SERIES2).pdf · Deliverable D4.8 – Reports of international collaboration with conclusions of the web forum exchange Deliverable/Task Leader: [UNIVBRIS] Revision: Final July, 2013

SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Capacities Specific Programme

Research Infrastructures

Project No.: 227887

SERIES SEISMIC ENGINEERING RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES FOR

EUROPEAN SYNERGIES

Workpackage [WP4/NA3]

Deliverable D4.8 – Reports of international collaboration with conclusions of the web forum exchange

Deliverable/Task Leader: [UNIVBRIS]

Revision: Final

July, 2013

D4.8 – Reports of international collaboration with conclusions of the web forum exchange

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh

Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement n° 227887 [SERIES].


ii


iii

ABSTRACT

The scope of this Deliverable 4.8 ‘Reports of international collaboration with conclusions of the

web forum exchange’ is to summarize the collaborative activity undertaken between members of

the SERIES consortium and institutions of earthquake engineering research from outside of the

EU during the course of the SERIES project. The Deliverable is an output of Task NA3.2

‘Collaboration with international earthquake engineering research infrastructures’. The main

body of the Deliverable describes the methodology used to garner the pertinent information from

the members of the SERIES consortium and provides an overview of the collaborative activities

that have been undertaken. The Reports of International Collaboration produced by individual

SERIES members are consigned to the Deliverable’s appendices.


iv


v

DELIVERABLE CONTRIBUTORS

UNIVBRIS Matt Dietz

UNIVBRIS Colin Taylor

UPAT Michael Fardis

UPAT Dionysis Biskinis

EUCENTRE Simone Peloso

UCAM Gopal Madabhushi

UNIKA Ferran Obón Santacana

UOXF.DF Ignacio Lamata Matinez


vi


vii

CONTENTS

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................2

2.1 Survey architecture .........................................................................................................2

2.2 Response .........................................................................................................................3

3 Overview of international collaboration ..................................................................................4

3.1 The Collaborating Institutions ........................................................................................4

3.2 Personnel ........................................................................................................................4

3.3 Subject areas ...................................................................................................................5

3.4 The form of the collaboration .........................................................................................6

3.4.1 Collaborative tools .............................................................................................7

3.4.2 Face-to-face meetings ........................................................................................7

3.5 The effectiveness of International collaboration ............................................................9

4 Conclusions of the web forum exchange ...............................................................................12

5 Summary ................................................................................................................................13

6 Appendices ............................................................................................................................15


viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The proportion of respondents using alternative collaboration tools .................. 7

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. List of international collaborators ......................................................................... 5


1

1 Introduction

The principle objective of Task NA3.2 is to engender collaboration between the individual

members of the SERIES consortium and other internationally renowned seismic engineering

research institutions from outside of the European Union. The intension is to promote SERIES

activities, disseminate the SERIES RTD outcomes, foster sustained integration of the European

and the international earthquake-engineering communities, and promote the European

earthquake-engineering community as a leading player within the international research

community. To this end, the objectives of Task NA3.2 are:

to implement an Announcement-Newsgroup Web Forum within the SERIES Task NA1.1

web portal.

to make collaborative efforts to define common interests, establish potential topics for

parallel research in the future, develop strategies for co-operation, exchange data, define

common testing protocols and data formats, etc.

to produce summary reports of the outcomes of the collaborative activities and

conclusions from the web forum exchange.

Deliverable 4.8 ‘Reports of international collaboration with conclusions of web forum

exchange’ (i.e. this report) focuses on the latter two of these objectives. (The activities

undertaken with regard to the first objective is described in Deliverable 4.6 ‘Announcement

Newsgroup Web Forum with research infrastructures outside the EU’.)

Section 2 describes the data collection process that was used to garner information

regarding the collaborations occurring between members of the SERIES consortium and other

external institutions. This process made use of an online survey system to petition all members of

the SERIES consortium.


2

Section 3 provides an overview of the reported collaborative activities. The individual

responses to the online survey are consigned to Appendix 3 under the heading ‘Reports of

International Collaboration’.

Section 4 turns attention towards the web-forum exchange and in-so-doing reiterates the

findings reported in Deliverable 4.6 ‘Announcement Newsgroup Web Forum with research

infrastructures outside the EU’ that the use of this collaborative tool was less than expected.

Evidence relating to the reasons behind the lack of use garnered from the survey’s respondents is

presented and is generally in support of the hypothesis presented in Deliverable 4.6 that during

their formative stages, online communities require to be serviced by significant levels of

management.

2 Methodology

A structured questionnaire was used to assess the state of collaboration occurring between

members of the SERIES consortium and earthquake-engineering institutions from outside of the

consortium. The questionnaire was published online using a web-based survey tool available at

the University of Bristol (<http://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/>) called Bristol Online Surveys (BOS).

The BOS tool allows users to develop, deploy and analyse questionnaires via the web. Survey

respondents were directed towards dedicated web pages that contain the survey’s fields

(<http://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/engineering/series-collaboration-survey>).

2.1 SURVEY ARCHITECTURE

As seen in Appendix 1, the survey comprised of twenty questions split over three sections. The

opening section garnered some personal details regarding the identity of the respondent (name

and affiliation) and the current date. The second section garnered information regarding the form

of the collaborative activity such as the name of the collaborating institution, the dates between

which the collaboration occurred, the purpose, the number of personnel involved, and the tools


3

that were employed. This section comprised twelve of the twenty questions. The final section

garnered information regarding the perceived effectiveness of the collaboration and attempted to

gauge the success or otherwise by asking for a list of notable outcomes (publications, lectures,

presentations, etc), establishing the barriers to collaboration, and determining whether any plans

exist for future collaborative activities. The section ends by asking if any strategies could be

recommended to aid future collaborative activity. Respondents were encouraged to provide full

and thorough answers as their text was to be used verbatim in the Reports of Collaboration

presented within Appendix 3 of this deliverable.

2.2 RESPONSE

The survey was first launched on 2013-01-01 and closed at midnight 2013-06-30. A total of

twelve responses were received from the sixty three survey invitations issued. Responses

originated from six members of the twenty three strong series consortium. The institutional

response rate was 26%, the personal response rate 19%. The institutions that responded to the

survey were: Centro Europeo di Formazione e Ricerca in Ingegneria Sismica (EUCENTRE), the

University of Cambridge (UCAM), Universität Kassel (UNIKA), the University of Bristol

(UNIVBRIS), the University of Oxford (UOXF.DF), and the University of Patras (UPAT).

Personnel completing the survey are presented in the ‘List of Deliverable Contributors’ at the

front of this document. The individual responses comprise the reports of international

collaboration presented in Appendix 3.


4

3 Overview of international collaboration

The following section provides an overview of the received responses. Note that the intention

here is to detail the activities of individual members of the SERIES consortium with external

collaborators. The collaborative activities undertaken by groups of SERIES members are

reported elsewhere (Deliverable D4.9 ‘Report of co-ordination with networks on earthquake

engineering and related FP projects’).

3.1 THE COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS

Table 1 presents a list of international institutions that have been engaged in collaborative

activities with members of the SERIES consortium alongside the start date and duration of the

said activities. The list is arranged alphabetically in terms of the collaborating institution name.

Of the collaborating institutions, six are located in the US, three in China, and one each in South

Korea, Japan, Canada and Italy. (While the Italian collaboration is strictly outside of the scope of

the terms of reference of this deliverable, it has been included due to the collaborating institution

being outside of the SERIES consortium.) The mean and modal duration is 30.5 months and 18

months respectively. Eight of the fourteen collaborations are ongoing.

3.2 PERSONNEL

Questions 7, 8 and 11 of the survey garnered information relating to the personnel involved in

collaborative activities: ‘How many people took part in the collaboration at your institution?’,

‘How many people took part in the collaboration at the collaborating institution(s)?’ and ‘At

what organizational levels did the collaboration occur?’

The trend was for collaborating institutions to commit a greater number of personnel to

collaborative activity. From the sixty-seven personnel who were involved in international

collaborations, thirty-two came from members of the SERIES consortium whereas thirty-two

came from collaborating institutions. The mean numbers of personnel engaged within a

collaborative project were 2.7 for consortium members and 4.4 from collaborating institutions.


5

Table 1. List of international collaborators

Collaborating Institution Collaborator Start Date Duration

Beijing University of Technology, China UNIVBRIS 2012-08-01 18 months

E-DEFENCE, Japan UPAT 2011-01-01 12 months

Hybrid Simulation Testing Center (HYSTEC), South Korea UNIKA 2011-09-23 12 months

Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE), USA UPAT 2009-03-01 48 months

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), USA

UPAT 2009-03-01 48 months

National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE), Taiwan

UPAT 2009-03-01 ongoing

National Research Center for Earthquake Engineering (NCREE), Taiwan

UNIKA 2011-04-01 24 months

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), USA

UPAT 2009-03-01 48 months

Tongji University, China UPAT 2009-03-01 ongoing

University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley), USA UNIKA 2011-11-01 18 months

University of Purdue, USA UOXF.DF 2011-09-16 18 months

Parthenope University of Naples, Italy UCAM 2013-06-03 ongoing

University of Toronto, Canada EUCENTRE 2011-12-05 64 months

US Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (US-NEES), USA

UPAT 2009-03-01 ongoing

Agents involved in the collaborative activities were found at all organizational levels.

‘Director’, involved with the instigation the collaborative activity, and ‘Operative’, charged with

undertaking the collaborative activity, were the most identified categories of participating

personnel.

3.3 SUBJECT AREAS

Question 9 asked ‘What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts?’ In response the survey

respondents identified a number of subject areas encompassed by their collaborative efforts that

are summarized below. The partners undertaking the collaborative activities and, where

applicable, the SERIES task reference under which the activity was performed are indicated

within parentheses.

the experimental, numerical and theoretical investigation of the behavior of reinforced

concrete and unreinforced masonry elements under cyclic loading (EUCENTRE, NA3.6)

the modeling and assessment of the behavior of structures incorporating isolators and

dissipative self-centering braces (EUCENTRE, NA3.6)


6

the development of high performance retrofit strategies for soft-storey structures

(EUCENTRE, NA3.6)

the development of transcontinental (Europe-North America) distributed testing

methodology using OpenFresco (UNIKA, NA1.4)

the development of transcontinental (Europe-Asia) distributed testing methodology using the

NCREE PNSE protocol (UNIKA, NA1.4)

establish contact with an emergent Network and to let new facilities know the efforts that

were performed in Europe (UNIKA, NA1.4)

the development of real-time dynamic substructuring for soil structure interaction analyses

using a shaking table (UNIVBRIS, JRA3.4)

the development (semantic web) technologies capable of managing and visualizing data

from different sources and in different forms and structures so that data generated by

European sources can be integrated with those generated by international collaborators

(UOXF.DF)

participation in international forums and workshops for the purpose of information sharing

(UPAT, NA3.2)

setting up a high level International Advisory Panel with the aim to develop a structure for

sustainable international collaboration of RI in earthquake engineering (UPAT, Task NA3.5)

3.4 THE FORM OF THE COLLABORATION

The form of the collaborative activities was gauged by asking respondents to identify the tools

that were used and to provide information on the face-to-face meetings and longer duration

research visits that occurred as a part of their collaborative activities (in Questions 12, 13 and 14

respectively).


7

Figure 1. The proportion of respondents using alternative collaboration tools

3.4.1 Collaborative tools

A wide array of tools is available to aid with collaborative activity. The percentage of

respondents utilizing the different options is presented in Figure 1.

The most commonly used collaborative tool was email, reasons for which were

encapsulated by one respondent: ‘Emails is our communication tool of preference, as they secure

immediate delivery, acknowledgement of receipt, multiple recipients, are quicker and easier to

use (i.e. no passwords etc).’ File sharing and audio/video/web conferencing also proved popular.

Newer technologies such as telepresence and the more dedicated tools for conducting distributed

testing (e.g. OpenFresco, PNSE) went less used presumably due to their novelty of this type of

collaborative work. No respondent made use of the SERIES web forum for the needs of the

collaborative activities reported within this Deliverable.

3.4.2 Face-to-face meetings

Numerous forums and workshops were undertaken over the course of the SERIES project that

were identified as playing a part in the respondents collaborative activities. These generally

featured multiple institutions of the SERIES consortium and had a strong emphasis on


8

networking. As such, these activities are reported in §1.1 of SERIES Deliverable D4.9 ‘Report of

co-ordination with networks on earthquake engineering and related FP projects’ and, to avoid

duplication, are not reiterated herein. In addition to these ‘group’ activities, a number of longer

term research visits were conducted between the individual members of the SERIES consortium

and their international collaborators that are summarised below.

EUCENTRE undertook several long term stays in the framework of their collaborative

efforts. Two doctoral students, one from Pavia and one from Toronto, are currently involved

with the Joint Placement programme, spending a 12 month period at the other Institution in order

to attend courses and conduct research in the broader field of Earthquake Engineering. Their

doctoral dissertations are jointly supervised by at least one member of the University of Toronto

Faculty and one of the EUCENTRE/UME School Faculty. Two EUCENTRE/UME school

doctoral students are currently in Toronto for a 6 month research stay. In Pavia both student are

carrying out their research at EUCENTRE’s TREEES LAB while in Toronto they are hosted at

the Canada Research Chair in Seismic Resilience of Infrastructure. One University of Toronto

doctoral student is spending a 2.5 months research stay in Pavia with the goal of validating

software developed in Toronto using experimental data acquired at the TREEES LAB. A

EUCENTRE/UME School researcher is carrying out a 2.5 months research stay in Toronto to

collaborate with two local Faculty members addressing the numerical simulation of the cyclic

shear behaviour of RC elements. In the framework of didactic exchanges, two Professors of the

University of Toronto taught intensive one-month courses (6 ECTS) at the EUCENTRE/UME

School, while in addition to people already mentioned, two University of Toronto doctoral

students and one University of Toronto researcher attended courses at the EUCENTRE/UME

School (one attended a one month course and two attended a two week course).

Elsewhere, a doctoral researcher from the Beijing University of Technology undertook a

year long research visit to UNIVBRIS in 2011 in order to develop the substructuring test

methodology for shaking table transfer systems. The fortuitous alignment of the scholar’s

research objectives with those of SERIES Task JRA3.4 prompted an intense collaboration. The

novel control techniques that were developed allowed shaking table substructuring for soil

structure interaction analysis to be conducted. The resulting PhD thesis was successfully

defended at the Beijing University of Technology in 2012 and several papers have since been

submitted to high quality journals.


9

During April 2011, delegates from UNIKA visited several Asian networks and

infrastructures of earthquake engineering (NCREE, E-Defense, and Osaka Institute of

Technology). The objective was to acquire experience in the field of distributed testing and

evaluate the protocols employed to perform such tests. These visits were supplemented in

November that year by visits to several NEES facilities (the University of Lehigh, the University

of Illinois, the University of Buffalo and the University of California). The objective was again

to evaluate the utilised distributed testing protocols. The experience that was achieved

contributed to the success of Task NA1.4. A further set of visits by UNIKA was undertaken

during September 2012 to several of the South Korean KOCED facilities (an emergent network

in earthquake engineering). The objective was to increase the possibility of future collaboration

between members of the European earthquake engineering community coalesced under the

SERIES project and the KOCED network.

An encouraging portent of ongoing collaboration engendered by the SERIES project is

that there is evidence of sustained interaction between Transnational Access infrastructures and

their Users. UCAM obtaining follow-on funding to extend the Transnational Access project

‘PROPWALL’ in order to carry out additional centrifuge tests on propped wall systems provides

a good example of such ongoing collaboration. As a result, visiting researchers from Parthenope

University of Naples paid two three week long stays to participate in the testing activities.

Furthermore, UNIVBRIS is currently hosting a visiting researcher from the University of

Alicante for a period of three months as follow-on to the ASESGRAM Transnational Access

project.

3.5 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

The effectiveness of the international collaboration was gauged by asking respondents to judge

the success of their activities (Question 16), to note the impediments to collaboration (Question

18) and to specify any noteworthy outputs of the collaborative effort (Question 17).

Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about the success of their collaborative

activities. In subjective terms, six respondents (50%) classified their collaborative activity as

‘extremely successful’, six respondents (50%) classified their collaborative activity as successful.

The survey identified only two barriers to effective collaboration: time management and

technology. Difficulties arise when the timescales for a collaborative activity differ for each of


10

the participants (as reported by UNIKA and UOXF.DF) and also when short term collaborative

activities intend to make use of an oversubscribed laboratory resource (as reported by

UNIVBRIS). Existing legacy technology such as hardware controllers are generally not equipped

with the functionality or communication capabilities required for novel test techniques such as

distributed testing and as such must undergo time consuming modification. Although reported by

a single respondent (UNIKA), similar issues have arisen during distributed tests conducted

between other members of the SERIES consortium (UCAM, UNIVBRIS, UOXF.DF).

In objective terms, the reported collaborative activity resulted in a number of outputs. In

terms of invited lectures, Prof. M.N. Fardis attended Tongji University in October 2009 in order

to visit the lab facilities and to deliver the opening lecture to the 2nd

Kwang-Hua World Forum

on Performance-based Design Theory and Code Development for Civil and Structural

Engineering. Furthermore, Prof. M.N. Fardis was also invited to present the SERIES project at

the 4th

Kwang-Hua Forum and Opening Symposium of Tongji Shaking Table Array, on Dec. 10-

12, 2011.

Regular communication between SERIES partners and Julio Ramirez from US-NEES

was reported by UPAT. At the outset of the SERIES project it was established that data

exchange between SERIES and US-NEES (George E. Brown, Jr., Network for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation) was desirable and a SERIES-NEES protocol for co-operation in this

respect was discussed and drafted. The most noteworthy outcome of this flourishing

collaborative effort between SERIES and US-NEES was the joint organization of the SERIES

Concluding Workshop on ‘Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructures’ (May 28-30, 2013

in Ispra, Italy). The scope of the Workshop was to present the main outcomes of the SERIES

project and of parallel developments within the US-NEES. One session was dedicated

exclusively to US-NEES. The Network’s co-ordinator, Prof. Julio Ramirez, chaired the session

and also made a presentation on US-NEES. In total, US-NEES contributed 9 presentations and

11 participants. Among the Workshop participants, there was also one invited presentation from

the Tongji University (China) and two from the NCREE (Taiwan). Joint presentations between

SERIES members and colleagues in international institutions were also made, i.e. between

UNITN/UNIVBRIS and the Harbin Institute of Technology (China) and UNIVBRIS and the

Kyoto University (Japan). Conclusions of the Workshop, recommendations and future

collaboration possibilities between SERIES and US-NEES are presented in Deliverables D4.9


11

‘Report of co-ordination with networks on earthquake engineering and related FP projects’ and

D4.16 ‘Concluding Workshop Proceedings’.

Multiple respondents noted their expectation that the collaborative activity would lead to

publications in high quality journals (EUCENTRE, UCAM, UNIVBRIS) and some progress to

this end was reported (Dietz, M.S., Tang Z., Li, Z., Stoten, D.P., Taylor, C.A. ‘Substructuring

stability analysis in light of comprehensive transfer system dynamics’, submitted to Journal of

Engineering Mechanics, May 2013; Tang, Z., Dietz, M.S., Li, Z., Taylor, C.A. ‘The performance

of delay compensation in shaking table substructuring’ submitted to Engineering Structures, May

2013.) Additionally a PhD thesis was defended at the Beijing University of Technology which

primarily draws upon the collaborative activity conducted between this institution and

UNIVBRIS (Tang, Z. (2012) ‘Development of real-time dynamics substructuring based on

shaking table’ PhD Thesis, Beijing University of Technology).

Research outputs include a series of transcontinental distributed tests conducted between

UNIKA and Taiwanese (NCREE), South Korean (HYSTEC) and American (UC Berkeley)

collaborators using a variety of alternative communication protocols. Finally, while a proof of

concept test to verify data integration between UOXF.DF and the University of Purdue has not

yet been conducted (the collaboration is ongoing), simulations have revealed feasibility of the

proposed semantic web technology solution.

Two strategies were identified by the survey’s respondents that may enhance future

collaboration. EUCENTRE remarked on the importance of significant resource commitment (in

terms of time and personnel) to collaborative efforts remarking that it is this which makes their

collaboration with the University of Toronto a resounding success. The second strategy

identified (by UCAM) to enhance collaboration was the sublimation of a web forum for the

exchange of ideas. This is discussed in the next section.


12

4 Conclusions of the web forum exchange

As noted above (§3.4.1) and documented in SERIES Deliverable 4.6 ‘Announcement

Newsgroup Web Forum with research infrastructures outside the EU’, use of the SERIES online

discussion forum designed and implemented under Task NA3.2 has been paltry. As such, there

are no conclusions of the web forum exchange to report in this document.

While the potential reasons for the scant use of the discussion forum were discussed in

Deliverable 4.6, the State of Collaboration survey discussed herein provided the opportunity to

canvas those members of the SERIES consortium who have undertaken collaborative activity

about their reasons for their disuse of the discussion forum. To this end, the final question in

Section 2 of the survey asked: ‘Little use has been made of the SERIES forum

<www.series.upatras.gr/forum/> for discussion with collaborators. Why didn’t you use this tool

for your collaboration?’

The responses received are generally supportive of the argument put forth in Deliverable

4.6 that a higher level of community management is required to stimulate and nurture

participation in the SERIES discussion forum. It is a truism that members of an online

community will not contribute unless enough others are also participating. A key role of a

community manager is to instigate and encourage contributions by prompting and cajoling

members from behind the scenes. If no one actively engages and stimulates members, online

communities cease to exist.

Uncertainty regarding the intended purpose and envisioned usage of the discussion forum

is evident within the community. Indicating a preference for email communication in

collaborative activity, one respondent suggests that the discussion was outside of the scope of

SERIES and so use of the forum was not appropriate whereas the intention is for the forum to be

a wider resource and not merely confined to discussing SERIES activities. Another respondent

suggests that the discussion was overly subject-specific for inclusion on a public forum. Such

issues demonstrate a lack of understanding about the intended purpose and the envisioned usage

of the forum that might be resolved by a more proactive approach to community management.


13

5 Summary

Deliverable 4.8 ‘Reports of international collaboration with conclusions of the web forum

exchange’ has summarized the collaborative effort that has been made between members of the

SERIES consortium and other internationally renowned institutions of earthquake engineering

research from outside the consortium. The information collection procedure was described and

overview of the results presented. The individual responses to the survey are presented as

Reports of Collaboration in Appendix 3.

Data were collected using an online survey issued to in excess of sixty individuals from

the twenty-three strong SERIES consortium. Twelve reports of collaboration originating from

seven consortium members were received. Notable institutions from outside of the European

Union engaging with member of the SERIES consortium included E-DEFENCE (Japan),

NCREE (Taiwan), the University of California at Berkeley (USA), the University of Purdue,

Tongi University (China), Beijing University of Technology (China), the University of Toronto

(Canada), the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (USA), Mid-

America Earthquake Center (USA), and the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

(USA). Collaborations covered wide ranging subject areas and were overwhelmingly judged as

being either ‘successful’ or ‘extremely successful’ by the survey respondents, a subjective view

that is supported by the outputs of the collaborative activities summarized herein and the finding

that the reported collaborative activities are more-often-than-not ongoing.


14


15

6 Appendices


16


17

Appendix 1. SERIES NA3.2 online survey – the state of

collaboration with international earthquake engineering

research infrastructures

SERIES Task NA3.2 focuses on the collaboration between members of the SERIES

consortium and other international earthquake engineering research infrastructures/laboratories

(e.g. E-Defence, NCREE, US-NEES sites, etc).

This twenty-question survey is intended to evaluate the state of any such international

collaboration that has occurred over the course of the SERIES project. The survey aims to

assess:

● the expectations, purpose and level of collaboration,

● the use of collaboration tools and their effectiveness,

● the barriers to collaboration.

Please complete the survey for each of your collaborative projects conducted over the

duration of SERIES (i.e. one survey per project). Your text will be used verbatim in Deliverable

4.8 – please provide full and thorough answers.

Details about yourself

1. Your name:

2. Your affiliation:

3. Date:

Details about the collaboration

4. Name of the collaborating institution(s):

5. Start date of the collaborative effort:

6. Duration of the collaborative effort:

7. How many people took part in the collaboration at your institution?

8. How many people took part in the collaboration at the collaborating institution(s)?

9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? (e.g. training, information sharing,

process improvement, participation in testing, planning, dissemination etc.)


18

10. Did the collaborative activity relate directly to a SERIES objective? If so, please provide the

Task number as detailed in the SERIES Description of Work.

11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? (director, management,

operatives)

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? (e.g. email, audio conference tools, file sharing,

discussion forums, web conferencing (i.e. shared presentations, applications, whiteboard),

telepresence, group calendaring/scheduling, instant messaging)

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place?

14. Please provide details of any longer-term stays or visits that took place as part of the

collaborative activity.

15. Little use has been made of the SERIES forum <www.series.upatras.gr/forum/> for

discussion with collaborators. Why didn’t you use this tool for your collaboration?

Assessing the effectiveness of the collaboration

16. How would you judge the success of the collaboration? Extremely successful, successful,

acceptable, failure, unmitigated disaster.

17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)? (e.g.

publications, lectures, proposals, etc.)

18. What were the barriers to collaboration? (e.g. differing goals or timelines, unwillingness of

team members, lack of communication of process and progress, ill defined goals or roles,

conflict, performance of collaborative tools, etc.)

19. Looking forward, do you have plans for parallel research in future? If so, on what topic?

20. Are their strategies that you wish to highlight that would aid future co-operation and

collaboration with international earthquake engineering infrastructures?


19

Appendix 2. Email correspondence announcing the SERIES

NA3.2 state of collaboration online survey.

Dear SERIES colleagues,

SERIES Task NA3.2 focuses on the collaboration between the members of the SERIES

consortium and other international earthquake engineering research infrastructures/laboratories

(e.g. E-Defence, NCREE, US-NEES sites, etc). An on-line survey has been launched that is

intended to evaluate the state of any such international collaboration that has occurred over the

duration of the SERIES project. The survey aims to assess:

● the expectations, purpose and level of collaboration,

● the use of collaboration tools and their effectiveness,

● the barriers to collaboration.

If you have been involved in any collaborative effort with earthquake engineering

infrastructures from outside of the SERIES consortium, please find the time to complete

the survey. The survey is made up of just 20 questions spread over two pages - it should not take

long to complete.

Please note that your answers will be used verbatim in Deliverable 4.8 'Reports of

international collaboration, with conclusions of Web Forum exchange'. It would be helpful if you

could provide full and thorough answers. If you so wish, a word document is attached to this

email so that you can draft a response before either copying/pasting to the survey or returning to

me via email.

If you have been involved in multiple collaborative projects over the duration of SERIES

please complete one survey for each project.

A link to the on-line survey is below:

<http://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/engineering/series-collaboration-survey>

If you are pasting the above URL to a browser address bar, please make sure you copy

the entire address - it may be split over multiple lines.

The survey will remain open until midnight on the 30th June, 2013.

Kind regards,


20


21

Appendix 3. Reports of International Collaboration.

Appendix 3.1. EUCENTRE-University of Toronto


1. Your name: Simone Peloso

2. Your affiliation: Eucentre

3. Date: 28/06/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): University of Toronto

5. Start date of the collaborative effort: 05/12/2011

6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 5 years 4 months

7. How many people took part in the collaboration at your institution? 9

8. How many people took part in the collaboration at the collaborating institution(s)? 4

9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? Main purposes of the collaborative

effort are high level training of graduate students mainly in the field of Earthquake

Engineering, as well as common research activities. The research topics investigated by

the graduate students and researches taking part to the collaborative effort are mostly

focussing on: i) the experimental, numerical and theoretical investigation of the

behaviour of reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry elements under cyclic

loading, ii) the modelling and assessment of the behaviour of structures incorporating

isolators and dissipative self-centering braces, and iii) the development of high

performance retrofit strategies for soft-storey structures.

10. Did the collaborative activity relate directly to a SERIES objective? NA3.6

11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? As already mentioned the

collaboration occurred at several levels, i.e. graduate students, researchers and faculty.

Of course, the formal agreements supporting the collaboration were set up involving

the highest offices of both Institutions, while the operative organisation of the

exchanges were supported by the management and administrative staff on both sides.

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? One key asset of the collaboration is the

exchange of students, researches and faculty for an extended period of time. It goes

without saying that all modern methods of communication are employed to interact

before, during and after the exchange period., instant messaging, web conferencing, file

sharing, audio conference tools, email

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? >10


collaborative activity: As already mentioned; several long term stays took place in the


22

framework of the collaborative effort and are briefly described in the following. Two

doctoral students, one from Pavia and one from Toronto, are currently involved with

the Joint Placement programme. For this reason they have spent a 12 month period at

the other Institution attending courses and carrying out research in the broader field

of Earthquake Engineering. Their doctoral dissertations are jointly supervised by at

least one University of Toronto Faculty and one EUCENTRE/UME School Faculty.

Two EUCENTRE/UME school doctoral students are currently in Toronto for a 6

month research stay. In Pavia both student are carrying out their research at

Eucentre’s TREEES LAB while in Toronto they are hosted at the Canada Research

Chair in Seismic Resilience of Infrastructure. One University of Toronto doctoral

student is spending a 2.5 months research stay in Pavia with the goal of validating a

software developed in Toronto against the results of tests carried out at the TREEES

LAB. A EUCENTRE/UME School researcher is carrying out a 2.5 months research

stay in Toronto to collaborate with two local Faculty on the numerical simulation of the

cyclic shear behaviour of RC elements. In the framework of didactic exchanges, two

Professors of the University of Toronto (UofT) taught intensive one-months courses (6

ECTS) at the EUCENTRE/UME School, while in additions to people already

mentioned, two UofT doctoral students and one UofT researcher attended courses at

the EUCENTRE/UME School (one attended a one month course and two attended a

two week course).


discussion with collaborators. Why didn’t you use this tool for your collaboration? Due to

the strong relationship forged through the exchange of a significant number of people,

other ways of communication were preferred including: i) face-to-face meetings, ii)

convey of information through the colleagues present at the host institution, iii) video

conferencing and iv) Skype.


16. How would you judge the success of the collaboration? Extremely successful

17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)? Besides the

obvious benefit consisting in the high quality training of a large number of graduate

students and researchers, the collaborative research is expected to produce a number

of joint publications in conference proceeding and international journals.

18. What were the barriers to collaboration? Because of the strong commitment of all

partners towards a productive and profitable cooperation, no mayor difficulties were

encountered so far within the collaborative effort with the University of Toronto.


The research carried out within the collaboration between University of Toronto and

EUCENTRE/UME school is expected to grow further, extending into the broader field

of risk reduction and resilience of structures and infrastructure in the framework of

natural and human made hazards.


23


collaboration with international earthquake engineering infrastructures? As already

mentioned one fundamental advantage of the collaboration between University of

Toronto and EUCENTRE/UME School is the exchange of (jointly supervised) graduate

students, researchers and Faculty for a longer period of time which allows conducting

joint research projects making the most of the powerful infrastructures of both

Partners.

Appendix 3.2. UNIVBRIS-Beijing University of Technology


1. Your name: Matt Dietz

2. Your affiliation: University of Bristol

3. Date: 28/06/13


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): Beijing University of Technology

5. Start date of the collaborative effort: August 2011

6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 1.5 years



9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? The development of real-time dynamic

substructuring for Soil Structure Interaction analyses using a shaking table.

10. Did the collaborative activity relate directly to a SERIES objective? JRA3.4

11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? Director and operatives

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? email, shared documents

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? >10


collaborative activity. A doctoral research student from the Beijing University of

Technology had a 1 year research visit to the University of Bristol.


discussion with collaborators. Why didn’t you use this tool for your collaboration? The

main collaborative activities took place at the University of Bristol where the

telephone, email and face to face meetings offered more direct methods for

communication.



17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)? PhD thesis:

Zhenyun Tang (2012) ‘Development of real-time dynamics substructuring based on

shaking table. Journal papers submitted: Dietz, M.S., Tang Z., Li, Z., Stoten, D.P.,


24

Taylor, C.A. ‘Substructuring stability analysis in light of comprehensive transfer

system dynamics’, submitted to Journal of Engineering Mechanics, May 2013; Tang,

Z., Dietz, M.S., Li, Z., Taylor, C.A. ‘The performance of delay compensation in

shaking table substructuring’ submitted to Engineering Structures, May 2013. Two

more planned journal publications.

18. What were the barriers to collaboration? Time pressure due to collaborative activity being

confined within a year long research visit and requiring use of an oversubscribed

resource (the University of Bristol shaking table).




Appendix 3.3. UCAM-Parthenope University of Naples


1. Your name: Gopal Madabhushi

2. Your affiliation: University of Cambridge

3. Date: 07/06/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): University of Parthenope, Naples


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: Six months



9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? Following from the EU funded

SERIES project called PROPWALL, following on funding was obtained to carry out

additional centrifuge tests on propped wall systems. This reinforces the advantages of

using the Trans National Access of the SERIES project, that can lead to continued

collaborations among European partners. Parthenope carryout significant amount of

seismic analysis on soil-structure systems.

10. Did the collaborative activity relate directly to a SERIES objective?

11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? Both at Supervisor level

exchange and research student exchange for the conduct of actual tests.

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? telepresence, file sharing, email

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? 1-2


collaborative activity: Two 3 week long stays by the visiting researcher from Naples.


discussion with collaborators. Why didn’t you use this tool for your collaboration? These


25

are quite specific tests using centrifuge modelling. Email provides a more direct

contact.



17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)? Planned to

produce a journal publication on Seismic behaviour of Propwalls in liquefiable soils,

for a high quality journal.

18. What were the barriers to collaboration?


Yes. We are looking at other problems such as seismic behaviour of tunnels, with them.


collaboration with international earthquake engineering infrastructures? A good discussion

forum to exchange ideas is good, but people must use such a forum.

Appendix 3.4. UNIKA-University of California at Berkeley


1. Your name: Ferran Obón Santacana

2. Your affiliation: Universität Kassel

3. Date: 30/06/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): University of California at Berkeley (NEES)


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 1.5 years



9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? Perform continuous geographically

distributed tests using OpenFresco between the University of Kassel and the University

of California at Berkeley.


11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? At the department level.

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? OpenFresco, telepresence, web conferencing,

email



collaborative activity: During november 2011, visits to several NEES facilities were

performed (University of Lehigh, University of Illinois, University at Buffalo and the

University of California). The objective was from one side, acquire the necessary

experience in the field of distributed testing, and evaluate the different protocols


26

(OpenFresco and UI-Simcor). The objective always included future collaboration with

the different facilities as one of the primary goals.



communication was performed by e-mail to set-up dates or through web conferencing

when a more complicated matter arose.



17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)? For the first

time, trancontinental continuous (time-scaled) distributed tests were performed.

18. What were the barriers to collaboration? The design of the software that allowed our

controller to "understand" OpenFresco required most of the time.


Multi-protocol, multi-site continuous distributed testing including other networks and

facilities.



Appendix 3.5. UNIKA-NCREE




3. Date: 30/06/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): National Research Center for Eartquake

Engineering (NCREE), Taiwan


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 2 years



9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? Perform continuous distributed tests

with NCREE using the PNSE protocol that was developed at that institution.


11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? Department level.

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? PNSE, telepresence, web conferencing, email



collaborative activity: During April 2011, a visit to several Asian Networks and facilities


27

(NCREE, E-Defense, and Osaka Institude of Technology) were performed. The

objective was from one side, acquire the necessary experience in the field of distributed

testing, and evaluate alternative protocols (PNSE) to perform distributed tests. The

objective always included future collaboration with the different facilities as one of the

primary goals.



whole process was arranged by e-mail or through the use of video conferencing to

discuss more complicated matters.



17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)?

Transcontinental continuous distributed tests using PNSE protocol. The institutions

were UNIKA and NCREE.

18. What were the barriers to collaboration? The design of the software, and time limitations

on the NCREE site.



facilities.



Appendix 3.6. UNIKA-HYSTEC




3. Date: 30/06/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): National Hybrid Simulation Testing Center

(HYSTEC), South Korea.


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 1 year



9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? Establish contact with an emergent

Network and to let new facilities know the efforts that were performed in Europe.



28

11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? Director level of the KOCED

network.

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? OpenFresco, web conferencing, email



collaborative activity: During September 2012, visits to several KOCED facilities (an

emergent network in Earthquake Engineering) were performed taking advantage of

the ICEAS conference that was being held in Seoul. The facilities that were vistied

were HYSTEC and SESTEC (Seismic Simulation Test Center). The objective was to

strengthen the possibility of future collaboration between the two networks, SERIES

and KOCED.


discussion with collaborators. Why didn’t you use this tool for your collaboration?




Transcontinental time-scaled continuous tests using OpenFresco between UNIKA and

HYSTEC.

18. What were the barriers to collaboration?



facilities.



Appendix 3.7. UOXF.DF-University of Purdue


1. Your name: Ignacio Lamata Martinez

2. Your affiliation: University of Oxford

3. Date: 04/06/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): University of Purdue (NEES)


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 1 year 6 months (more seriously from OCT 2012 to

FEB 2013)




29

9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? To conduct a proof of concept between

the the University of Oxford (using the SERIES European data model) and the

University of Purdue (using the NEES data model) in order to demonstrate the

capacity and benefits of Semantic Web technologies to conduct an earthquake

engineering data integration.

10. Did the collaborative activity relate directly to a SERIES objective?

11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? I suppose is operative.

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? audio conference tools,email

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? 0


collaborative activity:


discussion with collaborators. Why didn’t you use this tool for your collaboration? I did not

find it useful. It was quicker and more convenient to use emails to exchange

information and audio calls when necessary. It was also more private, since I

conducted this additionally to any SERIES commitment.


16. How would you judge the success of the collaboration? Successful

17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)? Yes. The

proof of concept demonstrated the capabilities of the technologies successfully.

18. What were the barriers to collaboration? Mainly that this was a non-planned task, so

participants' timing was not very appropriated.


Yes. Data integration.



Appendix 3.8. UPAT-NSF


1. Your name: M.N.Fardis

2. Your affiliation: UPAT

3. Date: 13/6/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): US-NSF centres (Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center (PEER), Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE),

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research MCEER)

5. Start date of the collaborative effort: 2009

6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 4 years


30



9. What was the purpose of the collaborative efforts? Information sharing

10. Did the collaborative activity relate directly to a SERIES objective? Task NA3.3 (liaising

with PEER and MAE); Task NA3.5: MAE Director, Prof. A. Elnashai, was appointed

in the Advisory Panel for research infrastructures in earthquake engineering

11. At what organisational levels did the collaboration occur? Director

12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? emails, file sharing

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? i) Workshop “Performance-based

Earthquake Engineering”, organised by UPAT in July 2009 in the context of FP7 CSA

project ACES (10 representatives from PEER and MAE attended); ii)Workshop Bled4

on "Performance-based seismic engineering: Vision for an earthquake resilient

society" in Bled (Slovenia), on June 24-27, 2011 (large number of participants from

two US-NSF centres: PEER & MCEER, among others the PEER director Prof. J.

Moehle attended); iii) 4th International Conference on Advances in Experimental

Structural Engineering (4AESE), at the JRC on 29th-30th June 2011 (follow up of the

World Forum on Collaborative Research in Earthquake Engineering (WFCREE)): All

three US-NSF centres in earthquake engineering (PEER, MCEER and MAE) were

represented; iv)4th Kwang-Hua Forum and Opening Symposium of Tongji Shaking

Table Array, on Dec. 10-12, 2011 (representatives of all US-NSF centres attended); v)

SERIES-NEES/NSF Meeting on the occasion of the 15th WCEE, September 24-28,

2012, Lisbon, Portugal. Among participants were the US-NEES Director Prof. J.

Ramirez, the Deputy Director Prof. B. Fossum, the NEES Governance Board Chair

B.Holmes and J. Pauschke from the US-NSF.




discussion with collaborators. Why didn’t you use this tool for your collaboration? Emails is

our communication tool of preference, as they secure immediate delivery,

acknowledgement of receipt, multiple recipients, are quicker and easier to use (i.e. no

passwords etc).




18. What were the barriers to collaboration? None





31

Appendix 3.9. UPAT-NEES




3. Date: 13/6/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): US-NEES (US Network for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation)


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: ongoing




10. Did the collaborative activity relate directly to a SERIES objective? Task NA3.2

Collaboration with international earthquake engineering RI; Task NA3.10 Concluding

WK (it was co-organised with US-NEES)


12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? emails, file sharing

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? i) Workshop Bled4 on "Performance-based

seismic engineering: Vision for an earthquake resilient society" in Bled (Slovenia), on

June 24-27, 2011; ii) 4th International Conference on Advances in Experimental

Structural Engineering (4AESE), at the JRC on 29th-30th June 2011 (follow up of the

World Forum on Collaborative Research in Earthquake Engineering (WFCREE)).

Among other US-NEES representatives, US-NEES co-ordinators Profs. Roberto Leon

and Julio Ramirez attended; iii) 4th Kwang-Hua Forum and Opening Symposium of

Tongji Shaking Table Array, on Dec. 10-12, 2011; iv) SERIES Concluding WK, Ispra

28-30 May 2013. The WK was jointly organised with US-NEES; v) SERIES-

NEES/NSF Meeting on the occasion of the 15th WCEE, September 24-28, 2012,

Lisbon, Portugal. Among participants were the US-NEES Director Prof. J. Ramirez,

the Deputy Director Prof. B. Fossum, the NEES Governance Board Chair B.Holmes

and J. Pauschke from the US-NSF.







passwords etc).



32


17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)? Regular

communication with Julio Ramirez from US-NEES was established for the possibilities

of data exchange between SERIES and US-NEES (US Network for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation) and a SERIES-NEES protocol for co-operation in this respect

was discussed and drafted.





Appendix 3.10. UPAT-Tongji University




3. Date: 13/6/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): Tongji University (Shanghai)


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: ongoing





Collaboration with international earthquake engineering RI


12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? email, file sharing

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? i) 4th International Conference on

Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering (4AESE), at the JRC on 29th-30th

June 2011 (follow up of the World Forum on Collaborative Research in Earthquake

Engineering (WFCREE)); ii) Two visits of Prof. M.N.Fardis to Shanghai (see below);

iii)SERIES Concluding WK-Jointly organised with US-NEES, Ispra, 28-30 May 2013







passwords etc).


33


16. How would you judge the success of the collaboration? Extremely successful, successful,

acceptable, failure, unmitigated disaster. Successful

17. Did the collaborative effort produce any noteworthy outputs (real or planned)? i) Prof. M.N.

Fardis was invited in the Tongji University in October 2009, to visit the lab facilities

and to deliver the opening lecture to the 2nd

Kwang-Hua World Forum on

Performance-based Design Theory and Code Development for Civil and Structural

Engineering; ii) Prof. M.N. Fardis was also invited to present the SERIES project at

the 4th Kwang-Hua Forum and Opening Symposium of Tongji Shaking Table Array,

on Dec. 10-12, 2011.





Appendix 3.11. UPAT-NCREE




3. Date: 13/6/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): NCREE (National Center for Research on

Earthquake Engineering-Taiwan)


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 2013







12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? email

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? i) Workshop Bled4 on "Performance-based


June 24-27, 2011 (among others, the NCREE director Prof. K.C.Tsai attended); ii) 4th

Kwang-Hua Forum and Opening Symposium of Tongji Shaking Table Array, on Dec.

10-12, 2011; iii) SERIES Concluding WK-Jointly organised with US-NEES, Ispra, 28-

30 May 2013


34







passwords etc).








Appendix 3.12. UPAT-E-DEFENCE




3. Date: 13/6/2013


4. Name of the collaborating institution(s): E-DEFENCE


6. Duration of the collaborative effort: 2011







12. What (if any) collaboration tools were used? email

13. How many face-to-face meetings took place? Workshop Bled4 on "Performance-based


June 24-27, 2011 (among others, the E-DEFENCE director Prof. M.Nakashima

attended)




35





passwords etc).








Documents

SERIES2).pdf · Deliverable D4.8 – Reports of international collaboration with conclusions of the web forum exchange Deliverable/Task Leader: [UNIVBRIS] Revision: Final July, 2013