, University of California at Berkeley, June 10-11, 1993. 

OTHER SIGNIFICANT PUBLICATIONS / INVENTIONS 

• BLT Author of BLT toolkit (www.sourceforge.net/projects/blt). 

An open source library for Tcl/Tk. Includes custom widgets for plotting (graph, barchart, stripchart), data 

container objects (tree, table, vector), specialized widgets (hypertext, tab notebook, treeviewer, 

combobox), a table-based geometry manager, image processing commands, and other utilities for 

building Tcl/Tk applications. World-wide user community. Used in several commercial products. Also 

part of the nanoHUB.org infrastructure, a world-wide resource for nanotechnology research and 

education. 


• Software developer for the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (www.ncn.purdue.edu), a 

hmulti-university, NSF-funded initiative with a mission to lead in research, education, and outreach to

students and professionals, while at the same time deploying a unique web-based infrastructure to 

serve the nation’s National Nanotechnology Initiative. The deliverable for this project is a user 

service facility that exists in cyberspace as a web site, http://nanoHUB.org, connecting people, 

disseminating unique educational resources, and delivering simulation, visualization, and highperformance 

computing services online. 

• Software developer for the Cancer Care Engineering by The Regenstrief Foundation and the U.S. 

Army. Application of systems engineering methologies to the study of cancer suspectibility and 

treatment response – based on predictive behavior modeling using proteomics, metabolomics, and 

other omics-based data. Includes design and development of an information infrastructure to support 

experimental and data analysis workflow for OMIC data. $1M for two years. 

COLLABORATORS AND OTHER AFFILIATIONS 

Collaborators: 

Graduate Advisor: 

Former Ph.D. Students:

AYHAN IRFANOGLU 

Associate Professor of Civil Engineering 

School of Civil Engineering 


550 Stadium Mall Drive 


Ph: (765) 496-8270 

Fax: (765) 494-0395 

E-mail: ayhan@purdue.edu 

http://eng.purdue.edu/~ayhan/ 


Ph.D. Civil Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 2000 

M.Sc. Civil Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 1994 

B.Sc. Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey 1993 

Appointments 

Associate Professor Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 2011-present 

Assistant Professor Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 2005-2011 

Engineer Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Emeryville, CA 2000-2005 

Research Assistant California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 1994-2000 

Teaching Assistant California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 1993-1998 

Publications 

Most Closely Related Publications 

1. Hacker, T., R. Eigenmann, A. Irfanoglu, S. Pujol, E. Rathje, A. Catlin, “Developing an Effective 

Cyberinfrastructure for Earthquake Engineering: The NEEShub”, IEEE Computing in Science and 

Engineering, v.13(4), 67-78, July/August 2011. 

2. G. Yan, S.J. Dyke, and A. Irfanoglu, “Experimental Validation of a Damage Detection Approach 

on a Full-Scale Highway Sign Support Truss”, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, online 

Oct., 2011; doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2011.10.008. 

3. O’Brien, P., M. Eberhard, O. Haraldsson, A. Irfanoglu, D. Lattanzi, S. Lauer, and S. Pujol, 

“Measures of the Seismic Vulnerability of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Haiti”, Earthquake 

Spectra, 27, S373-S386, 2011. 

4. Griffiths, J.H.P., A. Irfanoglu, and S. Pujol. “Istanbul at the Threshold: an Evaluation of the 

Seismic Risk in Istanbul”, Earthquake Spectra, v.23(1), 63-75, Feb. 2007. 

5. Irfanoglu A. “Performance of Template School Buildings during Earthquakes in Turkey and Peru”, 

Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, v.23(1), 5-14, Feb. 2009. 

Other Representative Publications 

6. Irfanoglu, A., “Using Numerical Simulations and Engineering Reasoning under Uncertainty: 

Studying the Collapse of WTC-1”, Computer-aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26: no. 

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8667.2010.00700.x, published online November 2010 

7. Irfanoglu, A. and C.M. Hoffmann. “An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I”, ASCE 

Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, v. 22(1), 62-67, Feb. 2008. 

8. Consuegra, F.A., and A. Irfanoglu, “On the variation of dynamic properties of a full-scale 3-story 

reinforced concrete flat-plate building”, Mecánica Computacional, v. XXVI: 2384-2394, 2007. 

9. Murty C.V.R., S. Brzev, H. Faison, C.D. Comartin, and A. Irfanoglu. AT RISK: The Seismic 

Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings with Masonry Infill Walls. 83-page tutorial 

prepared for the World Housing Encyclopedia, funded by the U.S. Agency for International 

Development. Published by the Earthquake Eng. Research Institute, 2006. Translated into Bahasa 

Indonesian. http://www.world-housing.net/uploads/WHETutorial_RCFrame_English.pdf.

10. Beck, J.L., E. Chan, A. Irfanoglu, and C. Papadimitriou, “Multi-Criteria Optimal Structural Design 

under Uncertainty”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28:741-761, 1999. 


• Chair of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Heritage and Existing Structures 

Committee. Founding member of EERI ad-hoc School Seismic Safety Committee. 

• Developer and instructor of the undergraduate earthquake engineering course (“Istanbul at the 

Threshold”) for the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical 

Experience (IAESTE-USA). The first class (Spring’08) of the joint Purdue University & IAESTE- 

USA full-semester course had 21 students from five U.S. universities (simultaneous in-class and 

webcast lecturing) and included a 10-day technical trip to Istanbul, Turkey to observe seismic 

design and retrofit of modern and historic structures. Another course with study-abroad portion in 

Japan is being developed on advanced technology for seismic response control of structures. 

• Member of the Purdue NEEScomm team in charge of the NEES operations (FY 2010-FY 2014). 

Focus is on integration and hub-based sharing of analysis software and development of platformaccess 

tools for computationally demanding (cluster and grid-level) dynamic numerical simulations. 

• Faculty advisor to the Purdue University Student Chapter of the EERI. The Chapter is one of the 

largest and well-sustained in the Nation with both undergraduate and graduate students. Faculty 

advisor of the Purdue undergraduate team for the EERI Seismic Design Competition. 

• Associate editor for Shock and Vibration; reviewer for 12 journals including Computer-Aided Civil 

and Infrastructure Engineering, Earthquake Spectra, Engineering Structures, J. of Performance of 

Constructed Facilities, Prentice-Hall Books, Shock and Vibration, Structural Engineering and 

Mechanics, Structural Health Monitoring, the United States Geological Survey, and World Housing 

Encyclopedia. Invited co-editor of the special Earthquake Engineering Simulation issue of the 

IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering, July/August 2011. 

Collaborators and Other Affiliations 

i. Collaborators and Co-editors (Last 48 months) 

• Bobet, A. (Purdue); Catlin, A. (Purdue); Dyke, S. (Purdue); Eberhard, M. O. (U Washington); 

Eigenmann, R. (Purdue); Gulkan, P. (METU); Gur, T. (MMI Eng.); Hacker, T. (Purdue); 

Hoffmann, C.M. (Purdue); Kayhan, K.A. (Pamukkale U.) Korkmaz, K.A. (Michigan State U); Pay, 

A.C. (ENKA); Popescu, V. (Purdue); Pujol, S. (Purdue); Ramirez, J.A. (Purdue); Rathje, E. (UT 

Austin); Yan, G. (U Western Sydney) 

ii. Own Graduate Advisor 

• Beck, James L., California Institute of Technology (Caltech) 

iii. Thesis Advisor and Post-Graduate Advisor to: 

• PhD and Postgraduate Students: al-Kloub, A. PhD (ongoing); al-Louzi, R., PhD (ongoing); 

Consuegra, F., PhD; Dowgala, J., PhD, (ongoing); Khajehhesameddin, P., PhD (ongoing); Erdil, B., 

(Middle East Technical University, Turkey); Korucu, H., PhD (Turkish Naval Force) 

• Master’s Thesis: Abondano, S.; Luna, B.N.; Ozkan, M.K.; Tan, A.; Tanikella, P. (ongoing)

JOB RELATED SKILLS 

JASON BRENT LAMBERT 

1018 S 19 th St, Lafayette, 47905, IN, USA 

1-815-382-8508 

jblamber@purdue.edu 

Languages 

• 6 years experience programming in: C/C++, Java, Groovy, Grails, Javascript, Actionscript, PHP, HTML, 

Grails, Groovy, OpenGL/DirectX Graphics, CG/GLSL/HLSL shading, SQL-based databases, LUA 

scripting and Game Engine languages (XNA, Quest3D, Unity3D and others). 

Software 

• Database: SQL Server, MYSQL 

• Development: Microsoft Visual Studio, Netbeans, Eclipse, Linux and Microsoft OS 

• Graphics: Adobe Illustrator/Photoshop/Premiere/After Effects, Maya, 3DsMAX, ZBrush, Quest3D 

APPOINTMENTS 

Web Systems Software Engineer 

January 2010 – present 

• Purdue University – The Cyber Center – NEESComm 

Research Assistant – System Engineer and Technical Lead April 2008 – January 2010 

• Purdue University – AeroQuest Educational Online Virtual World Teaching Tool Development 

Graduate School Researcher August 2008 – May 2010 

• Purdue University – West Lafayette (See Publications Section) 


Canterbury University 

Christchurch, New Zealand 

Graduate May 2008 

Bachelor of Science – Computer Science 


West Lafayette, Indiana, USA 

Graduate May 2010 

Master of Science – Applied Computer Graphics 

PUBLICATIONS 

Enhancing hub technology for education, outreach and training efforts 

Hubzero: April 6, 2011 

Authors: Jason Lambert

The EOT development team has customized the core hub code with additional modules to support 

continuing education for students, faculty and practicing professionals. Several third party modules have 

been seamlessly integrated into NEEShub to host courses with assessment, deliver live presentations to 

a mass audience and share educational content all within a single sign-on environment. 

Data Structures And Techniques For Visualization Of Large Volumetric Carbon Dioxide Datasets 

In A Real Time Experience 

Purdue University: April 21, 2010 

Authors: Jason Lambert, Sean Brophy, Thalia Anagnos 

This thesis covers new research into real-time rendering of volumetric carbon dioxide data collected in the 

Vulcan project. The Vulcan project, a multi-disciplinary initiative to quantify carbon dioxide mass flux from 

residential, commercial and industrial sources headed by Gurney et al ( Gurney, K. R., Mendoza, D. L., 

Zhou, Y., Fischer, M. L., Miller, C. C., Geethakumar, S., and de La Rue du Can,...more 

WORK IN PROGRESS - NEESACADEMY AS A CYBER-ENABLED LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR 

K-16 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE EDUCATION 

Frontiers in Education: October 2011 

Authors: Jason Lambert, Sean Brophy, Thalia Anagnos 

Presented at the FIE 2011 Conference (http://fie-conference.org/fie2011/)

Melanie Lindsay 

Administrative Assistant NEEScomm 



Tel: (765) 496-2228 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: lindsay@purdue.edu 


Purdue University Bachelor of Arts 1996 


2009-present Administrative Assistant, NEEScomm Operations, Purdue University 

2007-present Girl Scout Leader, Service Unit 540, West Lafayette, IN 

2005-2007 Pampered Chef Consultant, West Lafayette, IN 

2004-2009 Secretary IV, Computing Research Institute, Purdue University 

1998-2004 Administrative Assistant, Women in Science-College of Science, Purdue University 

1996-1998 Data Specialist, Science Counseling-College of Science, Purdue University

Peggy L. MacNorton 

NEEScomm Account Clerk V 



Tel: (765) 496-2673 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: pmacnort@purdue.edu 


Ivy Tech Business Logistics 2004 

International Business College Administrative Assistant Degree 1995 


Feb 12, 2012 -Present NEEScomm Account Clerk V, Purdue University 

2008 -2012 DC Support Specialist, Gander Mountain Distribution Center 

2001 -2008 Holds Coordinator, Gander Mountain Distribution Center 

1999 -2000 Sales Secretary, Fleetwood Enterprises 

1995 -1999 Accounts Payable Clerk, Lithonia Lighting 

1995 -1995 Data-Entry Clerk, Paul I Cripe, Inc. 

1992 -1994 Supervisor, Hardee’s Restaurant

Gemez A. Marshall 

Senior Software Engineer, NEEScomm 


Tel: (765) 496-6445 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: gemezm@purdue.edu 


Tennessee State University Electrical and Computer Engineering BS 2000 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Electrical, Computer, and Systems Engineering MS 2003 


2012-present Senior Software Engineer, NEES, Purdue University 

2009-2012 Software Engineer, NEES, Purdue University 

2007-2009 Research Applications Developer, PiiMS, Purdue University 

2005-2007 Senior Application Programmer, NYS Unified Court System, Department of Technology 


Badrinath Roysam

Ian C. Mathew 

Software Engineer 

NEEScomm 

207 S. Martin Jischke Drive #333 West Lafayette, IN 47907 

Tel: (765) 494-4056 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: imathew@purdue.edu 


Purdue University Computer Science BS 2010 

Purdue University Computer and Information Technology MS 2012 (expected) 


2011-present Software Engineer, NEEScomm 

2010-2011 Graduate Research Assistant, NEEScomm 

2009-2010 Research Assistant, NEEScomm 


Thomas J. Hacker

Pamela C. McClure 

Instructional Designer, NEEScomm 


West Lafayette, In 47907 

Tel: (765) 496-3134 Fax (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: pmcclure@purdue.edu 


Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN graduate work in secondary education 1975-1978 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Mathematics Education BS 1975 


2010-present Instructional Designer, NEEScomm, Purdue University 

2008-2010 College of Science Outreach Partnership Coordinator, Purdue University 

1996-2008 Dept Chair and mathematics Instructor, Freeport High School, Freeport, IL 

1980-1983 Mathematics Instructor, Edgerton Local Schools, Edgerton, OH 

1975-1979 Mathematics Instructor, Lafayette School Corporation, Lafayette, IN


MICHAEL J. MCLENNAN 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN BSEE 1985 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN MSEE 1987 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Ph.D 1990 

APPOINTMENTS 

2004-present Senior Research Scientist, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing, Purdue 

1998-2004 Software Architect, Cadence Design Systems, Inc. 

1992-1998 Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, AT&T Bell Labs 

1990-1992 Senior CAD Engineer, Dawn Technologies, Inc. 

RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS 

1. M. McLennan, R. Kennell, “HUBzero: A Platform for Dissemination and Collaboration in 

Computational Science and Engineering,” Computing in Science and Engineering, 12(2):48-52 

(2010). 

2. G. Klimeck, M. McLennan, S.P. Brophy, G.B. Adams III, and M.S. Lundstrom, “nanoHUB.org: 

Advancing Education and Research in Nanotechnology,” Computing in Science & Engineering, 

10(5):17-23 (2008). 

3. M. Lundstrom, G. Klimeck, G.B. Adams, M. McLennan, “HUB is where the heart is,” IEEE 

Nanotechnology Magazine, 2(1):28-31 (2008). 

4. W. Qiao, M. McLennan, R. Kennell, DS Ebert, and G. Klimeck, “Hub-based simulation and 

graphics hardware accelerated visualization for nanotechnology applications,” IEEE Trans Vis 

Comput Graph., 12(5):1061-8 (2006). 

5. Mark Harrison, Michael McLennan, Effective Tcl/Tk Programming: Writing Better Programs 

with Tcl and Tk, Addison-Wesley-Longman, December 1997, ISBN 0201634740. 

OTHER SIGNIFICANT PUBLICATIONS 

1. M. J. McLennan, Y. Lee and S. Datta “Voltage Drop in Mesoscopic Systems: A Numerical Study 

Using a Quantum Kinetic Equation,” Phys. Rev. B 43, 13846 (1991). 

2. Y. Lee, M. J. McLennan and S. Datta, “Anomalous Rxx in the Quantum Hall Regime Due to 

Impurity-Bound States,” Phys. Rev. B 43, 14339 (1991). 

3. S. Datta and M. J. McLennan, “A Review of Quantum Transport in Ultrasmall Electronic 

Devices,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 53, 1003 (1990). 

4. M. Cahay, M. McLennan and S. Datta, “Conductance of an Array of Elastic Scatterers: A 

Scattering-Matrix Approach,” Phys. Rev. B 37, 10125 (1988). 

5. M. Cahay, M. McLennan, S. Datta and M. S. Lundstrom, “Importance of Space-Charge Effects in 

Resonant Tunneling Devices,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 50, 612 (1987). 


• Director and Software Architect for the HUBzero® Platform for Scientific Collaboration 

(http://hubzero.org), a cyberinfrastructure to support research and education in a wide variety of 

scientific disciplines. The HUBzero platform powers nanoHUB.org, a resource for the 

nanotechnology community with more than 180,000 users from 172 countries worldwide. HUBzero 

powers more than 40 other hubs supporting a wide range of disciplines, including bio-fuels, battery 

technology for electric vehicles, microelectromechanical systems, healthcare, pharmaceutical

engineering, earthquake engineering, volcanic activity, environmental modeling, and heat transfer 

applications. 

• Software Architect for the Center for Prediction of Reliability, Integrity, and Survivability of 

Microsystems (PRISM), an NNSA Center of Excellence focused on developing a peta-scale, 

multiphysics simulation code to accurately predict the reliability of Radio Frequency 

Microelectromechanical (RF-MEMS) switches. 

• Member of the Project Advisory Committee and Cyberinfrastructure Subcommittee for the George E. 

Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), an NSF-funded project focused 

on reducing the impact of seismic disasters. 


Collaborators: Narayana Aluru (UIUC), David Anderson (UC Berkeley), William K. Barnett (IU), Jan 

H. Bohn (Virginia Tech), Itai Cohen (Cornell), Vicki Colvin (Rice), Noshir Contractor (Northwestern), 

Alberto Cuitino (Rutgers), Peter Doerschuk (Cornell), Debasish Dutta (Michigan), David Feryus 

(Morgridge Inst), Renato Figueiredo (Florida), Jose Fortes (Florida), John Fortner (Rice), Ian Foster 

(Argonne), Noha Gaber (EPA), Steven Gallow (SUNY Buffalo), Jill Gemmill (Clemson), Sharon Glotzer 

(Michigan), Sebastien Goasguen (Clemson), Costas Grigoropoulos (UC Berkeley), Jeffrey Grossman 

(MIT), Stacey Harper (Oregon), Linda Hayden (Elizabeth City), Eric Jakobsson (UIUC), Matthew D. 

Jones (SUNY Buffalo), Richard Jorgensen (Arizona), Sangtae Kim (Morgridge Inst), Lee Kirsch (Iowa), 

Steve Krogull (Wisconsin), Kristen Kulinowski (Rice), Katherine Lawrence (Michigan), Jaehwan Lee 

(IUPUI), David A. Lifka (Cornell), Miron Livny (Wisconsin), Bruce Loftis (UT/ORNL), Juan C. Lucena 

(Colorado Mines), Jennifer Lukes (Penn), Richard Mammone (Rutgers), Nirav Merchant (Arizona), 

Bronson Messer (UT/ORNL), Hideko Mills (Wisconsin), Sean Mooney (IU), Jeffrey Neaton (UC 

Berkeley), Joseph Paris (Northwestern), Marlon Pierce (IU), Mark A. Ratner (Northwestern), Umberto 

Ravaioli (UIUC), Alain Roy (Wisconsin), George Schatz (Northwestern), Tamar Seideman 

(Northwestern), Anurag Shekhar (IUPUI), Christine Shoemaker (Cornell), Dan Stanzione (TACC), Craig 

Stewart (IU), Deborah Sulsky (New Mexico), Matthew Vaughn (Cold Spring Harbor Lab), Greg Walker 

(Vanderbilt), Nancy Wilkins-Diehr (SDSC), Ann Zimmerman (Michigan) 

Graduate Advisor: Supriyo Datta, Purdue University 

Former Ph.D. Students: none

Gaspar Modelo-Howard 


Technological University of Panama Electrical and Electronic Engineering B.Sc. 1996 

Royal Holloway, University of London Information Security M.Sc. 1999 

Purdue University Computer Engineering Ph.D. 2012 

Appointments 

2008 – present Research Assistant, Purdue University 

2009 – present NEES CyberSecurity Software Engineer, Purdue University 

2009 Security Research Intern, HP Labs 

2007 – 2008 Teaching Assistant, Purdue University 

1999 – 2006 Information Security Officer, Panama Canal Authority 

Publications 

Modelo-Howard, G., Sweval, J., Bagchi, S.: Secure Configuration of Intrusion Detection Sensors for 

Changing Enterprise Systems. In: Proc. of the 7th ICST Conference on Security and Privacy for 

Communication Networks (SecureComm'11). London, United Kingdom, September 2011. 

Modelo-Howard, G., Bagchi, S., Lebanon, G.: Approximation Algorithms for Determining Placement of 

Intrusion Detectors in a Distributed System. CERIAS Technical Report 2011-01, Purdue University. 

Modelo-Howard, G., Bagchi, S., Lebanon, G.: Determining Placement of Intrusion Detectors for a 

Distributed Application through Bayesian Network Modeling. In: Proc. of the 11th International 

Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID'08). Boston, MA, September 2008. 

Wu, Y., Modelo-Howard, G., Foo, B., Bagchi, S., Spafford, E.: Search for Efficiency in Automated Intrusion 

Response for Distributed Applications. In: Proc. of the 27th International Symposium on Reliable 

Distributed Systems (SRDS'08), Naples, Italy, October 2008. 

Herbert, D., Modelo-Howard, G., Perez-Toro, C., Bagchi, S.: Fault Tolerant ARIMA-based Aggregation of 

Data in Sensor Networks (Fast Abstracts). In: IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems 

and Networks (DSN'07). Edinburgh, Scotland, June 2007. 

Foo, B., Glause, M., Modelo-Howard, G., Wu, Y., Bagchi, S., Spafford, E.: Intrusion Response Systems: A 

Survey. In Qian, Y., Tipper, D., Krishnamurthy, P., Joshi, J. (Eds.), In: Information Assurance: 

Dependability and Security in Networked Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2007).


Dr. Saurabh Bagchi (Purdue University), Dr. Eugene Spafford (Purdue University), Dr. Guy Lebanon 

(Georgia Institute of Technology), Dr. Yu-Sung Wu (National Chiao Tung University)

Teresa Morris 

Visual Communications Specialist NEEScomm 



Tel: (765) 496-3014 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: morrist@purdue.edu 


St. Mary-of-the-Woods College Bachelor of Arts 2008 


2011-present Visual Communications Specialist, NEEScomm, Purdue University 

2009-2011 Director of Communications, I-STEM Resource Network, Purdue University 

2008-2009 Software Specialist, Logic Key, INC., Indianapolis 

2007-2008 Media and Communication Specialist, Benton Community School Corporation 

2001-2007 Chancery Student Management Software Consultant, Self-employed, Oxford 

2000-present Freelance Desktop Publisher and Photographer, West Lafayette, IN

Scott A. Newbolds 

Director of Site Operations 

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation 

Discovery Learning Research Center, Room 304 



Phone: 765.494.7447 

Fax: 765.496.6097 

Email: newbolds@purdue.edu 


Purdue University Civil Engineering BSCE 1995 

Purdue University Civil Engineering MSCE 2001 

Purdue University Civil Engineering PhD 2007 


2009 - Present, Director of Site Operations, NEEScomm, Purdue University 

2005-2009, Section Manager, Division of Research and Development, Indiana 

Department of Transportation 

1999-2004, Special Projects Engineer, Division of Research and Development, Indiana 

Department of Transportation 

1996-1998, Project Engineer, LaPorte District, Indiana Department of Transportation 

Professional License 

Professional Engineer, State of Indiana 

Five Recent Publications 

Journal Article 

Nantung, T.E., Chehab, G., Newbolds, S.A., Galal, K., Li, Shuo, and Kim, D.H., 

“Implementation Initiatives of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide in 

Indiana,” Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research Board, National 

Academies, Washington, DC, Issue No. 1919, 2005. 

Conference Presentations 

Hong, S., Harris, D., and Newbolds, S.A., “Practical Evaluation of Ground Penetrating 

Radar for the Evaluation of Bridge Deck Reinforcement,” Compendium of Papers, 89th 

Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January 10-14, 2010 

Newbolds, S.A. and Olek, J., “Strain Responses of Ultra-Thin Whitetopping under Large- 

Scale Accelerated Loading,” Compendium of Papers, 88th Annual Meeting, 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January 11-15, 2009. 

Newbolds, S.A. and Olek, J., “Influence of Bond Conditions on the Performance of 

Ultra-Thin Whitetopping,” Conference Proceedings, Ninth International Conference on 

Concrete Pavements, San Francisco, CA, August 17-21, 2008.

Newbolds, S.A. and Olek, J., “Evaluation of Factors Influencing Distress Development in 

Ultra-Thin Whitetopping,” Conference Proceedings, Sixth RILEM International 

Conference on Cracking in Pavements,” Chicago, IL, June 16-18, 2008. 


Dr. Newbolds participates as a member of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) 

Committee on Corrosion (AHD-45). As a member he reviews potential papers for 

publication. Additionally he collaborates with the committee to provide direction for 

future research activities in the corrosion area for the TRB. 

Dr. Newbolds has also participated in other TRB committee activities in various areas of 

transportation maintenance, such as pavement rehabilitation and winter maintenance. 

Dr. Newbolds has also collaborated with various INDOT personnel, Federal Highway 

Administration representatives and members of the transportation engineering 

community in indentifying research needs in the areas of Structures and Construction 

Research. 

Recent Collaborators 

Prof. Robert Frosch (Purdue University), Prof. Dulcy Abraham (Purdue University), Prof. 

Samuel Labi (Purdue University), Dr. Victor Hong (INDOT), Dr. Dwayne Harris 

(INDOT), Dr. Shuo Li (INDOT), Dr. Samy Noureldin (INDOT) 


Prof. Jan Olek (Purdue University)

Robert D. Parker (Dann) 

Site Operations Engineer 

NEEScomm 

Purdue University Discovery Park 

Hall for Discovery and Learning 



Tel: (765) 496-3592 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: parke128@purdue.edu 


Purdue University Industrial Engineering BSIE 1993 

Kettering University Manufacturing Management MSMM 2000 


2011- present Engineer, NEES Site Operations 

2005 - 2011 Quality and Operations Manager, voestalpine Rotec, Inc. 

2002 - 2005 General Manager, Kokomo Spring Company 

1995 - 2002 Quality and Industrial Engineer, Delphi Delco Electronics (General Motors) 

1993 - 1995 Quality and Product Engineer, TRW 

1988 – 1993 Co-op student and Production Supervisor, Raybestos Products 

Accreditations 

Certified Quality Engineer – ASQ 

Certified Quality Auditor – ASQ 

Certified ISO14000 Internal Auditor – BVQ 

Class A Commercial Drivers License - Indiana 

Community Activities 

2005 – Present – Tippecanoe School Corporation Board of Trustees 

Past President 

2004 – Present – Boy Scouts of America 

Scoutmaster, Eagle Scout

Angela L. Paxton 

NEEScomm Business Manager 



Tel: (765) 494-7756 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: bella@purdue.edu 


Purdue University Communications BA 2007 


2011- Present NEEScomm Business Manager, Purdue University 

2008-2011 Instructional Design & Training Specialist, Purdue University 

2000-2003 Training Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank 

1998-2000 Office Manager, KBP West

Ruth Pordes 

Associate Head for Grids and Outreach, Tel: 630-840-3921 

Fermilab Computing Sector 

Email: ruth@fnal.gov 

MS 369 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 

Batavia, Illinois 60510 

Education: 

Oxford University, England B.A: Honors, Physics 1970 

Oxford University, England M.A: Physics 1973 

Appointments: 

2012 Open Science Grid Council Chair 

2006-2012 Executive Director of the Open Science Grid project. 

2005 Level 2 manager for the US CMS Software and Computing Project. 

2004 Associate Head of the Fermilab Computing Division. 

2001-2006 Member of the management for the International Virtual Data Grid Laboratory. 

1999-2006 Technical Coordinator of the Particle Physics Data Grid SciDAC-I project. 

1999-2001 Co-lead of the Run II Joint Offline Projects. 

1995-1999 Project lead for the DART joint Data Acquisition Project. 

1991-1995 Coordinator of the common software committee of Sloan Digital Sky Survey. 

Publications & Presentations Related to the Proposed Project: 

1) Analysis of the current use, benefit, and value of the Open Science Grid, R Pordes et al 2010 J. 

Phys.: Conf. Ser. 219 062024 

2) New science on the Open Science Grid.  Ruth Pordes et al. FERMILAB-PUB-08-195-CD, Jun 

2008. 6pp.  Published in J.Phys.Conf.Ser.125:012070,2008. 

3) The Open Science Grid status and architecture. Ruth Pordes et al. FERMILAB-CONF-07-451-CD, 

Sep 2007. 10pp.  Presented at International Conference on Computing in High E nergy and Nuclear 

Physics (CHEP 07), Victoria, BC, Canada, 2-7 Sep 2007.  Published in 

J.Phys.Conf.Ser.119:052028,2008. 

4) Challenges facing production grids.  Ruth Pordes (Fermilab) . FERMILAB-PUB-07-323-CD, Jun 

2007. 16pp. Published in the book 'High Performance Computing and Grids in Action'.   

5) CMS physics: Technical design report.  B y CMS Collaboration ( G.L. Bayatian et al.). CERN- 

LHCC-2006-001, CMS-TDR-008-1, 2006. 521pp. 

6) Distributed computing grid experiences in CMS DC04.  A. Fanfani et al. 2005. 4pp.  Published in 

*Interlaken 2004, Computing in high energy physics and nuclear physics* 1074-10777 

Other Significant Publications: 

1) First Measurement of the Cross Section for Top-Quark Pair Production in Proton-Proton 

Collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV. By CMS Collaboration (V. Khachatryan et al.). Oct 2010. Published in 

Phys.Lett.B695:424-443,2011. 

2) The SAM-GRID project: Architecture and plan.  A. Baranovski et al. 2003. 3pp.  Prepared for 

8th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research 

(ACAT 2002), Moscow, Russia, 24-28 Jun 2002.  Published in Nucl.Instrum.Meth.A502:423- 

425,2003. 

3) Measurements of direct CP violation, CPT symmetry, and other parameters in the neutral kaon

system. By KTeV Collaboration ( A. Alavi-Harati et al.). FERMILAB-PUB-03-342-E, Aug 2002. 37pp. 

 Published in Phys.Rev.D67:012005,2003, 

4) The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Early Data Release. By SDSS Collaboration ( Chris Stoughton et 

al.). FERMILAB-PUB-02-423, Jan 2002. 64pp.  Published in Astron.J.123:485-548,2002. 

Synergistic Activities: 

1) Management and Grid Deployment Boards for the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid project. 

2) Project Advisory Committee for the NEESComm project. 

3) International Scientific Advisory Board for Institut De Grid, France 

4) User Advisory Committee of the FutureGrid project 

5) EGI-InSPIRE External Advisory Committee. 

Collaborators and Co-Editors: 

Mine Altunay (FNAL), Paul Avery (UFl), Kent Blackburn (Caltech), Brian Bockelman (UNL), Michael 

Ersnt (BNL), Dan Fraser (U Chicago), Rob Gardner (U Chicago), John Hover (BNL), Miron Livny (U 

Wisconsin), Alain Roy (UWisc), Igor Sfiligoi (UCSD), Frank Wuerthwein (UCSD), CMS Collaboration.

Biographical Sketch 

Santiago Pujol 

A. Professional Preparation: 

Bachelor’s Universidad Nacional de Colombia 1996 

M.S. Purdue University 1997 

Ph.D. Purdue University 2002 

B. Appointments: 

Associate Professor - Purdue University 2005-Present 

Engineer - Wiss, Janney and Elstner Inc. 2002-2005 

C. Publications: 

Five Publications Directly Related to The Proposed Poject 

Pujol, S., Fick, D. (2010). “The Test of a Full-Scale Three-Story RC Structure with Masonry 

Infill Walls,” Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 3112-3121. 

Griffiths J., Irfanoglu A., and Pujol S. (2007). “Istanbul at the Threshold: An Evaluation of the 

Seismic Risk in Istanbul.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 63-76 

Pujol S., and Sozen M., (2006). “Effect of Load Reversals on Dynamic Demand and Resistance 

of Reinforced Concrete Elements.” ACI Special Publication 236, pp. 43-60. 

Pujol S., Sozen M. A., and Ramirez J. A., (2006). “Displacement-History Effects on the Drift 

Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns.” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 253- 

262. 

Pujol, S., Ramirez, J. A., and Sozen, M. A. (1999). “Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete 

Columns Subjected to Cyclic Shear Reversals.” Publ. SP-187, K. Krishnan, ed., ACI, Farmington 

Hills, Michigan, pp. 255-274. 

Other Five Publications 

Chin J.C., Rautenberg J. M., Ma C. Y. T., Pujol S., and Yau D. K. Y. (2009). “A Low-cost, Lowdata-rate 

Rapid Structural Assessment Network: Design, Implementation, and Experimentation,” 

IEEE Sensors Journal, Special Issue on Sensor Systems for Structural Health Monitoring (in 

print). 

Donmez, C., and Pujol, S. (2005). “Spatial Distribution of Damage Caused by the 1999 

Earthquakes in Turkey.” EERI, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 53-69. 

Pujol, S., Fierro, E., Freeman, S. (2004) “Characteristics of Response Spectra for Records from 

South America.” 13th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering. August 1-6, 2004, 

Vancouver, Canada. Paper No. 1657. 

Pujol, S., Sozen, M. A., and Ramirez, J. A. (2000). “Transverse Reinforcement for Columns of 

RC Frames to Resist Earthquakes.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 4, 

pp. 461-466.

Pujol, S., Ramirez, J. A., and Sarria, A. (2000). “Behavior of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete 

Buildings. Coffee Zone - Colombia, January 1999 Earthquake.” Concrete International, Vol. 22, 

No. 1, pp. 40-44. 

D. Synergistic Activities: 

Member of ACI (American Concrete Institute) committees 445-B (Shear and Torsion), 314 

(Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings) and ACI-ASCE joint committee 441 (Reinforced 

Concrete Columns). 

Member of American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Participates in multidisciplinary earthquake reconnaissance teams (has been to areas affected by 

earthquakes in Peru, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, China, Haiti, and Chile). 

Participates in a program to exchange students and information with Nagoya Institute of 

Technology. 

Reviewer for: 

ACI’s Structural Journal 

EERI’s Earthquake Spectra 

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 

E. Collaborators and Other Affiliations: 

(i) Collaborators during the past 5 years: 

Luis Enrique Garcia (Universidad de Los Andes) 

Toshikatsu Ichinose (Nagoya Institute of Technology) 

Mario Rodriguez (UNAM) 

J. Paul Smith (ABAM) 

No co-editors to report. 

(ii) Advisors: 

Jose D. Aristizabal-Ochoa (Universidad Nacional de Colombia) 

Julio Ramirez (Purdue University) 

Mete A. Sozen (Purdue University). 

(iii) Recent graduate and thesis advising: 

Jeff Rautenber (Ph.D.) 

Kari Nasi (M.S.) 

Kurt Henkhaus (Ph.D.) 

Luis Arboleda (M.S.) 

Oscar Ardila (Ph.D.) 

Seyed H. Changiz (Ph.D.) 

Tyler Krahn (M.S.)


Rajesh Thyagarajan 

NEEScomm IT Software Engineer 

Purdue University, Hall for Discovery and Learning Research, RM 333, 

207 South Martin Jischke Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907. 

Tel: (765) 494 6572 Fax: (765) 496 6097 

Email: rthyagar@purdue.edu 

Osmania University, India Electronics BS 1995 

National Institute of Information Technology, India Systems Management HSM 1996 

Osmania University, India Computer Applications MCA 1998 

University of Hyderabad, India Planning & Project Management PGDPM 1998 

Krannert School of Management Business Administration MBA (2012) 


• Fifteen years of software experience in project management; system, database and application architecture; 

solution design, data modeling and end-to-end system implementation 

• Demonstrated experience managing teams and working at the highest technical level of most phases of systems 

analysis, architecture and design 

• Strong interpersonal skills, highly adept at diplomatically facilitating discussions with business leaders 

• Global experience and in working with teams located at multiple sites in Asia-Pacific, Middle East, India and 

US for Fortune 500 clients 

• Finalizing business requirements, designing workflows, conducting gap analysis between to-be and as-is 

procedures, designing process and system improvements to increase productivity and reduce costs 

• NEEScomm IT Software Engineer, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 

• Database Architect, Hewlett-Packard Company, Houston, TX 

• Solutions Architect, Cummins Parts and Services, Cummins Inc., Columbus, IN 

• Technical Architect, Cummins Enterprise Architecture, Cummins Inc., Columbus, IN 

• Senior Consultant - Application Services, GE Consumer and Industrial, Global Headquarters, 

Louisville, KY, USA 

• Consultant Systems Analyst, Harley Davidson Motorcycles, Tomahawk, WI, USA 

• UAE Territory IT Coordinator – Lifestyle, A Landmark Group Company, Dubai, UAE 

• Project Manager, Visma InfoTech Ltd, Hyderabad, India 

• Senior Systems Engineer, One Empower Pte Ltd, Singapore 

Memberships and Associations 

• Past Board Member, Columbus Rotary Club, Columbus Indiana. 

• Ex Officio member, Connected Community Partnership. 

• Past Secretary, Indian Association of Columbus. 

• Past Board Member, National Council of Indian Boys Scouts Movement. 

• Senior under Officer and Past Member of National Cadet Corps, India. 

• Represented India at 2nd Nippon Venture Jamboree, Tokyo, Japan. 

• Represented India at the 9th and 18th Asia Pacific Boy Scouts Jamboree. 

• Represented India at the 2nd SAARC countries congregate of the World Boys Scouts. 

• Elected as the official escritoire at the 2nd Asia Pacific Youth Forum, Malaysia. 

• Volunteer at several NFP Agencies of the United Way of America. 

• Exhibited Paintings at Art Exhibitions conducted by Exhibition Society, Hyderabad, India. 

Designed websites for Not for Profit Agencies: 

• Dancers Studio Inc. 

• Connected Community Partnership 

• Bartholomew County Bar Association 

• Bartholomew County Long Term Recovery

Julio A. Ramirez 

Professor of Civil Engineering 

Purdue University 550 Stadium Mall Drive 

School of Civil Engineering-1284 West Lafayette, IN 47907 

Tel: (765) 494-2716 Fax: (765) 496-1105 

E-mail: ramirez@purdue.edu 


Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Civil Engineering BSCE 1977 

University of Texas, El Paso Civil Engineering MSCE 1978 

University of Texas, Austin Civil Engineering PhD 1983 


2009- present Director, NEES Operations 

1996-present Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University 

1999-2003 Assistant Head for Graduate Programs, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University 

1990-1996 Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University 

1985-1990 Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University 

1983-1985 Visiting Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University 


Konwinski, C. M., Ramirez, J. A., Sozen, M. A. (1995). Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete 

Columns Subject to Seismic Loading, Proceedings of the National Seismic Conference on Bridges 

and Highways, National Science Foundation, San Diego, California, pp. 1-11, December. 

Pujol S., Ramirez. J. A., and Sozen, M. A. (1999). Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns 

Subjected to Cyclic Shear Reversals, American Concrete Institute, Special Publication on Bridges, 

November, pp. 8. 

Pujol, S., Sozen, M., and Ramirez J.A., (2000). Transverse Reinforcement for Columns of RC Frames 

to Resist Earthquakes, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(4), April, pp. 461-466. 

Aguilar, G., Matamoros, A., Parra-Montesinos, G., Ramirez, J., and Wight, J. (2002). Experimental 

Evaluation of Design Procedures for Shear Strength of Deep Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI 

Structural Journal, 99(4), pp. 539-548. 

Huo, H., Bobet, A., Fernandez, G., and Ramirez, J. A. (2005). Load Transfer Mechanisms between 

Underground Structure and Surrounding Ground: Evaluation of the Failure of the Daikai Station,” 

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131(12), pp. 15221533. 

Five Additional Publications 

Bobet, A., Ramirez, J.A., and Parra-Montesinos, G. (2006). Performance of the Daikai Subway 

Station during the Great Hanshin Earthquake, ACI Structural Journal, 103(1), pp. 113-122. 

Pujol, S., Sozen, M.A., and Ramirez, J. A. (2006). Displacement History Effects on Drift Capacity of 

Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, 103(2), pp. 253-262. 

Huo, H., Bobet, A., Fernández, G. and Ramírez, J. (2006). Analytical Solution for Deep Rectangular 

Underground Structures Subjected to Far-Field Shear Stresses. Tunneling and Underground Space 

Technology, 21(6), pp. 613-625. 

Smith, J.P., Ramirez, J. A., and Poston, R.W.(2006). Distribution of Compressive Stresses in 

Transversely Post-tensioned Concrete Bridge Decks. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering. 11 (1), 

pp. 64-70. 

Gur, T., Pay, A.C., Ramirez, J.A., Sozen, M.A., Johnson, A.M., Irfanoglu, A. and Bobet, A. 

Performance of School Buildings in Turkey during the 1999 Düzce and the 2003 Bingöl Earthquake, 

Earthquake Spectra, v. 25 (2): 239-256, 2009.


One of Dr. Ramirez's research efforts deals with the adequate "detailing" of concrete members. Dr. 

Ramirez's work in this area has contributed to detailing of shear reinforcement in concrete members. 

This work has been implemented in the design specifications for shear of segmental bridge 

construction of AASHTO. 

Dr. Ramirez has also been involved in research dealing with seismic performance. The Northridge 

CA, Kobe Japan, and Izmit and Bingol Turkey disasters have occurred near densely populated and 

industrialized areas. He collaborated in the development of the training material for the postearthquake 

safety evaluation of bridges for the Indiana Department of Transportation and the 

establishment of a volunteer coalition to assist the Indiana Department of Homeland Security in the 

condition assessment of buildings after a natural or man-made disaster. 

Dr. Ramirez served as head of the graduate program for the School of Civil Engineering at Purdue 

University, and is chair Committee on Concrete and Masonry Structures of the ASCE/SEI. He has 

been a member of several National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) research 

panels. He has served in NSF proposal review panels for several directorates. He presently serves on 

the board of NEESinc., is a member of Committee 318, Structural Building Code of the American 

Concrete Institute and Co-Pi in the NEESRGC Project: Mitigation of Collapse Risk in Vulnerable 

Concrete Buildings. 

Dr. Ramirez serves as the PI and Director of the NEEScomm (NEES Community and 

Communication) Center of Purdue University Discovery Park. The center was established on October 

1 2009, when Purdue University and the National Science Foundation entered into a 105 M 

cooperative agreement to manage NEES operations during FY2010-2014. Dr. Ramirez is the Director 

of NEES Operations. 


Dr. Antonio Bobet (Purdue University); Dr. Arvid Grant (Purdue University); Dr. Sharon Wood 

(University of Texas at Austin); Dr. Mete A. Sozen (Purdue University); Dr. James W. Wight (University 

of Michigan); Dr. Jack Moehle (University of California, Berkeley); Dr. Steve Mahin (University of 

California, Berkeley); Dr. Michael Collins (University of Toronto); Dr. Dan Kuchma (University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign); Dr. Neil Hawkins (University of Washington, Seattle); Dr. Basil Rabbat 

(Portland Cement Association, Skokie IL) 


John E. Breen 

Graduate Students Supervised over Last Five Years 

L. Metzger, MSCE 

C. Lini, MSCE 

J.P. Smith, PhD 

Akira Makido, PhD 

Lesley H. Sneed, PhD

ELLEN M. RATHJE, P.E., PH.D. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

Department of Civil Engineering Tel: 512-232-3683 

ECJ 9.227B, C1792 Fax: 512-471-6548 

University of Texas at Austin 

E-mail: e.rathje@mail.utexas.edu 

Austin, Texas 78712-1710 Website: http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/rathje/home.html 


B.S., Civil Engineering, Cornell University, 1993 

M.S., Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 1994 

Ph.D., Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, 1997 

APPOINTMENTS 

Professor (2009-present), Warren S. Bellows Centennial Professor, Department of Civil, 

Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 

Associate Professor (2004-2009), Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental 

Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 

Assistant Professor (1998-2004), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at 

Austin, Austin, Texas 

PUBLICATIONS 

Five Publications Most Closely Related to the Proposed Research 

Rathje, E., Bachhuber, J., Dulberg, R., Cox, B., Kottke, A., Wood, C., Green, R., Olson, S., 

Wells, D., and Rix, G. Submitted. “Damage Patterns in Port-au-Prince during the 2010 

Haiti Earthquake,” submitted for possible publication in Earthquake Spectra, 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 

Rathje, E.M., and Adams, B.J. 2008. “The Role of Remote Sensing in Earthquake Science 

and Engineering: Opportunities and Challenges,” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake 

Engineering Research Institute, 24(2), 471-492. 

Rathje, E.M., Kayen, R., and Woo, K.-S. 2006. “Remote Sensing Observations of 

Landslides and Ground Deformation from the 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu Earthquake,” 

Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, 46(6), pp. 831-842. 

Rathje, E.M., and Carr, L.P. 2010. “Satellite Observations of Landslides Caused by the 

2008 Wenchuan Earthquake in China,” 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference 

on Earthquake Engineering: Reaching Beyond Borders, Toronto, Canada, July. 

Rathje, E.M., Crawford, M., Woo, K., and Neuenschwander, A. 2005. “Damage Patterns 

from Satellite Images from the 2003 Bam, Iran Earthquake,” Earthquake Spectra, 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 21(S1), pp. S295-307. 

Five Other Significant Publications 

Saygili, G. and Rathje, E.M. 2009. “Probabilistically Based Seismic Landslide Hazard 

Maps,” Engineering Geology, 109(3-4), 183-194, DOI 10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.08.004. 

Howell, R., Rathje, E., Marinucci, A., Kamai, R., Boulanger, R., Conlee, C., and Kano, S., 

2009. “Centrifuge Modeling of Liquefaction Sites Treated with Prefabricated Drains,” IS- 

Tokyo 2009 International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake 

Geotechnical Engineering, Tsukuba, Japan, June.

Marinucci, A., Rathje, E., Kano, S., Kamai, R., Conlee, C., Howell, R., Boulanger, R., 

Gallagher, P. 2008. “Centrifuge Testing of Prefabricated Vertical Drains for Liquefaction 

Remediation,” Geotech Earthquake Eng and Soil Dynamics IV, ASCE, Sacramento, 

CA. 

Rathje, E.M., and Saygili, G. 2008. “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for the Sliding 

Displacement of Slopes: Scalar and Vector Approaches,” Journal of Geotechnical and 

Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 134(6), 804-814. 

Rathje, E.M., Woo, K., Crawford, M., and Neuenschwander, A. 2005. “Earthquake Damage 

Identification using Multi-Temporal High-Resolution Optical Satellite Imagery,” 

International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, IEEE, Seoul, South Korea, 

July (CD-ROM). 


NEEScomm, Strategic Council, 2009-present. This Strategic Council is charged with 

providing leadership to the NEEScomm team that is operating the George E. Brown, Jr. 

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). 

Geo-Engineering Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association, Co-Chair (2009- 

pres) and Steering Committee (2004-pres). This Steering Committee created the GEER 

organization and is developing a systematic approach to conducting post-event 

reconnaissance efforts. 

Geotechnical Earthquake Reconnaissance, Team leader for NSF/GEER reconnaissance 

team that investigated the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Participated or lead earthquake 

reconnaissance teams that studied the 2004 Niigata ken Chuetsu earthquake (Japan), the 

2001 Bhuj earthquake (India), the 1999 Duzce earthquake (Turkey), and 1999 Kocaeli 

earthquake (Turkey). 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Student Chapter, Faculty Advisor, University 

of Texas 


Collaborators 

N.A. Abrahamson (PG&E), B. Adams (ImageCat), H. Akgun (METU), J.P. Bardet (USC), 

J.D. Bray (UC Berkeley), J. Bommer (Imperial College), R. Boulanger (UC Davis), B. Cox 

(U. Arkansas), M. Crawford (Purdue), P. Gallagher (Drexel), R. Green (Va Tech), I.M. 

Idriss (Consultant), E. Kavazanjian (ASU), R. Kayen (USGS), N. Matasovic (GeoSyntec), 

S. Olson (UIUC), A.F. Rauch (FMSM), M.F. Reimer (UC Berkeley), G. Rix (Georgia Tech), 

C. Scawthorn (Kyoto U.), J. Stewart (UCLA), K. Stokoe (UT), G. Wells (UT), S. Wood (UT), 

S. Wright (UT), D. Zekkos (Michigan). 


Jonathan D. Bray, University of California at Berkeley 

Current and Previous Graduate Advisees (Total: 32) 

A. Adams, G. Antonakos (Greece), P. Carley (USAF), L. Carr (URS), W.J. Chang (National 

Chi-Nan Univ), D. Dreyfus (UT), K. Hazirbaba (UA-Fairbanks), T.-W. Hsieh, N. Johnny (St. 

Lucia), F. Faraj (HVJ), R. Howell (UT), A. Jain, S. Jersey, I. Karatas, A. Kottke (Bechtel), 

F.J. Lauro, Y.W. Lee (Korea), A. Marinucci (ADSC), S. Navidi (Fugro), M.C. Ozbey (ABS), 

M. Pehlivan (UT), R.D. Phillips, G. Saygili (NGI), O. Suncar (UT), A. Sharma, R. Tobin 

(Fugro), W. Trent (GeoEngineers), I. Tsiapas (NTUA), C. Viyanant (Bechtel), Y. Wang 

(UT), K.-W. Woo (Korea), G. Zalachoris (UT)

Brian L. Rohler 

Senior Software Engineer 

Purdue University - NEEScomm 

DLRC 304, West Lafayette, IN 47907 


2009-present Senior Software Engineer, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 

2008-2009 Product/Project Manager, S&S Programming Inc, Lafayette, Indiana 

2000-2008 Technical Manager, Delphi Corp, West Lafayette, Indiana (Purdue Research Park) 

1997-2000 Systems/Software Engineer, Delphi Corp, Kokomo, Indiana 

1991-1996 Production Manufacturing Surface Mount Process Engineer, Delphi Corp, Indiana 

1996-1996 International Production Support, Malaga, Spain 

1991-1996 Production Manufacturing Test Engineer, Delphi Corp, Indiana 

1988-1991 Advanced Manufacturing Test Engineer, Delphi Corp, Indiana 


Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Electrical Engineering Technology BSEET 1998 

Purdue University, Kokomo, IN Electrical Engineer Technology Micro-Processor and Embedded 

Controller Certificate

Saurabh Bagchi 

Associate Professor, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University 

Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University (Courtesy Appointment) 

Assistant Director, CERIAS, the Security Center at Purdue University 

Address 465 Northwestern Avenue, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1285 

Telephone 765-494-3362 

Email sbagchi@purdue.edu 

URL http://www.ece.purdue.edu/~sbagchi 


Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Computer Science & Engineering B.Tech. 1996 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Computer Science M.S. 1998 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Computer Science Ph.D. 2001 

Appointments: 

September 2011 – 

Current 

May 2008 – Current 

May 2004 – Current 

IBM Research, Austin 

School of Electrical and Computer 


Department of Computer Science, Purdue 

University 

Visiting Scientist 


Assistant/Associate 

Professor 

(Courtesy Appointment) 

Assistant Professor 

August 2002 – April School of Electrical and Computer 

2008 


2002 IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Research Staff Member 

Five Relevant Publications: 

1. I. Laguna, T. Gamblin, B. R. Supinski, S. Bagchi, G. Bronevetsky, D. H. Ahn, M. Schulz, and B. Rountree, 

“Large Scale Debugging of Parallel Tasks with AutomaDeD,” At the ACM/IEEE Supercomputing 

Conference, Seattle, WA, pp. 1-10, Nov 12-18, 2011. 

2. M. Tancreti, M. S. Hossain, S. Bagchi, and V. Raghunathan, “AVEKSHA: A Hardware-Software Approach for 

Non-intrusive Tracing and Profiling of Wireless Embedded Systems,” At the 9th ACM Conference on 

Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys), Seattle, WA, pp. 1-14, Nov 1-4, 2011. (Best paper award) 

3. G. M. Howard, J. Sweval, and S. Bagchi, “Secure Configuration of Intrusion Detection Sensors for Changing 

Enterprise Systems,” At the 7th ICST International Conference on Security and Privacy for Communication 

Networks (Securecomm), pp. 1-20, London, United Kingdom, September 7-9, 2011. 

4. A. Maji and S. Bagchi, “v-CAPS: A Confidentiality and Anonymity Preserving Routing Protocol for Content- 

Based Publish-Subscribe Networks,” At the 7th ICST International Conference on Security and Privacy for 

Communication Networks (Securecomm), pp. 1-20, London, United Kingdom, September 7-9, 2011. 

5. G. M. Howard, S. Bagchi, and G. Lebanon, “Determining Placement of Intrusion Detectors for a Distributed 

Application through Bayesian Network Modeling,” At the 11th International Symposium on Recent 

Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), Boston, MA, pp. 271-290, September 15-17, 2008. 

Other Publications: 

1. B. Zhou, M. Kulkarni, and S. Bagchi, “Vrisha: Using Scaling Properties of Parallel Programs for Bug 

Detection and Localization,” At the 20th ACM International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and 

Distributed Computing (HPDC), San Jose, California, pp. 85-96, June 8-11, 2011. 

2. G. Bronevetsky, I. Laguna, S. Bagchi, B. R. de Supinski, D. H. Ahn, and M. Schulz, “AutomaDeD: 

Automata-Based Debugging for Dissimilar Parallel Tasks,” At the 40th Annual IEEE/IFIP International 

Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), pp. 231-240, June 28-July 1, 2010, Chicago, IL.

3. I. Laguna, F. A. Arshad, D. M. Grothe, and S. Bagchi, “How To Keep Your Head Above Water While 

Detecting Errors,” At the ACM/IFIP/USENIX 10th International Middleware Conference, Urbana- 

Champaign, Illinois, pp. 1-20, November 30-December 4, 2009. 

4. M. T. Creti, M. Beaman, S. Bagchi, Z. Li, and Y-H. Lu, “Multigrade Security Monitoring for Ad-Hoc 

Wireless Networks,” At the 6th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems 

(MASS), pp. 342-352, October 12-15, 2009, Macau SAR, China. 

5. S. Didla, A. Ault, and S. Bagchi, “Optimizing AES for Embedded Devices and Wireless Sensor Networks,” 

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Testbeds and Research Infrastructures for the 

Development of Networks & Communities (Tridentcom), pp. 1-10, March 18-20, 2008. 

Research Background: 

The broad area of Saurabh's research is distributed fault tolerant systems. His research goal is to provide 

practical methods and protocols that will make distributed systems resilient to faults. The faults may be due to 

accidental (or natural) causes, or malicious (or induced) causes. The technology is targeted to several application 

areas, including embedded wireless networks, distributed e-commerce systems, and Voice-over-IP systems. 

Saurabh Bagchi is currently participating in 4 NSF projects on different aspects of dependable distributed 

systems. He is a faculty fellow of the Cyber Center at Purdue, is supported by a Lilly Endowment grant for 

research excellence, and is a Purdue co-PI on an NSF center on cyberinfrastructure for earthquake engineering 

(called NEES). He is an Assistant Director of CERIAS (Center for Education and Research in Information 

Assurance and Security) at Purdue. His work has been supported by and adopted within Motorola, Avaya, IBM, 

and NASA-JPL. He is a senior member of IEEE and ACM and a full member of Sigma Xi, the scientific research 

society. 

He has been a Program Committee member for the Intl. Symposium on Dependable Systems and Networks 

Conference (DSN) (2003-current) and the Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS) (2004-current). In 

2011, he was the PC Chair of DSN. He has organized a workshop called DIWANS on dependability of ad-hoc 

networks at DSN '04 and at Mobicom '06 and a workshop on intrusion tolerant systems called WRAITS at DSN 

09. His papers have been the best paper at Sensys 11, SecureComm 08, and SUTC 06, and runner-up for the best 

paper at the Supercomputing 09, High Performance Distributed Computing Conference (HPDC 06), IEEE Intl. 

Microwave Symposium (IMS 05), and IEEE Intl. Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 05). 

Educational Background: 

Saurabh Bagchi has taught at Purdue University junior level courses on Data Structures and Algorithms and 

Discrete Mathematics and an advanced graduate level course on Fault Tolerant System Design. In the last 

mentioned course, he overhauled the syllabus and brought in a major change of focus in favor of networked 

systems and case studies of real-world systems. He has successfully applied active learning techniques in his 

junior level undergraduate course on Discrete Mathematics which has been highly appreciated by the class and the 

work was presented at the Frontiers in Engineering Education conference in October 2008. He won the ECE 

department’s best teacher award in 2009 and the “Teaching for Tomorrow” award at Purdue in 2009. He is 

participating in the EPICS program at Purdue which puts the technical expertise of undergraduate students to use 

to deliver functional projects to non-profit organizations in the local community. He is supervising a team of six 

undergraduate students in a project in equipping the local children’s museum with a combined RFID-sensor 

network for monitoring usage of the exhibits. The team won the Corcoran award at Purdue in Fall 2006 and in 

Spring 2008, given to one team in EPICS each semester. 

Significant Collaborators and Affiliations (outside Purdue): K. Spriestersbach, T. Steadman (DoD); K. Joshi, 

R. K. Panta (AT&T Labs); P. Verissimo, M. Correia (University of Lisbon); G. Lebanon (Georgia Tech); K. 

Trivedi (Duke); T. Tsai (Hitachi); G. Bronevetsky, B. R. Supinski (Lawrence Livermore National Lab). 

Graduate (M.S. & Ph.D.) Advisor: Ravishankar K. Iyer, George and Ann Fisher Distinguished Professor, 

Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

Ph.D. students: Gaspar Howard, Jin Kyu Koo, DongHoon Shin, Jevin Sweval, Tanzima Zerin, Bowen Zhou. 

Graduated PhD students: Issa Khalil (2006), Gunjan Khanna (2007), Yu-Sung Wu (2009), Sarah Sellke (2010), 

Rajesh Panta (2010).

Stanislav Pejša 

NEEScomm Data Curator 



phone: (765) 496-3736 

spejsa@purdue.edu 

EDUCATION 

Graduate Certificate in Digital Information Management August 2011 

University of Arizona, Arizona 

MLIS August 2002 

SCILS, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 

M.A. in History and Sociology May 1997 

Charles University, Prague, the Czech Republic 

M.A. in History July 1996 

Central European University, Budapest, Hungary 

EMPLOYMENT 

NEEScomm Data Curator 

NEES, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 

April 2010 - current 

Digital Projects Consultant April 2008 – April 2010 

Center for Jewish History, New York, NY 

Systems and Digitization Librarian July 2007 - June 2008 

Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, NY 

Quality Assurance and Metadata Librarian May 2005 - July 2007 


Processing Archivist and EAD Encoder May 2002 – May 2005 


PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND CONFERENCES 

Research Data Access & Preservation (RDAP) Summit 2012 March 2012 

Presented poster 'NEES Data Repository - Curating Earthquake Engineering Research 

Data' 

ExLibris Great Lakes Users Group Meeting (GLUGM) November 2008 

Presented paper 'Metadata in DigiTool' 

Metropolitan New York Library Council December 2007

Served as a reader for the 2008 Digitization Grants 

2006 SAA conference, Washington, DC August 2006 

Organized panel "Extended Archival Description: Context and Specificity for Digital 

Objects" for SAA chaired by Chris Kiesling 

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING 

DigCCurr Professional Institute May 2012 

Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC) workshop February 2008 

Stewardship of Digital Assets 

Metropolitan New York Library Council's Third Digitization Symposium 

Copyright: The Only Certainty is Uncertainty February 2007 

Association of Research Libraries (ARL) workshop 2005 

Web Development with XML 

Infopeople Project workshop 2004 

Getting Started with Open Source Software 

Current responsibilities 

• Curates data and supplementary documentation for long-term access and preservation 

• Develops documentation regarding access and preservation of research data 

• Leads gap analysis of digital preservation risk assessment of the NEES data repository 

• Oversees the quality of data uploaded to the data repository 

• Oversees implementation of PREMIS metadata in the NEES Data Repository 

• Maps and consolidates the NEES data model with other professional and industry metadata 

standards, such as Dublin Core, PREMIS, OAIS 

• Recommends workflows and technical solutions for the NEES Data Repository 

• Prepares training sessions on data management and data upload 

• Educates on principles of long term access and preservation 

• Reports on status of the research projects in the repository

Emily A. Vazquez 

NEEScomm Business Manager 



Tel: (765) 494-7795 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: easmoker@purdue.edu 


Purdue University Financial Counseling and Planning BA 2008 


2011- Present NEEScomm Business Manager, Purdue University 

2008-2011 Finance Manager, Christina and Company, INC.

Dawn Weisman 

NEEScomm Director of IT 



Tel: (765) 496-2276 Fax: (765) 496-1105 

E-mail: dweisman@purdue.edu 


Trinity University Computer Science BS 1986 

University of Texas, San Antonio Computer Science MS 1992 

Purdue University Information Technology PhD anticipated 2016 


2009- present Director, NEEScomm IT 

2008-2009 Managing Director PRISM Center, Purdue University 

2005-2008 Manager, Program Management Office Simple Store and Call Centers, Hewlett-Packard 

2004-2005 Manager, Telesales Project Management, Hewlett-Packard 

2000-2004 Manager, eCommerce Application Development, Hewlett-Packard 

1995-2000 Manager, Supply Chain Application Development, Compaq Computer Corp 

1988-1995 Lead Systems Analyst, USAA 


• As NEEScomm IT Director, determine, adjust, and implement IT strategy for the NEEShub system 

based on user needs and alignment to business strategy. Communicate project status, issues, risks, and 

plans to executive management, project sponsor (NSF), multiple advisory boards, and 14 affiliated 

NEES equipment sites. Position resources for short and long-term hardware needs based on both 

known and expected system usage (computer power and storage). Foster strategic partnerships 

among industry and academic IT experts, equipment site personnel, and earthquake engineering 

researchers. Regularly monitor cybersecurity activities; anticipate upcoming cybersecurity threats 

and identify potential technical solutions. Define, implement and evolve dynamic departmental 

software development processes resulting in a predictable and smoothly operating release schedule. 

Develop and monitor IT budget of approximately $2.5 million per year including numerous 

subcontracts. 

• As Managing Director within PRISM project: guide overall project planning efforts, monitor and 

manage $17M budget over 5 years, provide regular communications to project team, organize site 

visits multiple times a year, and coordinate Summer internship programs with National Labs. 

• Led Program Management team for Simple Commerce organization within Hewlett-Packard 

providing overall Program Management for approximately 20 active projects across a suite of 

eCommerce Web-based applications through various phases (development, implementation and 

support). Maintained an accurate and timely Strategic Roadmap/Plan of Record for a suite of 

eCommerce Web-based applications in partnership with Worldwide and Regional IT groups. 

Gathered, analyzed, and documented status, issues, risks and financial health across multiple Projects 

on a weekly basis. Analyzed potential options and drove strategic direction when unexpected events 

occurred including work force reduction, Roadmap redirection and External compliance changes. 

Established well-defined priorities ensuring support of recent direction from upper management and, 

once understood, clearly communicated across Leadership Team. Negotiated, defined, documented, 

and communicated key organizational processes in order to achieve smooth working relationships. 

Planned, implemented and supported seamless execution of organizational initiatives during the year 

such as transition of Project Management systems, Operational Reviews and Coffee Talks. Ensured 

external and internal project plans were accurately maintained in order to comply with HP Global

Program Management Office standards. Gathered, reviewed, and analyzed an evolving set of 

organizational and operational monthly metrics intended to drive process awareness and 

improvement. 

• Led Project Management team for Telesales organization within Hewlett-Packard with a primary 

focus of creating and maintaining rolling 6-18 month project roadmap. This encompassed regular 

negotiation between Users and IT organization while balancing strategic direction, a demanding set of 

User requirements and a variety of IT constraints (people, hardware, etc.). Establish a consistent 

Governance model for evaluating, prioritizing and estimating User requirements across software life 

cycle including reasonable stewardship of off-cycle requests. Designed and documented cross-team 

processes to influence how the Telesales Project Management team would interact with the 

Strategy/Development and Quality Assurance teams throughout the software life cycle. Guided 

regular solution enhancements within resource and security directives while and ensuring high TCE 

(Total Customer Experience) and completion of methodology deliverables. 

• Managed a team of 15 C++ developers at Compaq Computer Corp from requirements gathering 

through implementation of Forecasting System. Designed and Implemented Conversion effort to 

prime new Forecasting System with data from previous manual Forecast system. After 

implementation, managed enhancement stream for Forecasting System including prioritization, 

analysis, and determination of work assignments across 20 ABAP developers 

• Served as primary IT Project Manager for a North American Business Web Store Integration effort. 

The purpose of the effort was to transition off of the HP Business Store onto various Compaq Web 

stores. This included identification of gaps between the HP and Compaq Stores, prioritization of gaps 

and managing development effort to address gaps. Managed development team of 12 web developers 

to address gaps and post-implementation enhancements. 


N/A 


Dr. Mitch Springer

Jared Gray West 

Technology Specialist 

207 S. Martin Jischke Drive Suite 301 


Tel: (765) 496-3385 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: jgwest@purdue.edu 


Purdue University Computer Graphics Technology BS 2001 


2008 – 2010 Senior Web Developer / Team Lead Hirons & Company Communications 

2007 – 2008 Web Developer Main-1-Media, LLC 

2001 – 2007 Webmaster / Technician MSD Washington Township 

1997 – 2001 Operations Assistant Boiler Television Channel 17 

2000 – 2001 Web Designer Professor Ellen Kelly 

Software Experience: 

Design Tools: 

Programming/Productivity: 

Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Premiere, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe InDesign, 

Adobe Dreamweaver, Adobe Flash, 3D Studio MAX, Camtasia 

HTML, CSS, JavaScript, PHP, ASP, XML, Microsoft Office Suite, 

PeopleWare Pro

Rebecca White 

Sponsored Program Services Assistant Director NEES Field Office 



Tel: (765) 496-1358 Fax: (765) 496-6097 

E-mail: rlwhite@purdue.edu 


Purdue University General Management/Finance BS 1980 


2011- Present Assistant Director, Sponsored Program Services, NEES Field Office, Purdue University 

2006-2011 Assistant Director, Sponsored Program Services, Post-Award, Purdue University 

2002-2006 Assistant Director, Sponsored Program Services, Pre & Post Combined, Purdue University 

1998-2002 Business Manager, Agriculture Sponsored Research Programs, Purdue University 

1995-1998 Business Manager, Institute of Interdisciplinary Engineering Studies, Purdue University 

1994-1995 Team Leader, Office of Contract and Grant Business Affairs, Purdue University 

1993-1994 Sr. Project Administrator, Office of Contract and Grant Business Affairs, Purdue University 

1991-1993 Project Administrator, Office of Contract and Grant Business Affairs, Purdue University 

1989-1991 Asst. Project Administrator, Office of Contract and Grant Business Affairs, Purdue University 

1987-1989 Vice President/Financial Services, Employment and Developmental Systems 

1986-1987 Business Manager, Employment and Developmental Systems 

1984-1986 Accountant, Employment and Developmental Systems

2011 Annual Report Volume 2

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?