1887
Volume 68, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Finite‐difference modeling with a cross‐rhombus stencil with high‐order accuracy in both spatial and temporal derivatives is a potential method for efficient seismic simulation. The finite‐difference coefficients determined by Taylor‐series expansion usually preserve the dispersion property in a limited wavenumber range and fixed angles of propagation. To construct the dispersion‐relationship‐preserving scheme for satisfying high‐wavenumber components and multiple angles, we expand the dispersion relation of the cross‐rhombus stencil to an over‐determined system and apply a regularization method to obtain the stable least‐squares solution of the finite‐difference coefficients. The new dispersion‐relationship‐preserving based scheme not only satisfies several designated wavenumbers but also has high‐order accuracy in temporal discretization. The numerical analysis demonstrates that the new scheme possesses a better dispersion characteristic and more relaxed stability conditions compared with the Taylor‐series expansion based methods. Seismic wave simulations for the homogeneous model and the Sigsbee model demonstrate that the new scheme yields small dispersion error and improves the accuracy of the forward modelling.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12953
2020-05-21
2020-08-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aoi, S. and Fujiwara, H. (1999) 3d finite‐difference method using discontinuous grids. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(4), 918–930.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, J.‐B. (2007) High‐order time discretizations in seismic modeling. Geophysics, 72(5), SM115–SM122.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, J.‐B. (2011) A stability formula for Lax‐Wendroff methods with fourth‐order in time and general‐order in space for the scalar wave equation. Geophysics, 76(2), T37–T42.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chu, C. and Stoffa, P. L. (2012) Implicit finite‐difference simulations of seismic wave propagation. Geophysics, 77(2), T57–T67.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clayton, R. and Engquist, B. (1977) Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 67(6), 1529–1540.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dablain, M. (1986) The application of high‐order differencing to the scalar wave equation. Geophysics, 51(1), 54–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Etgen, J. T. and O'Brien, M. J. (2007) Computational methods for large‐scale 3d acoustic finite‐difference modeling: a tutorial. Geophysics, 72(5), SM223–SM230.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Finkelstein, B. and Kastner, R. (2007) Finite difference time domain dispersion reduction schemes. Journal of Computational Physics, 221(1), 422–438.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fomel, S., Sava, P., Vlad, I., Liu, Y. and Bashkardin, V. (2013) Madagascar: open‐source software project for multidimensional data analysis and reproducible computational experiments. Journal of Open Research Software, 1(1), e8.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fornberg, B. (1987) The pseudospectral method: comparisons with finite differences for the elastic wave equation. Geophysics, 52(4), 483–501.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kelly, K., Ward, R., Treitel, S. and Alford, R. (1976) Synthetic seismograms: a finite‐difference approach. Geophysics, 41(1), 2–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lax, P. and Wendroff, B. (1960) Systems of conservation laws. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13(2), 217–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Liang, W., Wang, Y. and Yang, C. (2015) Determining finite difference weights for the acoustic wave equation by a new dispersion‐relationship‐preserving method. Geophysical Prospecting, 63(1), 11–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Liang, W., Wu, X., Wang, Y. and Yang, C. (2018) A simplified staggered‐grid finite‐difference scheme and its linear solution for the first‐order acoustic wave‐equation modeling. Journal of Computational Physics, 374, 863–872.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu, Y. (1998) Finite‐difference numerical modeling of any even order accuracy. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 33, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Liu, Y. (2013) Globally optimal finite‐difference schemes based on least squares. Geophysics, 78(4), T113–T132.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, Y. and Sen, M. K. (2009) A new time–space domain high‐order finite‐difference method for the acoustic wave equation. Journal of Computational Physics, 228(23), 8779–8806.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, Y. and Sen, M. K. (2011) Scalar wave equation modeling with time‐space domain dispersion‐relation‐based staggered‐grid finite‐difference schemes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101(101), 141–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu, Y. and Sen, M. K. (2013) Time‐space domain dispersion‐relation‐based finite‐difference method with arbitrary even‐order accuracy for the 2d acoustic wave equation. Journal of Computational Physics, 232(1), 327–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. McMechan, G. A. (1983) Migration by extrapolation of time‐dependent boundary values. Geophysical Prospecting, 31(3), 413–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Moczo, P., Kristek, J. and Gális, M. (2014) The Finite‐Difference Modelling of Earthquake Motions: Waves and Ruptures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ren, Z., Li, Z., Liu, Y. and Sen, M. K. (2017) Modeling of the acoustic wave equation by staggered‐grid finite‐difference schemes with high‐order temporal and spatial accuracy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(5), 2160–2182.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ren, Z. and Li, Z. C. (2017) Temporal high‐order staggered‐grid finite‐difference schemes for elastic wave propagation temporal high‐order sfd schemes. Geophysics, 82(5), T207–T224.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Tam, C. K. and Webb, J. C. (1993) Dispersion‐relation‐preserving finite difference schemes for computational acoustics. Journal of Computational Physics, 107(2), 262–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Tan, S. and Huang, L. (2014a). An efficient finite‐difference method with high‐order accuracy in both time and space domains for modelling scalar‐wave propagation. Geophysical Journal International, 197(2), 1250–1267.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Tan, S. and Huang, L. (2014b). A staggered‐grid finite‐difference scheme optimized in the time–space domain for modeling scalar‐wave propagation in geophysical problems. Journal of Computational Physics, 276, 613–634.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. van Vossen, R., Robertsson, J. O. and Chapman, C. H. (2002) Finite‐difference modeling of wave propagation in a fluid‐solid configuration. Geophysics, 67(2), 618–624.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Virieux, J., Calandra, H. and Plessix, R.‐E. (2011) A review of the spectral, pseudo‐spectral, finite‐difference and finite‐element modelling techniques for geophysical imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 59(5), 794–813.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Virieux, J. and Operto, S. (2009) An overview of full‐waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6), WCC1–WCC26.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wang, E., Ba, J. and Liu, Y. (2019) Temporal high‐order time–space domain finite‐difference methods for modeling 3d acoustic wave equations on general cuboid grids. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 176(12), 5319–5414.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang, E., Liu, Y. and Sen, M. K. (2016) Effective finite‐difference modelling methods with 2‐d acoustic wave equation using a combination of cross and rhombus stencils. Geophysical Journal International, 206(3), 1933–1958.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Wang, S. and Teixeira, F. L. (2003) Dispersion‐relation‐preserving fdtd algorithms for large‐scale three‐dimensional problems. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 51(8), 1818–1828.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, Y., Liang, W., Nashed, Z., Li, X., Liang, G. and Yang, C. (2014) Seismic modeling by optimizing regularized staggered‐grid finite‐difference operators using a time‐space‐domain dispersion‐relationship‐preserving method. Geophysics, 79(5), T277–T285.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, Y., Liang, W., Nashed, Z. and Yang, C. (2016) Determination of finite difference coefficients for the acoustic wave equation using regularized least‐squares inversion. Journal of Inverse and Ill‐posed Problems, 24(6), 743–760.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ye, F. and Chu, C. (2005) Dispersion‐relation‐preserving finite difference operators: derivation and application. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 1783–1786. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  36. Zhang, J.‐H. and Yao, Z.‐X. (2012) Optimized finite‐difference operator for broadband seismic wave modeling. Geophysics, 78(1), A13–A18.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12953
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12953
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acoustics , Numerical study and Wave
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error