1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 53, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 53, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The finite‐difference method applied to the full 3D wave equation is a rather time‐consuming process. However, in the 2.5D case, we can take advantage of the medium symmetry. By taking the Fourier transform with respect to the out‐of‐plane direction (the symmetry axis), the 3D problem can be reduced to a repeated 2D problem. The third dimension is taken into account by a sum over the corresponding wave‐vector component. A criterion for where to end this theoretically infinite sum derives from the stability conditions of the finite‐difference schemes employed. In this way, the computation time of the finite‐difference calculations can be considerably reduced. The quality of the modelling results obtained with this 2.5D finite‐difference scheme is comparable to that obtained using a standard 3D finite‐difference scheme.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00488.x
2005-06-24
2024-04-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00488.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BrighamE.O.1988. The Fast Fourier Transform and its Applications . Prentice–Hall, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. CaoS. and GreenhalghS.1998. 2.5‐D modeling of seismic wave propagation: Boundary condition, stability criterion, and efficiency. Geophysics63, 2082–2090.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. FuchsK. and MüllerG.1971. Computation of synthetic seismograms with the reflectivity method and comparison with observations. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society23, 417–433.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. KüpperF.J.1958. Theoretische Untersuchungen über die Mehrfachaufstellung von Geophonen. Geophysical Prospecting6, 194–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. MuftiI.R.1990. Large‐scale three‐dimensional seismic models and their interpretive significance. Geophysics55, 1066–1182.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. MuftiI.R., PitaJ.A. and HuntleyR.W.1996. Finite‐difference depth migration of exploration‐scale 3D seismic data. Geophysics61, 776–794.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. NovaisA., SantosL.T., TygelM. and UrsinB.1997. A unified Born–Kirchhoff representation for acoustic media. Journal of Seismic Exploration6, 227–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. SongZ. and WilliamsonP.R.1995. Frequency‐domain acoustic‐wave modeling and inversion of crosshole data: Part I – 2.5‐D. Geophysics60, 784–795.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. StrikwerdaJ.C.1989. Finite Difference Schemes and Partial Differential Equations . Wadsworth & Brook/Cole.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ZhouB. and GreenhalghS.A.1998. Composite boundary‐valued solution of the 2.5‐D Green's function for arbitrary acoustic media. Geophysics63, 1813–1823.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00488.x
Loading
2.5D finite‐difference solution of the acoustic wave equation
Geophysical Prospecting 53, 523 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00488.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00488.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00488.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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