Abstract
Most conventional finite-difference methods adopt second-order temporal and (2M)th-order spatial finite-difference stencils to solve the 3D acoustic wave equation. When spatial finite-difference stencils devised from the time-space domain dispersion relation are used to replace these conventional spatial finite-difference stencils devised from the space domain dispersion relation, the accuracy of modelling can be increased from second-order along any directions to (2M)th-order along 48 directions. In addition, the conventional high-order spatial finite-difference modelling accuracy can be improved by using a truncated finite-difference scheme. In this paper, we combine the time-space domain dispersion-relation-based finite difference scheme and the truncated finite-difference scheme to obtain optimised spatial finite-difference coefficients and thus to significantly improve the modelling accuracy without increasing computational cost, compared with the conventional space domain dispersion-relation-based finite difference scheme. We developed absorbing boundary conditions for the 3D acoustic wave equation, based on predicting wavefield values in a transition area by weighing wavefield values from wave equations and one-way wave equations.Dispersion analyses demonstrate that high-order spatial finite-difference stencils have greater accuracy than low-order spatial finite-difference stencils for high frequency components of wavefields, and spatial finite-difference stencils devised in the time-space domain have greater precision than those devised in the space domain under the same discretisation. The modelling accuracy can be improved further by using the truncated spatial finite-difference stencils. Stability analyses show that spatial finite-difference stencils devised in the time-space domain have better stability condition. Numerical modelling experiments for homogeneous, horizontally layered and Society of Exploration Geophysicists/European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers salt models demonstrate that this modelling scheme has greater accuracy than a conventional scheme and has better absorbing effects than Clayton-Engquist absorbing boundary conditions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
