Mixed-grid and staggered-grid finite-difference methods for frequency-domain acoustic wave modelling

Abstract

S U M M A R YWe compare different finite-difference schemes for two-dimensional (2-D) acoustic frequencydomain forward modelling. The schemes are based on staggered-grid stencils of various accuracy and grid rotation strategies to discretize the derivatives of the wave equation. A combination of two O( x 2 ) staggered-grid stencils on the classical Cartesian coordinate system and the 45 • rotated grid is the basis of the so-called mixed-grid stencil. This method is compared with a parsimonious staggered-grid method based on a fourth-order approximation of the first derivative operator. Averaging of the mass acceleration can be incorporated in the two stencils. Sponge-like perfectly matched layer absorbing boundary conditions are also examined for each stencil and shown to be effective.The deduced numerical stencils are examined for both the wavelength content and azimuthal variation. The accuracy of the fourth-order staggered-grid stencil is slightly superior in terms of phase velocity dispersion to that of the mixed-grid stencil when averaging of the mass acceleration term is applied to the staggered-grid stencil.For fourth-order derivative approximations, the classical staggered-grid geometry leads to a stencil that incorporates 13 grid nodes. The mixed-grid approach combines only nine grid nodes. In both cases, wavefield solutions are computed using a direct matrix solver based on an optimized multifrontal method. For this 2-D geometry, the staggered-grid strategy is significantly less efficient in terms of memory and CPU time requirements because of the enlarged bandwidth of the impedance matrix and increased number of coefficients in the discrete stencil.Therefore, the mixed-grid approach should be suggested as the routine scheme for 2-D acoustic wave propagation modelling in the frequency domain.Modelling seismic wave propagation is essential for understanding complex wave phenomena in a realistic heterogeneous medium. Numerical results from finite-difference (FD) modelling are particularly useful since they provide the complete wavefield response. Frequency-domain forward modelling is of special interest for multisource experiments, such as tomographic experiments, because of its computational efficiency (Pratt & Worthington 1990;Štekl & Pratt 1998). Moreover, realistic rheology is easily incorporated into the modelling scheme by introducing complex velocities. The key step in frequency-domain finite-difference (FDFD) modelling that controls computational efficiency is the numerical inversion of a massive matrix equation. The matrix structure depends on the spatial derivative approximations. We shall discuss what the useful features of this matrix are for wave modelling accuracy and for computational efficiency.Elastodynamic finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) techniques moved from second-order approximations of spatial derivatives (Madariaga 1976;Virieux 1984Virieux , 1986 to higher-order approximations (Dablain 1986;Levander 1988) using staggered-grid stencils with a good trade-off between modelling acc...

Comparison of artificial absorbing boundaries for acoustic wave equation modelling

“…The 2D scalar wave equation shown in Equation 1 can be rewritten as (Liu and Tao, 1997;Hustedt et al, 2004)…”

Seismic Waves - Research and Analysis

“…The advantage of the direct-solver approach is that, once the decomposition is performed, equation (15) is efficiently solved for multiple sources using forward and backward substitutions (Marfurt, 1984). This approach has been shown to be efficient for 2D forward problems (Hustedt et al, 2004;Jo et al, 1996;Stekl & Pratt, 1998). However, the time and memory complexities of the LU factorization, and its limited scalability on large-scale distributed memory platforms, prevents the use of the direct-solver approach for large-scale 3D problems (i.e., problems involving more than ten millions of unknowns) (Operto et al, 2007).…”

“…If the source is excited only within the element containing the source, a checker-board pattern is superimposed on the wavefield solution. This pattern results from the fact that one cell out of two is excited in the DG formulation because the DG stencil does not embed a staggered-grid structure (the unexcited grid is not stored in staggered-grid FD methods; see Hustedt et al (2004) for an illustration). To overcome this problem, the source can be distributed over several elements of the mesh or P 1 interpolation can be used in the area containing the sources and the receivers, while keeping P 0 interpolation in the other parts of the model .…”

“…The sparse complex-valued matrix B has a symmetric pattern, although is not symmetric because of absorbing boundary conditions (Hustedt et al, 2004;Operto et al, 2007). The fourier transform is defined with the following convention…”

Full-waveform inversion of GPR data acquired between boreholes in Rustrel carbonates

“…The system of three first-order equations is recast into one second-order equation and two first-order equations. This transformation and acoustic/electromagnetic analogy [2] allow to simulate electromagnetic wave propagation using finite-difference frequency-domain schemes initially developed for seismic modeling in visco-acoustic approximation [3]. This formulation leads to the system A(m)H y = s where the discrete wave operator A(m) contains the subsurface parameters m while H y and s are respectively the magnetic wavefield and the discretized source terms.…”