Abstract
A preliminary problem to solve in the set-up of a mathematical model simulating a geophysical process is the choice of a suitable discrete scheme to approximate the governing differential equations. This paper presents a simple technique to test finite difference schemes used in the modeling of geophysical processes occurring in a geological structure. This technique consists in generating analytical solutions similar to the ones characterizing a geophysical process, given general information on some relevant parameters. Useful information for the choice of the discrete scheme to employ in the mathematical model simulating the original geophysical process can be obtained from the comparison between the analytical solution and the approximated numerical solutions generated by means of different discrete schemes. Two classes of numerical examples approximating the differential equation that governs the steady state earth's heat flow have been treated using three different finite differences schemes. The first class of examples deals with media whose phenomenological parameters vary as continuous space functions; the second class, instead, deals with media whose phenomenological parameters vary as discontinuous space functions. The finite difference schemes that have been utilized are: Centered Finite Difference Scheme (CDS), Arithmetic Mean Scheme (AMS), and Harmonic Mean Scheme (HMS).
The numerical simulations showed that: the CDS may yield physically inconsistent solutions if the lattice internodal distance is too large, but in case of phenomenological parameters varying as a continuous function, this pitfall can be avoided increasing the lattice node refinement. In case of phenomenological parameters varying as a discontinuous function, instead, the CDS may yield physically inconsistent solutions for any lattice-node refinement. The HMS produced good results for both classes of examples showing to be a scheme suitable to model situations like these.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alford, R. M., Kelly, K. R., and Boore, D. M., 1974, Accuracy of finite difference modeling of acoustic wave equation: Geophysics, v. 39, p. 834–842.
Appel, C. A., 1976, A note on computing finite difference interblock transmissitives: Water Res. Res., v. 12, p. 561–563.
Bear, J., 1979, Hydraulic of Groundwater: McGraw Hill, New York.
Beck A. E., 1976, The use of thermal resistivity logs in stratigraphic correlation: Geophysics, v. 41, p. 300–309.
Carslaw, H. S., and Jaeger, J. C., 1986, Conduction of Heat in Solids: Clarendon Press.
Conaway, J. G., and Beck, A. E., 1977, Continuous logging of temperature gradients: Tectonophysics, v. 41, p. 1–8.
Drury, M. J., 1984, Borehole temperature logging for detection of water flow: Geoexploration, v. 22, p. 231–243.
George, T., Virieux, J., and Madariaga, R., 1987, Seismic wave synthesis by Gaussian beam summation: A comparison with finite difference: Geophysics, v. 52, p. 1065–1073.
Glimm, J., and Sharp, D. H., 1987, Numerical analysis and the scientific method: IBM J. Res. Dev. v. 31, p. 169–177.
Marfurt, K., 1984, Accuracy of finite difference and finite element modelling of the scalar elastic wave equation: Geophysics, v. 49, p. 533–549.
Mitchel, A. R., and Griffiths, D. F., 1980. The Finite Difference Method in Partial Differential Equation Methods: J. Wiley & Sons, New York.
Podvin, A., and Lecomte, I., 1991, Finite difference computation of traveltimes in very contrasted velocity models: A massive parallel approach and its associated tools: Geophys. J. Int., v. 105, p. 271–284.
Remson, I., Hornberger G. M., and Molz, F. J., 1971, Numerical Methods in Subsurface Hydrology: Wiley Interscience.
Samarsky, A., and Andreev, V., 1978, Methodes aux Differences pour Equations Elliptiques: MIR, Moscow.
Speece, M. A., Bowen, T. D., Folcik, J. L., and Pollock, H. N., 1985, Analysis of temperatures in sedimentary basins: The Michigan Basin: Geophysics, v. 50, p. 1318–1334.
Stephen, R. A., 1983, A comparison of finite difference and reflectivity seismograms for marine models: Geophys. J. Roy. Ast. Soc., v. 72, p. 39–57.
Tichonov, A., and Samarsky, A., 1961, Homogeneous difference schemes: J. Numer. Anal. Math. Phys., v. 1, n. 1, p. 5–63.
Tichonov, A., and Samarsky, A., 1981, Equazioni della Fisica Matematica: MIR, Moscow.
Trescott, P., and Larson, S., 1977, Comparison of iterative methods of solving two dimensional groundwater flow equation: Water Res. Res., v. 13, n. 1, p. 125–136.
Turcotte, D. L., and Schubert, G., 1982, Geodynamics: John Wiley.
Weber, M., 1988, Computation of body wave seismogram in absorbing 2-D media using the Gaussian beam method: Comparison with exact methods: Geophys. J., v. 92, p. 9–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ponzini, G., Tosi, N. A technique to test finite difference schemes to model some geophysical processes in a geological structure. Math Geol 24, 499–537 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00890532
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00890532