terrafirma gmes service element - copernicus · integration with in situ is key. ... cost benefit...

1

GMES Forum, Athens: June 2003

STAGE 1 - SERVICE CONSOLIDATION ACTIONS OF THE EARTHWATCH GMES SERVICE ELEMENT

TerrafirmaPan-European ground motion hazard information service

in support of relevant polices aimed at protecting the citizen

2


Relevance to ‘S’ecurity

◆ Earthquakes - obvious.

◆ Landslides - obvious.

◆ But subsidence…?◆ Stable ground taken for granted.◆ EO capabilities show everywhere is in motion.◆ Rarely catastrophic - ‘insidious degradation’.◆ Some deaths through building collapse.

3


Objectives◆ To provide ground motion hazard information across

Europe and beyond.

◆ Dissemination through national Geological Surveys.

◆ Based upon InSAR technologies:◆ Using ERS archive for now.◆ Update with ENVISAT.

◆ To include urban subsidence, landslides andearthquakes.

◆ Integration with in situ is key.◆ Deconvolve single LOS.

◆ Current Stage focusing on urban subsidence asoperational now.

4


Why?◆ Subsidence across Europe might be costing the

economy at least €3,500 million a year.

◆ This figure does not include the effects of landslides orearthquakes!

◆ InSAR will not cure the problem, but…◆ Can help to mitigate against the effects.◆ Can help prioritise resources.◆ Can monitor significant risks, e.g nuclear power stations.◆ Can save lives.

◆ Cost benefit analysis underway.

5


Policy support◆ There is no current European policy for ground motions.

◆ There are more general policies that are relevant, e.g.◆ Those that cite protection of the citizen against natural and

anthropogenic hazards.◆ Those that cite the mandatory availability of information relating

to risk to the citizen.◆ Aarhus Convention.

◆ For Terrafirma, focus is national and local, e.g.◆ Environment assessment (e.g. Town & Country planning Act).◆ Mining (e.g. Loi No. 99-245 du 30 Mars 1999.◆ Planning laws specific to each European country.

6


Terrafirma users◆ 1: Public sector (regulators, local, regional, national

bbauthorities).

◆ 2: Mineral extraction.

◆ 3: Oil and gas abstraction.

◆ 4: Engineering.

◆ 5: Utility operators.

◆ 6: Transport providers.

◆ 7: Development initiators and property owners.

◆ 8: Geo-information providers.

◆ 9: Insurers.

7


Current team (expanding)

Strategy Gr oup

Michael Kosinowski (users)Mike Jamiolkowski (science)Franco Barberi (policy)

Project Manager

NPA

Expert Consultants

AETS

British Institute of Internati onal & Comparative Law

(CBA)

(Policy)

Research Partners

Currently within team

System Developer

Science Systems

Operational Service Pr oviders

TRENPAAltamiraGamma RS

Core User Group

BRGM (F) BGS (GB) TNO (NL) NGU (N)EPPO (GR) Enel-Hydro (I) Arup (GB) EMSC

(geological survey)(geological survey)(geological survey)

(geological survey)(earthquake protection)

(industry)(industry)

(seismic contact network)

8


Why Geological Surveys?

◆ Assumption 1: ‘Raw’ InSAR measurements are of lessbenefit than an interpreted product.

◆ Assumption 2: GSs are (and are perceived as) thelogical repository of national ground motions riskinformation.

◆ GSs have accreditation and standing.◆ They have the resources to interpret InSAR results.◆ They might have a statutory duty to make such risk information

available.◆ They often already provide web-based, geo-spatial services.

9


Arcview Report Writer

MS Word Report………………..

……………….

……………….

……………….

……………….

……………….

……………….

MS Word Report………………..

……………….

……………….

……………….

……………….

……………….

……………….

Intranet Admin’‘Back Office’

Internet Orders

Pan-European

Country No. of towns No. of ERS footprints Existing coverageAustria 1 1Belgium 3 2Bulgaria 3 3Cyprus 0 0Czech Republic 3 3Denmark 1 1Estonia 1 1Finland 1 1France 8 8 Paris (1/3 of city)Germany 32 19Greece 2 2Hungary 1 1Ireland 1 1Italy 13 13 Catania (Mt. Etna), Milan, Prato, RomeLatvia 1 1Lithuania 2 2Luxembourg 0 0Malta 0 0Netherlands 4 2Norway 1 1Poland 15 12Portugal 2 2Romania 9 9Slovakia 2 2Slovenia 1 1Spain 17 16Sweden 3 3Switzerland 1 1Turkey 28 25United Kingdom 21 30 Edinburgh, Glasgow, London, NewcastleTotal 177 163 8

177 towns withpopulation above225,000 consideredfor all EU memberstates and applicantsand full ESA memberstates.

Processed townalthough population <225,000

12


Terrafirma products

◆ Three Levels of product:

◆ Level 1: Raw (just InSAR measurements).– PS locations and coherence polygons only for marketing.

◆ Level 2: Causal interpretation.– Geological surveys have auxiliary data required.

◆ Level 3: Predictive (modelled).

Olympic Village(will be ‘affordable’ housing)

Olympic Stadium

Recent sediments

15


London+4 mm/year

-4 mm/year

0mm

Annual displacem

ent rate

16


-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Jan-95

Jan-96

Jan-97

Jan-98

Jan-99

Jan-00

Date

Rel

ativ

e G

roun

d D

ispl

acem

ents

(mm

)

1995-2000 displacement rate ofindividual PS point

Average rate of displacement: -2.75mm/year April 2002 - Blackheath crown-hole: over 100people evacuated and subsidence diversion routes

created

Crown-holing precursors

17


Team Valley (1/5)Interpolated annual velocities over topographic mapping

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved BGS GD 272191/2003

18


Team Valley (5/5)

Subsidence in the central Team Valley

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Apr-92 Dec -92 Aug-93 Apr-94 J an-95 S ep-95 May-96 J an-97 S ep-97 J un-98 Feb-99 Oc t -99

D a t e

Cluster 1

Subsidence in the eastern Team Valley

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Apr-92 Dec-92 Aug-93 Apr-94 Jan-95 Sep-95 May-96 Jan-97 Sep-97 Jun-98 Feb-99 Oct-99

Date

Rel

ativ

e gr

ound

di

spla

cem

ent (

mm

)

Cluster 2

PS histories to the East of the Team Valley

-10

-5

0

5

10

Apr-92 Dec-92 Aug-93 Apr-94 Jan-95 Sep-95 May-96 Jan-97 Sep-97 Jun-98 Feb-99 Oct-99

Date

Rel

ativ

e gr

ound

di

spla

cem

ent (

mm

)

Cluster 3

19


Potential to monitor coastal defences

20


A precursor to building collapse...

21


…building motion history

22


IzmitMain event: 17-Aug-99

Magnitude 7.4 Richter

SAR dates:13-Aug-99 and 17-Sep-99

Tsep = 35 days

23

GMES Forum, Athens: June 2003Copyright TRE, 2000

24


Area of predicted Tokai earthquake event

< -5 -5…-3 -3…-1 -1…1 1…3 > 3

LOS average displacement rate 92-00 (mm/yr)

1: Comparison of LOS PSInSAR measurements with horizontal-only GEONET data 99-00.Both sets of data referenced to common point.

26


ESA project in London

Monitoring reservoir loadingusing CRInSAR

27


Compact Active Transponder

◆ Responsive to all C-band satellites.

◆ Wide FOV for ascending and descending passes.

◆ Programmable (with delay if required).

◆ Aim to be a few hundred Euros.

Trials prototype

28


Some key issues

◆ How do we make the EC recognise significance ofheterogeneous local policy?

◆ Who is going to pay for the eventual full service?

◆ Who owns the results and copyright?

◆ Liabilities?◆ De-valuing properties (blight).

◆ (a selfish point) How do service suppliers shareout supply?

29


Websitewww.terrafirma.eu.com

now active!

terrafirma gmes service element - copernicus · integration with in situ is key. ... cost benefit...

Documents