Researcher profile

Erik F. M. Koene

Erik F. M. Koene contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
1topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Finite-difference modeling of 2-D wave propagation in the vicinity of dipping interfaces: a comparison of anti-aliasing and equivalent medium approaches

Finite-difference (FD) modeling of seismic waves in the vicinity of dipping interfaces gives rise to artifacts. Examples are phase and amplitude errors, as well as staircase diffractions. Such errors can be reduced in two general ways. In the first approach, the interface can be anti-aliased (i.e., with an anti-aliased step-function, or a lowpass filter). Alternatively, the interface may be replaced with an equivalent medium (i.e., using Schoenberg \& Muir (SM) calculus or orthorhombic averaging). We test these strategies in acoustic, elastic isotropic, and elastic anisotropic settings. Computed FD solutions are compared to analytical solutions. We find that in acoustic media, anti-aliasing methods lead to the smallest errors. Conversely, in elastic media, the SM calculus provides the best accuracy. The downside of the SM calculus is that it requires an anisotropic FD solver even to model an interface between two isotropic materials. As a result, the computational cost increases compared to when using isotropic FD solvers. However, since coarser grid spacings can be used to represent the dipping interfaces, the two effects (an expensive FD solver on a coarser FD grid) equal out. Hence, the SM calculus can provide an efficient means to reduce errors, also in elastic isotropic media.