验证诱发地震预测模型-诱发地震试验台
Validating induced seismicity forecast models - Induced Seismicity Test Bench
摘要：
诱发地震往往伴随着流体的注入，它们所构成的地震灾害威胁着各种地下工程。监测和控制交通灯系统诱发地震灾害的模型应该是概率性的，前瞻性的，并随着新数据的到来而更新。在这项研究中，我们提出了一个诱发地震测试台来测试和排名这样的模型，这个测试台可用于模型开发，模型选择，和合奏模型的建设。我们应用测试台的数据从巴塞尔2006年和Soultz-sous-Forêts 2004地热刺激项目，我们评估预测从两个模型：夏皮罗和平滑地震（SaSS）和水力学和地震（HySei）。这些模型结合了不同的混合物理为基础的元素和随机表示的诱导序列。我们的研究结果表明，没有一个模型是完全优于其他。一般来说，HySei可以更好地预测关闭后的地震活动率，但在预测空间分布方面表现平平。另一方面，SaSS更好地预测了空间分布，并在关井前给出了更好的地震活动率估计。对于两个水库的两个模型来说，关井阶段都是一个困难的时刻：模型往往低估了关井前后和关井后不久的地震活动率。
英文摘要：
Induced earthquakes often accompany fluid injection, and the seismic hazard they pose threatens various underground engineering projects. Models to monitor and control induced seismic hazard with traffic light systems should be probabilistic, forward-looking, and updated as new data arrive. In this study, we propose an Induced Seismicity Test Bench to test and rank such models; this test bench can be used for model development, model selection, and ensemble model building. We apply the test bench to data from the Basel 2006 and Soultz-sous-Forêts 2004 geothermal stimulation projects, and we assess forecasts from two models: Shapiro and Smoothed Seismicity (SaSS) and Hydraulics and Seismics (HySei). These models incorporate a different mix of physics-based elements and stochastic representation of the induced sequences. Our results show that neither model is fully superior to the other. Generally, HySei forecasts the seismicity rate better after shut-in, but is only mediocre at forecasting the spatial distribution. On the other hand, SaSS forecasts the spatial distribution better and gives better seismicity rate estimates before shut-in. The shut-in phase is a difficult moment for both models in both reservoirs: the models tend to underpredict the seismicity rate around, and shortly after, shut-in.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
