Small-scale medium variations with high-order finite-difference and pseudospectral schemes

The accuracy of implementing interfaces with coarse-grid methods such as the pseudospectral method and high-order finite differences has been considered to be low. Our focus is on variations in interface locations and on inclusions that are significantly smaller than the grid step sizes. Classic implementations of these staggered-grid high-order methods are used. Band-limited versions of the Heaviside step function are used to manipulate the material-parameter grids. Interfaces can be implemented with accuracy that is one order of magnitude smaller than the step size. Small medium inclusions, diffractors, can, be three orders of magnitude smaller in area than the typical cell size and still be modeled with good accuracy. If the method used to implement an interface or to implement a small-scale inclusion is viewed as a filter, then this filter must be accurate up to the spatial Nyquist wavenumber of the simulation grid.

[1]  Olav Holberg,et al.  COMPUTATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE CHOICE OF OPERATOR AND SAMPLING INTERVAL FOR NUMERICAL DIFFERENTIATION IN LARGE-SCALE SIMULATION OF WAVE PHENOMENA* , 1987 .

[2]  Bengt Fornberg,et al.  The pseudospectral method; accurate representation of interfaces in elastic wave calculations , 1988 .

[3]  Second-order time integration of the wave equation with dispersion correction procedures , 2019, GEOPHYSICS.

[4]  R. Mittet.  On the pseudospectral method and spectral accuracy , 2021 .

[5]  J. Kristek,et al.  3D Heterogeneous Staggered-grid Finite-difference Modeling of Seismic Motion with Volume Harmonic and Arithmetic Averaging of Elastic Moduli and Densities , 2002 .

[6]  J. Kristek,et al.  A discrete representation of material heterogeneity for the finite-difference modelling of seismic wave propagation in a poroelastic medium , 2018, Geophysical Journal International.

[7]  Vadim Lisitsa,et al.  Numerical study of the interface errors of finite-difference simulations of seismic waves , 2014 .

[8]  Emmanuel Chaljub,et al.  An orthorhombic representation of a heterogeneous medium for the finite-difference modelling of seismic wave propagation , 2017 .

[9]  L. Amundsen,et al.  Elimination of temporal dispersion from the finite-difference solutions of wave equations in elastic and anelastic models , 2019, GEOPHYSICS.

[10]  R. Mittet.  On the internal interfaces in finite-difference schemes , 2017 .

[11]  Bertil Gustafsson,et al.  Time Compact Difference Methods for Wave Propagation in Discontinuous Media , 2004, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[12]  F. Andersson,et al.  Eliminating time dispersion from seismic wave modeling , 2018 .

[13]  D. Komatitsch,et al.  An unsplit convolutional perfectly matched layer improved at grazing incidence for the seismic wave equation , 2007 .

[14]  William W. Symes,et al.  Interface error analysis for numerical wave propagation , 2009 .

[15]  Graham. J. Hicks,et al.  Arbitrary source and receiver positioning in finite‐difference schemes using Kaiser windowed sinc functions , 2002 .

[16]  C. Wapenaar,et al.  Reciprocity theorems for electromagnetic or acoustic one‐way wave fields in dissipative inhomogeneous media , 2001 .

[17]  J. Kristek,et al.  A discrete representation of a heterogeneous viscoelastic medium for the finite-difference modelling of seismic wave propagation , 2019, Geophysical Journal International.

[18]  Yih-Hsing Pao,et al.  Diffraction of elastic waves and dynamic stress concentrations , 1973 .

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

[20]  Using interpolation to insert small-scale inhomogeneities in the acoustic finite-difference scheme , 2018, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018.