On Godunov-type finite volume methods for seismic wave propagation
Authors:
Juan Barrios,
Pedro S. Peixoto,
Felipe A. G. Silva
Abstract:
The computational complexity of simulating seismic waves demands continual exploration of more efficient numerical methods. While Finite Volume methods are widely acclaimed for tackling general nonlinear hyperbolic (wave) problems, their application in realistic seismic wave simulation remains uncommon, with rare investigations in the literature. Furthermore, seismic wavefields are influenced by s…
▽ More
The computational complexity of simulating seismic waves demands continual exploration of more efficient numerical methods. While Finite Volume methods are widely acclaimed for tackling general nonlinear hyperbolic (wave) problems, their application in realistic seismic wave simulation remains uncommon, with rare investigations in the literature. Furthermore, seismic wavefields are influenced by sharp subsurface interfaces frequently encountered in realistic models, which could, in principle, be adequately solved with Finite Volume methods. In this study, we delved into two Finite Volume (FV) methods to assess their efficacy and competitiveness in seismic wave simulations, compared to traditional Finite Difference schemes. We investigated Gudunov-type FV methods: an upwind method called wave propagation algorithm (WPA), and a Central-Upwind type method (CUp). Our numerical analysis uncovered that these finite volume methods could provide less dispersion (albeit increased dissipation) compared to finite differences for seismic problems characterized by velocity profiles with abrupt transitions in the velocity. However, when applied to more realistic seismic models, finite volume methods yielded unfavorable outcomes compared to finite difference methods, the latter offering lower computational costs and higher accuracy. This highlights that despite the potential advantages of finite volume methods, such as their conservative nature and aptitude for accurately capturing shock waves in specific contexts, our results indicate that they are only advantageous for seismic simulations when unrealistic abrupt transitions are present in the velocity models in the velocity models.
△ Less
Submitted 1 June, 2025; v1 submitted 26 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
