On the implementation of perfectly matched layers in a three‐dimensional fourth‐order velocity‐stress finite difference scheme

[1] Robust absorbing boundary conditions are central to the utility and advancement of 3-D numerical wave propagation methods. It is in general preferred that an absorbing boundary method be capable of broadband absorption, be efficient in terms of memory and computation time, and be widely stable in connection with sophisticated numerical schemes. Here we discuss these issues for a promising absorbing boundary method, perfectly matched layers (PML), as implemented in the widely used fourth-order accurate three-dimensional (3-D) staggered-grid velocity-stress finite difference (FD) scheme. Numerical results for point (explosive and double couple) and extended sources, velocity structures (homogeneous, 1-D and 3-D), and different thickness PML zones are excellent, in general, leaving no observable reflections in PML seismograms compared to the amplitudes of the primary phases. For both homogeneous half-space and 1-D models, typical amplitude reduction factors (with respect to the maximum trace amplitude) range between 1/100 and 1/625 for PML thicknesses of 5–20 nodes. A PML region of thickness 5 outperforms a simple exponential damping region of thickness 20 in a homogeneous half-space model by a factor of 3. We find that PML is effective across the simulation bandwidth. For example, permanent offset artifacts due to particularly poor absorption of long-period energy by the simple exponential damping are effectively absent when PML is used. The computational efficiency and storage requirements of PML, compared to the simple exponential damping, are reduced due to the need for only narrow absorbing regions. We also discuss stability and present the complete PML model for the 3-D velocity-stress system.

[1]  J. Virieux,et al.  Dynamic faulting studied by a finite difference method : Bull seismol soc am, V72, N2, April 1982, P345–369 , 1982 .

[2]  Jian-Ming Jin,et al.  Conformal PML-FDTD schemes for electromagnetic field simulations: a dynamic stability study , 2001 .

[3]  J. Bérenger Three-Dimensional Perfectly Matched Layer for the Absorption of Electromagnetic Waves , 1996 .

[4]  Kim B. Olsen,et al.  Site Amplification in the Los Angeles Basin from Three-Dimensional Modeling of Ground Motion , 2000 .

[5]  Robert L. Higdon,et al.  Radiation boundary conditions for elastic wave propagation , 1990 .

[6]  D. Wald,et al.  Spatial and temporal distribution of slip for the 1992 Landers, California, earthquake , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[7]  E. Husebye,et al.  3-D versus 2-D finite-difference seismic synthetics including real surface topography , 1999 .

[8]  Jin-Fa Lee,et al.  Stability Analysis for Perfectly Matched Layered Absorbers , 1996 .

[9]  C. Randall,et al.  Absorbing boundary condition for the elastic wave equation , 1988 .

[10]  C. Randall,et al.  Absorbing boundary condition for the elastic wave equation: Velocity‐stress formulation , 1989 .

[11]  B. Engquist,et al.  Absorbing boundary conditions for acoustic and elastic wave equations , 1977, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[12]  O. Ramahi Stability of absorbing boundary conditions , 1999 .

[13]  Jiayuan Fang,et al.  Numerical implementation and performance of perfectly matched layer boundary condition for waveguide structures , 1995 .

[14]  Qing Huo Liu,et al.  PERFECTLY MATCHED LAYERS FOR ELASTODYNAMICS: A NEW ABSORBING BOUNDARY CONDITION , 1996 .

[15]  David Gottlieb,et al.  A Mathematical Analysis of the PML Method , 1997 .

[16]  Qing Huo Liu,et al.  The application of the perfectly matched layer in numerical modeling of wave propagation in poroelastic media , 2001 .

[17]  Stig Hestholm,et al.  Instabilities in applying absorbing boundary conditions to high‐order seismic modeling algorithms , 1998 .

[18]  Robert L. Higdon,et al.  Absorbing boundary conditions for di erence approxima-tions to the multidimensional wave equation , 1986 .

[19]  J. Virieux P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity‐stress finite‐difference method , 1986 .

[20]  John B. Schneider,et al.  Application of the perfectly matched layer (PML) absorbing boundary condition to elastic wave propagation , 1996 .

[21]  C. Tsogka,et al.  Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media , 2001 .

[22]  Moshe Reshef,et al.  A nonreflecting boundary condition for discrete acoustic and elastic wave equations , 1985 .

[23]  Albert C. Reynolds,et al.  Boundary conditions for the numerical solution of wave propagation problems , 1978 .

[24]  Robert W. Graves,et al.  The seismic response of the Los Angeles basin, California , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[25]  K. B. Olsen,et al.  Constraints on Stress and Friction from Dynamic Rupture Models of the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake , 2000 .

[26]  K. Olsen,et al.  3D Viscoelastic Wave Propagation in the Upper Borrego Valley, California, Constrained by Borehole and Surface Data , 2000 .

[27]  R. Higdon Absorbing boundary conditions for difference approximations to the multi-dimensional wave equation , 1986 .

[28]  Robert W. Graves,et al.  The SCEC Southern California Reference Three-Dimensional Seismic Velocity Model Version 2 , 2000 .

[29]  Kim B. Olsen,et al.  Three-dimensional simulation of earthquakes on the Los Angeles fault system , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[30]  J. Sochacki Absorbing boundary conditions for the elastic wave equations , 1988 .

[31]  Ellen Gottschämmer,et al.  Accuracy of the Explicit Planar Free-Surface Boundary Condition Implemented in a Fourth-Order Staggered-Grid Velocity-Stress Finite-Difference Scheme , 2001 .

[32]  R. Madariaga,et al.  Dynamic modeling of the 1992 Landers earthquake , 2001 .

[33]  F. Hu A Stable, perfectly matched layer for linearized Euler equations in unslit physical variables , 2001 .

[34]  Qing Huo Liu,et al.  The perfectly matched layer for acoustic waves in absorptive media , 1997 .

[35]  Jean-Pierre Berenger,et al.  A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves , 1994 .

[36]  Robert W. Graves,et al.  Three-dimensional finite-difference modeling of the San Andreas fault: Source parameterization and ground-motion levels , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[37]  R. Madariaga Dynamics of an expanding circular fault , 1976, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[38]  K. Olsen THREE-DIMENSIONAL GROUND MOTION SIMULATIONS FOR LARGE EARTHQUAKES ON THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT WITH DYNAMIC AND OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRAINTS , 2001 .

[39]  Kim B. Olsen,et al.  Three-Dimensional Dynamic Simulation of the 1992 Landers Earthquake , 1997 .

[40]  Christopher K. W. Tam,et al.  Perfectly Matched Layer as an Absorbing Boundary Condition for the Linearized Euler Equations in Open and Ducted Domains , 1998 .

[41]  Qing Huo Liu,et al.  Acoustic detection of buried objects in 3-D fluid saturated porous media: numerical modeling , 2001, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[42]  L. Trefethen,et al.  III‐posedness of absorbing boundary conditions for migration , 1988 .

[43]  Kim B. Olsen,et al.  Three-Dimensional Simulation of a Magnitude 7.75 Earthquake on the San Andreas Fault , 1995, Science.