1887
Volume 73, Issue 9
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Staggered‐grid finite‐difference (FD) schemes are widely used in numerical simulation of seismic wave propagation. The traditional explicit staggered‐grid scheme adopts the second‐order temporal and explicit high‐order spatial FD, so it easily suffers from significant temporal dispersion and the spatial operator–length saturation effect. The recently developed implicit time–space‐domain high‐order staggered‐grid scheme for 2D acoustic wave simulation overcomes those two weaknesses effectively, yielding high‐order accuracies in both time and space and thus better suppressing the numerical dispersion. However, the involved FD coefficients are generally determined by Taylor‐series expansion (TE) or the least‐squares (LS) method and still cannot effectively control spatial dispersion at the large wavenumber range. Adopting the same FD stencil, we alternatively determine the FD coefficients using a combination of TE and the Remez optimization algorithm. The temporal accuracy–related coefficients are determined by the TE of the time–space‐domain dispersion relation, whereas the implicit spatial FD coefficients are calculated by using the Remez exchange optimization algorithm to effectively extend the effective wavenumber range while achieving a high‐order temporal accuracy and consequently enhance the overall modelling accuracy. The newly optimized scheme is then extended into a 3D case. Dispersion and numerical analyses validate that the proposed new schemes better suppress the spatial dispersion while maintaining the high‐order temporal accuracy and outperform the existing TE‐ and LS‐based FD schemes. To further improve the modelling efficiency, the variable–operator–length strategy is combined. Numerical examples of the 2D and 3D complicated models validate the effectiveness of the combined scheme in reducing the operator length and consequently improving the modelling efficiency.

© 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70111
2025-12-16
2026-01-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70111
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alford, R., K.Kelly, and D. M.Boore. 1974. “Accuracy of Finite‐Difference Modeling of the Acoustic Wave Equation.” Geophysics39: 834–842.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Amini, N., C.Shin, and J.Lee. 2021. “Second‐Order Implicit Finite‐Difference Schemes for the Acoustic Wave Equation in the Time‐Space Domain.” Geophysics86: T421–T437.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Carcione, J. M., G. C.Herman, and A.Ten Kroode. 2002. “Seismic Modeling.” Geophysics67: 1304–1325.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, H., H.Zhou, and S.Sheng. 2016. “General Rectangular Grid Based Time‐Space Domain High‐Order Finite‐Difference Methods for Modeling Scalar Wave Propagation.” Journal of Applied Geophysics133: 141–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 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.” Geophysics76: T37–T42.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, J. B., and M. X.Dai. 2017. “Accuracy‐Constrained Optimisation Methods for Staggered‐Grid Elastic Wave Modelling.” Geophysical Prospecting65: 150–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chu, C., and P. L.Stoffa. 2012. “Implicit Finite‐Difference Simulations of Seismic Wave Propagation.” Geophysics77: T57–T67.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dablain, M.1986. “The Application of High‐Order Differencing to the Scalar Wave Equation.” Geophysics51: 54–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fang, J., H.Chen, H.Zhou, Y.Rao, P.Sun, and J.Zhang. 2020. “Elastic Full‐Waveform Inversion Based on GPU Accelerated Temporal Fourth‐Order Finite‐Difference Approximation.” Computers & Geosciences135: 104381.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Finkelstein, B., and R.Kastner. 2007. “Finite Difference Time Domain Dispersion Reduction Schemes.” Journal of Computational Physics221: 422–438.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Finkelstein, B., and R.Kastner. 2008. “A Comprehensive New Methodology for Formulating FDTD Schemes With Controlled Order of Accuracy and Dispersion.” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation56: 3516–3525.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fornberg, B.1987. “The Pseudospectral Method: Comparisons With Finite Differences for the Elastic Wave Equation.” Geophysics52: 483–501.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. He, Z., J.Zhang, and Z.Yao. 2019. “Determining the Optimal Coefficients of the Explicit Finite‐Difference Scheme Using the Remez Exchange Algorithm.” Geophysics84: S137–S147.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Jiang, L., J.Tian, T.Lei, and W.Zhang. 2025. “Coupling Fully Staggered Grids via Numerical Filtering for Wave Propagation Simulation.” Geophysics90: T33–T42.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kosloff, D., R. C.Pestana, and H.Tal‐Ezer. 2010. “Acoustic and Elastic Numerical Wave Simulations by Recursive Spatial Derivative Operators.” Geophysics75: T167–T174.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Levander, A. R.1988. “Fourth‐Order Finite‐Difference P‐SV Seismograms.” Geophysics53: 1425–1436.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, Y.1998. “Finite‐Difference Numerical Modeling of any Even Order Accuracy.” Oil Geophysical Prospecting33: 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, Y.2013. “Globally Optimal Finite‐Difference Schemes Based on Least Squares.” Geophysics78: T113–T132.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu, Y.2014. “Optimal Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Schemes Based on Least‐Squares for Wave Equation Modelling.” Geophysical Journal International197: 1033–1047.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Liu, Y., and M. K.Sen. 2009a. “An Implicit Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Method for Seismic Modelling.” Geophysical Journal International179: 459–474.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu, Y., and M. K.Sen. 2009b. “A New Time–Space Domain High‐Order Finite‐Difference Method for the Acoustic Wave Equation.” Journal of Computational Physics228: 8779–8806.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu, Y., and M. K.Sen. 2011a. “Scalar Wave Equation Modeling With Time–space Domain Dispersion‐Relation‐Based Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Schemes.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101: 141–159.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, Y., and M. K.Sen. 2011b. “Finite‐Difference Modeling With Adaptive Variable‐Length Spatial Operators.” Geophysics76: T79–T89.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, Y., and M. K.Sen. 2013. “Time–Space Domain Dispersion‐Relation‐Based Finite‐Difference Method With Arbitrary Even‐Order Accuracy for the 2D Acoustic Wave Equation.” Journal of Computational Physics232: 327–345.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lou, L., J.Huang, and W.Peng. 2025. “Finite‐Difference Coefficients Optimization Method Based on Remez Exchange Method in Time‐Space Domain.” Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese)68: 1487–1510.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Marfurt, K. J.1984. “Accuracy of Finite‐Difference and Finite‐Element Modeling of the Scalar and Elastic Wave Equations.” Geophysics49: 533–549.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ren, Z., and Z.Li. 2019. “High‐Order Temporal and Implicit Spatial Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Operators for Modelling Seismic Wave Propagation.” Geophysical Journal International217: 844–865.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ren, Z., and Z. C.Li. 2017. “Temporal High‐Order Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Schemes for Elastic Wave Propagation.” Geophysics82: T207–T224.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ren, Z., and Y.Liu. 2015. “Acoustic and Elastic Modeling by Optimal Time‐Space‐Domain Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Schemes.” Geophysics80: T17–T40.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Tan, S., and L.Huang. 2014. “An Efficient Finite‐Difference Method With High‐Order Accuracy in Both Time and Space Domains for Modelling Scalar‐Wave Propagation.” Geophysical Journal International197: 1250–1267.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Virieux, J.1986. “P‐SV Wave Propagation in Heterogeneous Media: Velocity‐Stress Finite‐Difference Method.” Geophysics51: 889–901.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Wang, E., J.Ba, and Y.Liu. 2018. “Time‐Space‐Domain Implicit Finite‐Difference Methods for Modeling Acoustic Wave Equations.” Geophysics83: T175–T193.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, E., Y.Liu, and M. K.Sen. 2016. “Effective Finite‐Difference Modelling Methods With 2‐D Acoustic Wave Equation Using a Combination of Cross and Rhombus Stencils.” Geophysical Journal International206: 1933–1958.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, J., Y.Liu, and H.Zhou. 2021. “Acoustic Wave Propagation With New Spatial Implicit and Temporal High‐Order Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Schemes.” Journal of Geophysics and Engineering18: 808–823.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, J., Y.Liu, and H.Zhou. 2022. “High Temporal Accuracy Elastic Wave Simulation With New Time–Space Domain Implicit Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Schemes.” Geophysical Prospecting70: 1346–1366.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, W., X.Wen, B.Zhang, Y.Zhang, and W.Wang. 2020. “Adaptive Finite Difference Forward Modeling of Two‐Phase Media Based on the Remez Iterative Algorithm for Solving Differential Coefficients.” Chinese Journal of Geophysics63: 2400–2414.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Xie, J., and B.He. 2024. “Spatial‐Temporal High‐Order Rotated‐Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Scheme of Elastic Wave Equations for TTI Medium.” Journal of Computational Physics498: 112684.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Xu, S., Q.Bao, Z.Ren, and Y.Liu. 2021. “Applying an Advanced Temporal and Spatial High‐Order Finite‐Difference Stencil to 3D Seismic Wave Modeling.” Journal of Computational Physics436: 110133.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Xu, S., Q.Bao, Z.Ren, and Y.Liu. 2022. “Simulating Elastic Wave Using Temporal High Accuracy and Implicit Spatial Rectangular Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Approaches.” Chinese Journal of Geophysics65: 1389–1401.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Xu, S., Y.Liu, Z.Ren, and H.Zhou. 2019. Time‐space‐domain Temporal High‐order Staggered‐grid Finite‐difference Fchemes by Combining Orthogonality and Pyramid Stencils for 3D Elastic‐wave Propagation. Geophysics84: T259–T282.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yang, L., H.Yan, and H.Liu. 2017. “Optimal Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Schemes Based on the Minimax Approximation Method With the Remez Algorithm.” Geophysics82: T27–T42.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Yong, P., J.Huang, Z.Li, et al. 2016. “Optimized Equivalent Staggered‐Grid FD Method for Elastic Wave Modelling Based on Plane Wave Solutions.” Geophysical Journal International208: 1157–1172.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70111
Loading
Optimized Implicit Time–Space‐Domain High‐Order Staggered‐Grid Finite‐Difference Schemes for Acoustic Wave Simulation With Remez Exchange Algorithm
Geophysical Prospecting 73, e70111 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.70111
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70111
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70111
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): implicit finite‐difference; Remez exchange algorithm; staggered grid; time‐space domain

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