Astronomy and Astrophysics – Astronomy
Scientific paper
Mar 1998
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1998geoji.132..584h&link_type=abstract
Geophysical Journal International, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp. 584-594.
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Astronomy
5
Caustics, Finite-Difference Methods, Maslov Asymptotic Theory, Ray Theory, Seismic Waveforms, Shadows
Scientific paper
The Maslov asymptotic method addresses some of the problems with standard ray theory, such as caustics and shadows. However, it has been applied relatively little, perhaps because its accuracy remains untested. In this study we examine Maslov integral (MI) seismograms by comparing them with finite-difference (FD) seismograms for several cases of interest, such as (1) velocity gradients generating traveltime triplications and shadows, (2) wave-front bending, kinking and folding in a low-velocity waveguide, and (3) wavefield propagation perturbed by a high-velocity slab.
The results show that many features of high- and intermediate-frequency waveforms are reliably predicted by Maslov's technique, but also that it is far less reliable and even fails for low frequencies. The terms `high' and `low' are model-dependent, but we mean the range over which it is sensible to discuss signals associated with identifiable wave fronts and local (if complicated) effects that potentially can be unravelled in interpretation. Of the high- and intermediate-frequency wave components, those wave- front anomalies due to wave-front bending, kinking, folding or rapid ray divergence can be accurately given by MI. True diffractions due to secondary wave-front sections are theoretically not included in Maslov theory (as they require true diffracted rays), but in practice they can often be satisfactorily predicted. This occurs roughly within a wavelength of the truncated geometrical wave front, where such diffractions are most important since their amplitudes may still be as large as half that on the geometrical wave front itself. Outside this region MI is inaccurate (although then the diffractions are usually small). Thus waveforms of high and intermediate frequencies are essentially controlled by classical wave-front geometry.
Our results also show that the accuracy of MI can be improved by rotating the Maslov integration axis so that the nearest wave-front anomaly is adequately `sampled'. This rotation can be performed after ray tracing and it can serve to avoid pseudo-caustics by using it in conjunction with the phase-partitioning approach. The effort needed in phase partitioning has been reduced by using an interactive graphics technique.
It is difficult to formulate a general rule prescribing the limitations of MI accuracy because of model dependency. However, our experiences indicate that two space- and two timescales need to be considered. These are the pulse width in space, the length scale over which the instantaneous wave-front curvature changes, and the timescales of pulse width and significant features in the ray traveltime curve. It seems, from our examples, that when these scales are comparable, the Maslov method gives very acceptable results.
Huang Xing
Kendall J.-Michael
Thomson C. J.
West Gordon F.
No associations
LandOfFree
A comparison of the Maslov integral seismogram and the finite-difference method does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with A comparison of the Maslov integral seismogram and the finite-difference method, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and A comparison of the Maslov integral seismogram and the finite-difference method will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1658161