skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Validating induced seismicity forecast models-Induced Seismicity Test Bench: INDUCED SEISMICITY TEST BENCH

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [2];  [1];  [1];  [2]
  1. Swiss Seismological Service, ETH Zurich, Zurich Switzerland
  2. Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research (SCCER-SoE), ETH Zurich, Zurich Switzerland
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Geothermal Technologies Office (EE-4G)
OSTI Identifier:
1402133
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Publisher's Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of Geophysical Research. Solid Earth
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 121; Journal Issue: 8; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2017-10-23 16:44:38; Journal ID: ISSN 2169-9313
Publisher:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Király-Proag, Eszter, Zechar, J. Douglas, Gischig, Valentin, Wiemer, Stefan, Karvounis, Dimitrios, and Doetsch, Joseph. Validating induced seismicity forecast models-Induced Seismicity Test Bench: INDUCED SEISMICITY TEST BENCH. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1002/2016JB013236.
Király-Proag, Eszter, Zechar, J. Douglas, Gischig, Valentin, Wiemer, Stefan, Karvounis, Dimitrios, & Doetsch, Joseph. Validating induced seismicity forecast models-Induced Seismicity Test Bench: INDUCED SEISMICITY TEST BENCH. United States. doi:10.1002/2016JB013236.
Király-Proag, Eszter, Zechar, J. Douglas, Gischig, Valentin, Wiemer, Stefan, Karvounis, Dimitrios, and Doetsch, Joseph. 2016. "Validating induced seismicity forecast models-Induced Seismicity Test Bench: INDUCED SEISMICITY TEST BENCH". United States. doi:10.1002/2016JB013236.
@article{osti_1402133,
title = {Validating induced seismicity forecast models-Induced Seismicity Test Bench: INDUCED SEISMICITY TEST BENCH},
author = {Király-Proag, Eszter and Zechar, J. Douglas and Gischig, Valentin and Wiemer, Stefan and Karvounis, Dimitrios and Doetsch, Joseph},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1002/2016JB013236},
journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research. Solid Earth},
number = 8,
volume = 121,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 8
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record at 10.1002/2016JB013236

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 1work
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:
  • Models are an essential component of any assessment of ecosystem response to changes in global climate and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The problem with these models is that their long-term predictions are impossible to test unambiguously except by allowing enough time for the full ecosystem response to develop. Unfortunately, when one must assess potentially devastating changes in the global environment, time becomes a luxury. Therefore, confidence in these models has to be built through the accumulation of fairly weak corrobatin evidence rather than through a few crucial and unambiguous tests. The criteria employed to judge the value of thesemore » models are thus likely to differ greatly from those used to judge finer scale models, which are more amenable to the scientific tradition of hypothesis formulation and testing. This article looks at four categories of tests which could potentially be used to evaluate ERCC (ecosystem response to climate and carbon dioxide concentration) models and illustrates why they cannot be considered crucial tests. The the synthesis role of ERCC models are is discussed and why they are vital to any assessment of long-term responses of ecosystems to changes in global climate and carbon dioxide concentration. 49 refs., 2 figs.« less
  • The redistribution and potential loss of energetic particles due to MHD modes can limit the performance of fusion plasmas by reducing the plasma heating rate. In this work, we present validation studies of the 1.5D critical gradient model (CGM) for Alfvén eigenmode (AE) induced EP transport in NSTX and DIII-D neutral beam heated plasmas. In previous comparisons with a single DIII-D L-mode case, the CGM model was found to be responsible for 75% of measured AE induced neutron deficit [1]. A fully kinetic HINST is used to compute mode stability for the non-perturbative version of CGM (or nCGM). We have found that AEs show strong local instability drive up tomore » $$\gamma /\omega \sim 20\%$$ violating assumptions of perturbative approaches used in NOVA-K code. Lastly, we demonstrate that both models agree with each other and both underestimate the neutron deficit measured in DIII-D shot by approximately a factor of 2.« less