2007
DOI: 10.1016/s0065-2687(06)48008-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method for Modeling of Seismic Wave Propagation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
164
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 277 publications
(164 citation statements)
references
References 147 publications
0
164
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several research groups worldwide are using the most advanced 3D numerical techniques and tools for both forward and inverse modeling. The finite-difference method is probably the most widely used (e.g., Madariaga, 1976;Virieux, 1986;Olsen and Archuleta, 1996;Moczo et al, 2007), but in that technique it is difficult to accurately handle sharp topographic variations and their effect on seismic-wave propagation (see for instance Tarras et al, 2011, and references therein). Thus, for regions such as central Italy in which topography is significant we prefer to resort to a finite-element technique, in which handling topography is natural and accurate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several research groups worldwide are using the most advanced 3D numerical techniques and tools for both forward and inverse modeling. The finite-difference method is probably the most widely used (e.g., Madariaga, 1976;Virieux, 1986;Olsen and Archuleta, 1996;Moczo et al, 2007), but in that technique it is difficult to accurately handle sharp topographic variations and their effect on seismic-wave propagation (see for instance Tarras et al, 2011, and references therein). Thus, for regions such as central Italy in which topography is significant we prefer to resort to a finite-element technique, in which handling topography is natural and accurate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A less straightforward issue using pseudospectral differential operators is to model the freesurface boundary condition. While in finite-element methods the implementation of traction-free boundary conditions is natural -simply do not impose any constraint at the surface nodes -finitedifference and pseudospectral methods require a particular boundary treatment [14,23,25,26].…”
Section: The Pseudospectral Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different techniques have been proposed, such as traditional Finite Element Method (FEM) (Lissenden et al 2009;Song et al 2009;Ricci et al 2014), semianalytical finite element method (SAFE) (Hayashi et al 2003;Deng and Yang 2011;Rose 2014), finite differences (Saenger and Bohlen 2004;Moczo et al 2007) or applying the elasticity theory using the global matrix and transfer matrix (Wang and Yuan 2007;Karmazin et al 2011Karmazin et al , 2013. Finite Element Methods have limitations due to the available computational resources, since for high frequencies a very fine discretization, both temporal and spatial, is necessary to comply with the Nyquist theorem and to ensure a minimum number of elements per wavelength in order to replicate the wave.…”
Section: Simulationmentioning
confidence: 99%