Geophysics: The spectral-element method, beowulf computing, and global seismology

Science

Volumn 298, Issue 5599, 2002, Pages 1737-1742

  Komatitsch, Dimitri ^a   Ritsema, Jeroen ^a   Tromp, Jeroen ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS; SEISMOLOGY;

BEOWULF MACHINES; SPECTRAL-ELEMENT METHOD;

GEOPHYSICS;

CRUSTAL THICKNESS; SEISMIC METHOD; SEISMIC WAVE; SEISMOGRAM; SEISMOLOGY; WAVE PROPAGATION;

ACCURACY; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANISOTROPY; ASTRONOMY; CALCULATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DENSITY; GLOBAL CHANGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; THEORY; VELOCITY;

EID: 0037195623     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1076024     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. J.-P. Montagner, Pure Appl. Geophys. 151, 223 (1998).
2. B. Romanowicz, Pure Appl. Geophys. 153, 257 (1998).
3. T. W. Becker, L. Boschi, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 3 (2002).
4. A. M. Dziewonski, D. L. Anderson, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 25, 297 (1981). PREM is a 1D transversely isotropic, anelastic velocity and density reference model of Earth.
5. F. Gilbert, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 22, 223 (1970).
6. K. Fuchs, G. Muller, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 23, 417 (1971).
7. J. Ritsema, H. J. Van Heijst, J. H. Woodhouse, Science 286, 1925 (1999). Mantle model S20RTS is a degree 20 shear velocity model based on fundamental and higher-mode Rayleigh wave dispersion, teleseismic body wave travel times, and normal-mode splitting data. It is assumed that compressional velocity heterogeneity α is identical to shear velocity heterogeneity β in S20RTS, except for a depth-dependent scaling factor, R = δlnβ/δlnβ, which increases linearly from 1.3 at the surface to 3.0 at the core-mantle boundary.
8. V. Červený, Seismic Ray Theory (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
9. J. H. Woodhouse, A. M. Dziewonski, J. Geophys. Res. 89, 5953 (1984).
10. X.-D. Li, T. Tanimoto, Geophys. J. Int. 112, 92 (1993).
11. G. Nolet, F. A. Dahlen, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 19,043 (2000).
12. J. Spetzler, J. Trampert, R. Snieder, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2341 (2001).
13. H. Igel, M. Weber, Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 415 (1996).
14. E. Chaljub, A. Tarantola, Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 2613 (1997).
15. T. Furumura, B. L. N. Kennett, M. Furumura, Geophys. J. Int. 135, 845 (1998).
16. V. F. Cormier, Geophys. J. Int. 136, 373 (1999).
17. H. Igel, Geophys. J. Int. 136, 559 (1999).
18. The main difficulty comes from the singularity of coordinates at the center of Earth.
19. T. Hara, S. Tsuboi, R. Geller, Geophys. J. Int. 104, 523 (1991).
20. R. J. Geller, T. Ohminato, Geophys. J. Int. 116, 421 (1994).
21. J. Park, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 6441 (1986).
22. P. Lognonné, B. Rómanowicz, Geophys. J. Int. 102, 365 (1990).
23. Not all of these effects play an important role at any given frequency: the effects of self-gravitation and rotation only matter at periods longer than about 100 s, whereas the effect of the oceans is only observed at periods less than about 50 s.
24. A. T. Patera, J. Comput. Phys. 54, 468 (1984).
25. E. Priolo, J. M. Carcione, G. Seriani, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 681 (1994).
26. D. Komatitsch, J. P. Vilotte, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 368 (1998).
27. E. Chaljub, thesis, Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (2000). This thesis introduces the first implementation of the SEM for global wave propagation.
28. D. Komatitsch, J. Tromp, Geophys. J. Int. 149, 390 (2002). The article discusses the theoretical and numerical aspects of the SEM and validates the method for seismic wave propagation at the scale of the entire globe.
29. D. Komatitsch, J. Tromp, Geophys. J. Int. 150, 303 (2002).
30. Y. Capdeville, E. Chaljub, J. P. Vilotte, J. P. Montagner, Geophys. J. Int., in press.
31. R. Sadourny, Mon. Weather Rev. 100, 136 (1972).
32. W. Gropp, E. Lusk, N. Doss, A. Skjellum, Parallel Comput. 22, 789 (1996).
33. The cost of the calculation is due to the fact that the mesh contains 498 million degrees of freedom.
34. C. Bassin, G. Laske, G. Masters, EOS 81, F897 (2000). To avoid artificial reflections between block edges, we slightly smooth model CRUST2.0 by averaging over spherical caps with a 2° radius.
35. PREM) is determined by applying the same cross-correlation method to SEM synthetic seismograms computed for 50 earthquakes at 400 worldwide stations, which renders a geographical distribution of 55 bounce points that is similar to the data. This calculation required a total of 100 days of dedicated CPU time on our PC cluster.
36. B. Romanowicz, Y. C. Gung, Science 296, 513 (2002).
37. F. J. L. Reid, J. H. Woodhouse, H. J. van Heijst, Geophys. J. Int. 145, 615 (2001).
38. L. X. Wen, P. G. Silver, D. James, R. Kuehnel, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 189, 141 (2001).
39. S. D. Ni, E. Tan, M. Gumis, D. V. Helmberger, Science 296, 1850 (2002).
40. We encourage interested research groups to download the SEM software package from the "Theoretical and Computational Seismology" Web page of the Seismological Laboratory at Caltech (www. gps.caltech.edu/∼jtromp/research).
41. 55-5 map, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This research was funded in part by the NSF.