Comparison between the Fourier finite-difference method and the generalized-screen method |
| |
| Authors: | Jin-Hai Zhang Wei-Min Wang Zhen-Xing Yao |
| |
| Institution: | Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, PO Box 9825, Beijing 100029, China;, and Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences;, PO Box 2871, Beijing 100085, China |
| |
| Abstract: | The Fourier finite‐difference propagator and the generalized‐screen propagator are two general high‐order forms of one‐way dual‐domain methods. We compare these two propagators mainly on phase accuracy, computational efficiency and 3D extension. A comparison of phase accuracy shows that the high‐order generalized‐screen propagator is preferable to the Fourier finite‐difference propagator for heterogeneous media with a weak velocity contrast and wide dip angle. With increasing velocity contrast, the accuracy improvement gained by the high‐order generalized‐screen propagator declines rapidly. The Fourier finite‐difference propagator is more robust and flexible to lateral velocity variations than the generalized‐screen propagator. The 2D Fourier finite‐difference propagator is superior to the 2D generalized‐screen propagator when the velocity contrast is stronger than 23%. Despite the two‐way splitting error, the 3D Fourier finite‐difference propagator is more accurate than the second‐order generalized‐screen propagator when the velocity contrast is stronger than 20% and is more accurate than the fourth‐order generalized‐screen propagator when the velocity contrast is stronger than 40%. Numerical experiments on the SEG/EAGE salt model demonstrate that the Fourier finite‐difference propagator behaves better than the generalized‐screen propagator when imaging steep salt boundary and faults beneath the salt body. Under the same hardware and software conditions, the computational cost of the Fourier finite‐difference propagator in our implementation is greater than that of the second‐order generalized‐screen propagator but smaller than that of the third‐order generalized‐screen propagator. Compared with the Fourier finite‐difference propagator, the generalized‐screen propagator requires fewer grid points per wavelength and has more potential to improve running speed in the presence of a much faster Fourier transform. These analyses are applicable for both forward modelling and depth migration. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
