HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by DAUDT, C. R. Articles by CHIANG, C. S. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

A comparison of finite-difference and fourier method calculations of synthetic seismograms

DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA 47907

Abstract

The Fourier method, the second-order finite-difference method, and a fourth-order implicit finite-difference method have been tested using analytical phase and group velocity calculations, homogeneous velocity model calculations for disperson analysis, two-dimensional layered-interface calculations, comparisons with the Cagniard-de Hoop method, and calculations for a laterally heterogeneous model. Group velocity rather than phase velocity dispersion calculations are shown to be a more useful aid in predicting the frequency-dependent travel-time errors resulting from grid dispersion, and in establishing criteria for estimating equivalent accuracy between discrete grid methods. Comparison of the Fourier method with the Cagniard-de Hoop method showed that the Fourier method produced accurate seismic traces for a planar interface model even when a relatively coarse grid calculation was used. Computations using an IBM 3083 showed that Fourier method calculations using fourth-order time derivatives can be performed using as little as one-fourth the CPU time of an equivalent second-order finite-difference calculation. The Fourier method required a factor of 20 less computer storage than the equivalent second-order finite-difference calculation. The fourth-order finite-difference method required two-thirds the CPU time and a factor of 4 less computer storage than the second-order calculation. For comparison purposes, equivalent runs were determined by allowing a group velocity error tolerance of 2.5 per cent numerical dispersion for the maximum seismic frequency in each calculation. The Fourier method was also applied to a laterally heterogeneous model consisting of random velocity variations in the lower half-space. Seismograms for the random velocity model resulted in anticipated variations in amplitude with distance, particularly for refracted phases.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B.-S. Huang, T.-l. Teng, and Y. T. Yeh Numerical modeling of fault-zone trapped waves: Acoustic case Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1995; 85(6): 1711 - 1717. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Bouchon and O. Coutant Calculation of synthetic seismograms in a laterally varying medium by the boundary element-discrete wavenumber method Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1994; 84(6): 1869 - 1881. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J.{B.}I ZAHRADNIK, P. MOCZO, and F.{B.}E. HRON Testing four elastic finite-difference schemes for behavior at discontinuities Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1993; 83(1): 107 - 129. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H.-W. CHEN and G. A. MCMECHAN Computation of multi-attribute seismic wavefields by solution of the elastodynamic equations Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1992; 82(2): 1134 - 1143. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. ZHOU and S. A. GREENHALGH Seismic scalar wave equation modeling by a convolutional differentiator Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1992; 82(1): 289 - 303. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. B. KANG and G. A. MCMECHAN Two-dimensional elastic pseudo-spectral modeling of wide-aperture seismic array data with application to the Wichita Uplift-Anadarko Basin region of southwestern Oklahoma Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1990; 80(6A): 1677 - 1695. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. E. VIDALE Comment on "A comparison of finite-difference and fourier method calculations of synthetic seismograms" Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1990; 80(2): 493 - 495. [PDF]

				C. R. DAUDT, L. W. BRAILE, R. L. NOWACK, and C. S. CHIANG Reply to J. Vidale's "Comment on 'A comparison of finite-difference and fourier method calculations of synthetic seismograms'" Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1990; 80(2): 496 - 497. [PDF]