Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 176, Issue 9, pp 3851–3865 | Cite as

A Damped Dynamic Finite Difference Approach for Modeling Static Stress–Strain Fields

  • Rongrong LinEmail author
  • Xinding FangEmail author
  • Yuandi Gan
  • Yingcai Zheng


Modeling dynamic and static responses of an elastic medium often employs different numerical schemes. By introducing damping into the system, we show how the widely used time-marching staggered finite difference (FD) approach in solving elastodynamic wave equation can be used to model time-independent elastostatic problems. The damped FD method can compute elastostatic stress and strain fields of a model subject to the influence of an external field via prescribed boundary conditions. We also show how to obtain an optimized value for the damping factor. We verified the damped FD approach by comparing results against the analytical solutions for a borehole model and a laminated model. We also validated our approach numerically for an inclusion model by comparing the results computed by a finite element method. The damped FD showed excellent agreement with both the analytical results and the finite element results.


Finite difference static stress–strain fields numerical modeling damped wave equation effective medium 



We thank Professor Leon Thomsen for discussions about the physical meaning of the damping parameter. We thank Dr. Nishank Saxena for pointing to the finite element code. We appreciate the financial support from UH and SUSTC. We appreciate the UH Xfrac group for providing clusters for computations. We also appreciate the comments from Dr. Hao Hu and Dr. Chen Qi. R. Lin and Y. Zheng are partially supported by NSF EAR-1833058. X. Fang is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 41704112) and National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC0310105).


  1. Aki, K., & Richards, P. (1980). Quantitative seismology: Theory and methods. Sausalito: University Science Books.Google Scholar
  2. Backus, G. E. (1962). Long-Wave elastic anisotropy produced by horizontal layering. Journal of Geophysical Research, 67(11), 4427–4440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackstock, D. (2000). Fundamentals of physical acoustics. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. der Levan, A. (1988). Fourth-order finite difference P-SV seismograms: eophysics, 53, 1425–1436.Google Scholar
  5. Fang, X., Fehler, M. C., & Cheng, A. (2014). Simulation of the effect of stress-induced anisotropy on borehole compressional wave propagation. Geophysics, 79(4), D205–D216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fjar, E. (2008). Petroleum related rock mechanics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Garboczi, E. J. (1998). Finite element and finite difference programs for computing the linear electric and elastic properties of digital image of random materials (p. 6269). Rep: National Institute of Standards and Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gregory, R. (2006). Douglas. Classical Mechanics: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kelly, K., Ward, S., Treitel, S., & Alford, M. (1976). Synthetic seismograms: A finite difference approach. Geophysics, 41, 2–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mavko, G. T., Mukerji, T., & Dvorkin, J. (2009). The rock physics handbook (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Meng, C. (2017). Benchmarking Defmod, an open source FEM code for modeling episodic fault rupture. Computers & Geosciences, 100, 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meng, C., & Wang, H. (2018). A finite element and finite difference mixed approach for modeling fault rupture and ground motion. Computers & Geosciences, 113, 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morse, P., & Feshback, W. (1953). Methods of theoretical physics (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
  14. Raymer, L. L., Hunt, E. R., & Gardner, J. S. (1980). An improved sonic transit time to porosity transform. 21st Annual Logging Symposium, Trans. Soc. Prof. Well Log Analysts, 8–11 July, 1–12.Google Scholar
  15. Reddy, J. N. (2006). An introduction to the finite element method. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Saenger, E. H., Gold, N., & Shapiro, S. A. (2000). Modeling the propagation of elastic waves using a modified finite difference grid. Wave Motion, 31(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schuster, G. (2017). Seismic inversion. Tulsa: Society of Exploration Geophysicists. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Udias, A., & Buforn, E. (2018). Principles of seismology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Virieus, J. (1986). P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity-stress finite difference method. Geophysics, 51, 889–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Virieux, J. (1984). SH-wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity-stress finite difference method. Geophysics, 49, 1933–1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and Atmospheric SciencesUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.School of Earth and Space SciencesSouthern University of Science and Technology ChinaShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations