1887
Volume 72, Issue 9
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

In seismic frequency‐domain finite‐difference modelling, the affine mixed‐grid method effectively eliminates the spatial sampling restriction associated with square meshes of the rotated mixed‐grid method. Nevertheless, the affine mixed‐grid method makes a weighted average of the entire elastic wave equations, resulting in reduced accuracy compared to the average‐derivative method in the case of rectangular meshes. It is worth noting, however, that the average‐derivative method is presently inapplicable to free‐surface scenarios, whereas the affine mixed‐grid method is applicable. By performing weighted averages of the derivative terms instead of the entire elastic wave equations in Cartesian and affine rotated coordinate systems, we have developed an improved affine mixed‐grid method for elastic‐wave frequency‐domain finite‐difference modelling. The proposed improved affine mixed‐grid method 9‐point scheme overcomes the drawback that the accuracy of affine mixed‐grid method is lower than that of average‐derivative method for unequal directional grid intervals. Moreover, the improved affine mixed‐grid method 6‐point scheme provides much higher numerical accuracy than the affine mixed‐grid method 6‐point scheme at either equal or unequal directional grid intervals. On the other hand, the proposed improved affine mixed‐grid method simplifies the coding complexity for implementing free‐surface condition in elastic‐wave frequency‐domain finite‐difference modelling by modifying the elastic parameters of the free‐surface layer and thus constructing the impedance matrix containing the free‐surface condition directly.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13596
2024-10-11
2026-01-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13596
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aghamiry, H.S., Gholami, A., Combe, L. & Operto, S. (2022) Accurate 3D frequency‐domain seismic wave modeling with the wavelength‐adaptive 27‐point finite‐difference stencil: a tool for full‐waveform inversion. Geophysics, 87(3), R305–R324.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aki, K. & Richards, P. (1980) Quantitative seismology: theory and methods. W. H. Freeman.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Amestoy, P.R., Duff, I.S., L'Excellent, J.‐Y. & Koster, J. (2001) A fully asynchronous multifrontal solver using distributed dynamic scheduling. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 23(1), 15–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Amestoy, P.R., Buttari, A., L'Excellent, J.‐Y. & Mary, T. (2019) Performance and scalability of the block low‐rank multifrontal factorization on multicore architectures. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 45(1), 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Briggs, W.L., Henson, V.E. & McCormick, S.F. (2000) A multigrid tutorial. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
  6. Cao, J. & Chen, J.‐B. (2019) Optimizing the finite‐difference implementation of three‐dimensional free‐surface boundary in frequency‐domain modeling of elastic waves. Geophysics, 84(6), T363–T379.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cao, J., Chen, J.‐B. & Dai, M.‐X. (2016) Improved free‐surface expression for frequency‐domain elastic optimal mixed‐grid modeling. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 130, 71–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cao, J., Chen, J.‐B. & Dai, M.‐X. (2018) Modeling of frequency‐domain scalar wave equation with the average‐derivative optimal scheme based on a multigrid‐preconditioned iterative solver. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 148, 70–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, J.‐B. (2012) An average‐derivative optimal scheme for frequency‐domain scalar wave equation. Geophysics, 77(6), T201–T210.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, J.‐B. & Cao, J. (2016) Modeling of frequency‐domain elastic‐wave equation with an average‐derivative optimal method. Geophysics, 81(6), T339–T356.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, J.‐B. & Cao, J. (2018) An average‐derivative optimal scheme for modeling of the frequency‐domain 3D elastic wave equation. Geophysics, 83(4), T209–T234.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, J.B. (2014) A 19‐point average‐derivative optimal scheme for 3D frequency‐domain scalar wave equation. Journal of Geophysics & Remote Sensing, 4, 140.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dong, S.‐L. & Chen, J.‐B. (2022) An affine generalized optimal scheme with improved free‐surface expression using adaptive strategy for frequency‐domain elastic wave equation. Geophysics, 87(3), T183–T204.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dong, S.‐L. & Chen, J.‐B. (2023) Finite‐difference modeling of 3D frequency‐domain elastic wave equation using an affine mixed‐grid method. Geophysics, 88(2), T45–T63.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dong, S.‐L. & Chen, J.‐B. (2024) An affine 25‐point scheme for high‐accuracy numerical simulation of frequency‐domain acoustic wave equation. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, (Just accepted). https://doi.org/10.6038/cjg2024R0660.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fan, N., Zhao, L.‐F., Xie, X.‐B., Tang, X.‐G. & Yao, Z.‐X. (2017) A general optimal method for a 2D frequency‐domain finite‐difference solution of scalar wave equation. Geophysics, 82(3), T121–T132.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fan, N., Cheng, J., Qin, L., Zhao, L., Xie, X. & Yao, Z. (2018) An optimal method for frequency‐domain finite‐difference solution of 3D scalar wave equation. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 61(3), 1095–1108.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gosselin‐Cliche, B. & Giroux, B. (2014) 3D frequency‐domain finite‐difference viscoelastic‐wave modeling using weighted average 27‐point operators with optimal coefficients. Geophysics, 79(3), T169–T188.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hustedt, B., Operto, S. & Virieux, J. (2004) Mixed‐grid and staggered‐grid finite‐difference methods for frequency‐domain acoustic wave modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 157(3), 1269–1296.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jo, C.‐H., Shin, C. & Suh, J.H. (1996) An optimal 9‐point, finite‐difference, frequency‐space, 2‐D scalar wave extrapolator. Geophysics, 61(2), 529–537.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lailly, P. & Bednar, J. (1983) The seismic inverse problem as a sequence of before stack migrations. Conference on inverse scattering: theory and application, 1983, 206–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, S. & Sun, C. (2022) An improved 25‐point finite‐difference scheme for frequency‐domain elastic wave modelling. Geophysical Prospecting, 70(4), 702–724.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Li, X.S. (2005) An overview of SuperLU: algorithms, implementation, and user interface. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 31(3), 302–325.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, X.S. & Demmel, J.W. (2003) SuperLU_DIST: a scalable distributed‐memory sparse direct solver for unsymmetric linear systems. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 29(2), 110–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Marfurt, K.J. (1984) Accuracy of finite‐difference and finite‐element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations. Geophysics, 49(5), 533–549.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Min, D.‐J., Shin, C., Kwon, B.‐D. & Chung, S. (2000) Improved frequency‐domain elastic wave modeling using weighted‐averaging difference operators. Geophysics, 65(3), 884–895.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Operto, S., Virieux, J., Dessa, J.X. & Pascal, G. (2006) Crustal seismic imaging from multifold ocean bottom seismometer data by frequency domain full waveform tomography: application to the eastern Nankai trough. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 111, B09306. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB003835
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Operto, S., Ravaut, C., Improta, L., Virieux, J., Herrero, A. & Dell'Aversana, P. (2004) Quantitative imaging of complex structures from dense wide‐aperture seismic data by multiscale traveltime and waveform inversions: a case study. Geophysical Prospecting, 52(6), 625–651.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Operto, S., Virieux, J., Amestoy, P., L'Excellent, J.‐Y., Giraud, L. & Ali, H.B.H. (2007) 3D finite‐difference frequency‐domain modeling of visco‐acoustic wave propagation using a massively parallel direct solver: a feasibility study. Geophysics, 72(5), SM195–SM211.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pratt, R.G. (1990) Frequency‐domain elastic wave modeling by finite differences: a tool for crosshole seismic imaging. Geophysics, 55(5), 626–632.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Pratt, R.G. (1999) Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 1: theory and verification in a physical scale model. Geophysics, 64(3), 888–901.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Pratt, R.G. (2004) Velocity models from frequency domain waveform tomography – past, present and future. 66th EAGE conference & exhibition workshops, cp‐133‐00068. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201405674
  33. Pratt, R.G. & Worthington, M.H. (1990) Inverse theory applied to multisource cross‐hole tomography, Part I: acoustic wave equation method. Geophysical Prospecting, 38(3), 287–310.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Pratt, R.G., Shin, C. & Hick, G. (1998) Gauss–Newton and full Newton methods in frequency–space seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 133(2), 341–362.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ravaut, C., Operto, S., Improta, L., Virieux, J., Herrero, A. & Dell'Aversana, P. (2004) Multiscale imaging of complex structures from multifold wide‐aperture seismic data by frequency‐domain full‐waveform tomography: application to a thrust belt. Geophysical Journal International, 159(3), 1032–1056.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Saad, Y. & Schultz, M.H. (1986) GMRES: a generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7(3), 856–869.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Štekl, I. & Pratt, R.G. (1998) Accurate viscoelastic modeling by frequency‐domain finite differences using rotated operators. Geophysics, 63(5), 1779–1794.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Tarantola, A. (1984) Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics, 49(8), 1259–1266.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Virieux, J. & Operto, S. (2009) An overview of full‐waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6), WCC1–WCC26.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, H. & Chen, J.‐B. (2024) An improved 27‐point frequency‐domain elastic‐wave average‐derivative method with applications to a moving point source. Geophysics, 89(3), 1–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang, S., De, H.M.V., Xia, J. & Li, X.S. (2012) Massively parallel structured multifrontal solver for time‐harmonic elastic waves in 3‐D anisotropic media. Geophysical Journal International, 191(1), 346–366.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, S., Xia, J., de Hoop, M.V. & Li, X.S. (2012) Massively parallel structured direct solver for equations describing time‐harmonic qP‐polarized waves in TTI media. Geophysics, 77(3), T69–T82.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Xu, W., Zhong, Y., Wu, B., Gao, J. & Liu, Q.H. (2021) Adaptive complex frequency with V‐cycle GMRES for preconditioning 3D Helmholtz equation. Geophysics, 86(5), T349–T359.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13596
Loading
An improved affine mixed‐grid method for frequency‐domain finite‐difference elastic modelling
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 3295 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13596
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13596
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13596
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): elastics; modelling; numerical study; seismics; wave

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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