COMMUNlCATlONS IN APPLIED NUMERICAL METHODS, VOl.

6 , 359-368 (1990)

FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD FOR ELASTIC WAVE PROPAGATION

F. . I . SERON AND F. J . SANZ Department of Applied Mathematics, ETSIIZ, University of Zaragoza, CIMaria de Luna 3 , 50015 Zaragoza, Spain

M. KINDELAN IBM ECSEC, via Giorgione 159, 00147 Rome, Ilaly

J . I . BADAL Department of Theoretical Physics (Geophysics), University of Zaragoza, Pr. San Francisco sin, 50006 Zaragora,
Spain

SUMMARY

The object of this work is to analyse the computational aspects of the finite-element method for the elastic wave equations. The necessary numerical techniques are analysed from the point of view of accuracy, performance and storage requirements when implemented in scalar and vector processors with large storage capacity. The method is implemented on an IBM 3090 with vector facility. For this implementation we consider five different time integration schemes (explicit and implicit central difference, Houbolt, constant average acceleration and Wilson), and in the implicit case, both direct (Gaussian decomposition) and iterative (successive over-relaxation, Jacobi semi-iterative, Jacobi conjugate gradient) sparse linear systems solvers. These solvers are taken from the ITPACK-2C and ESSL libraries using in each case the adequate representation scheme; skyline, row-wise and compressed diagonal. From our results it is concluded that constant average acceleration and explicit central difference are the most adequate integration methods and Jacobi conjugate gradient is the most efficient solver.

INTRODUCTION

In this work we apply the finite-element technique to the problem of elastic wave propagation, this problem being of interest because:
(a) F o r geophysicists it is a very useful tool f o r predicting and understanding seismic wave propagation. (b) For computer scientists it is a very challenging problem requiring large storage and CPU times which can only be solved in modern supercomputers. (c) F o r engineers it is a n interesting problem because for very large structural models, which appear in the fields of engineering design, mechanical a n d civil engineering, aeronautics a n d astronautics, the numerical approximation t o the solution of the linear elastodynamic equations still presents a very broad range of open problems. Evaluating various elastic forward modelling procedures, it becomes clear that analytical methods may not be effective because they are restricted t o simple geometries with homogeneous structures. Instead, numerical methods (finite-difference, finite-element 3 , 4 and 0748-8025/90/050359- 10$05.OO 0 1990 by J o h n Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 2 November 1988 Revised I5 December I989

360

F. J . SERON E T A L .

pseudospectra15-) achieve the required accuracy while allowing arbitrary space dependence of the material properties. In this work we consider the finite-element method (FEM) for the solution of the full elastic wave equations. The main advantage of the FEM approach is its versatility to fit the characteristics of each problem;8 in particular, it allows the use of nonuniform grids, having elements with varying characteristic size, geometry and order of approximation. In this way it is possible to achieve the desired accuracy in the different regions of the integration domain and simultaneously to incorporate, in a simple manner, boundary conditions defined on complex geometries. As an example of the application of the method we present a common-shot-gater for a simulation experiment. The results of this work may be used to design an efficient FEM elastic wave propagation modelling program. FORMULATION The finite-element discretization technique, usually denoted as the semidiscrete Galerkin formulation, reduces the seismic modelling problem to the following system of second-order, linear, ordinary differential equations:

Md + Kd = I d(0) = do
d(0) = do

V t ! (0,

T)

where M is the mass matrix, K is the stiffness matrix, f is the load vector and d is the displacement vector. Matrix M is determined by the density distribution in the domain, matrix K is determined by the elastic properties of the medium and vector I is determined by the source used to generate the waves and by the boundary conditions. Both M and K are sparse, symmetric and positive-definite matrices. One of the problems arising in numerically modelling wave propagation on the earth is the need to use a bounded domain which generates undesired reflections. One way to avoid these artifacts is to use a very large domain, but this solution is in practice prevented because it requires huge computer storage. To eliminate unwanted reflections we introduce a damping term A (x, y , z ) u ~ for , ~ i = 1 , 2 , 3 in differential equation (1) which is defined only on a boundary layer surrounding the domain. lo,l This method can be very accurate but one needs to adjust the damping term. The semidiscrete Galerkin formulation, including the damping term, is

Md+Cd+Kd=f d(0) = do d(0) = d o

VtE

(0,T)

where the damping matrix C is also sparse, symmetric and positive-definite. THE INTEGRATION SCHEMES The system of linear, second-order, ordinary differential equations with constant coefficients derived in (2) has to be integrated in the time interval (0, T ) be discretizing the time variable as t, = n A t 0 < n < N , where A t = T / N . The solution d(t,) will be represented by d,. We have analysed five different techniques for time integration:

FEM FOR ELASTIC WAVE PROPAGATION

36 1

I . , 2., 3. Newmark methods* are linear multistep schemes for second-order equations, with two steps. l3 Among the different Newmark methods we have chosen for our analysis the central difference (CD) method and the constant average acceleration (CAA) method. The central difference method is conditionally stable and second-order accurate. In the case that the mass and damping matrices are diagonal, dn+l can be obtained explicitly by a simple division. In this case the method is denoted explicit central difference (ECD). Otherwise the method is denoted implicit central difference (ICD). The time integration equation for the constant average acceleration (CAA) method is unconditionally stable and second-order accurate and no special start-up procedure is needed. 4. The Houbolt method14 is one of the oldest schemes used for dynamic problems. This method is a linear multistep scheme for second-order equations, with three steps, l 3 unconditionally stable and second-order accurate. 5 . The Wilson4 method is a special type of collocation method. l6 Collocation methods are linear, multistep schemes with three steps. In our experiments we have chosen 19= 1 - 4 . This method is unconditionally stable and second-order accurate.

NUMERICAL DISCRETIZATION ERRORS Modelling elastic wave propagation in a continuous medium through a discretization in time and in space introduces several errors associated with different numerical effects. To avoid some of these errors the spatial and temporal grids should be carefully chosen. The accuracy of monochromatic wave modelling depends strongly on the number of nodes per wavelength. In the case of wave propagation in response to a seismic source, the response of the underground consists of a set of waves with different wavelengths, periods and amplitudes, which strike the geological interfaces at different angles, generating a large number of reflection, refraction, conversion and diffraction events. When a wave propagates in a complex domain through the corresponding grid it is sampled by a number of nodes which depends on location and direction. For instance, on a regular rectangular grid the number of nodes is maximum in the direction of the grid axes and minimum in the direction at 45 degrees from the axes (there is a ratio of ./2 in the number of nodes). Thus, different wavelengths present in the propagating wave are modelled on a given location of the domain with a different number of nodes per wavelength. Also, each wavelength in the propagating wave is modelled at each instant of time differently, depending on location and direction. From the point of view of time integration, the different frequencies which are present in the seismic wave will be modelled using a different number of time steps. From this point of view, numerical modelling can be considered as a low-pass filter, since low frequencies (wavelength large compared to grid size) propagate correctly, while high frequencies (wavelength small compared to grid size) do not propagate well. The accuracy of wave modelling through discretization in space and time is a decreasing function of spatial and temporal resolution. Thus the grid spacing and time step should be chosen so as to optimize the ratio between computational cost and accuracy. The main numerical effects that may appear are the following: (a) numerical attenuation or amplification of the waves during their propagation in time. This effect has nothing to do with the damping term in the differential equation.
~ ~ ~ 3 ~

362

F. J. SERON E T A L .

(b) numerical anisotropy associated with the change in wave propagation velocity with direction. 1 8 , 1 9 (c) numerical dispersion of phase and group velocities of non-dispersive waves. 1 8 - 2 1 (d) numerical polarization of the components of the displacement vector. This effect can be observed when propagating a longitudinally or transversally polarized wave. In this case, wave fields become quasilongitudinal and quasishear. (e) changes in the size of the elements (inhomogeneous meshes), or using higher-order elements in some regions, may introduce parasitic (purely numerical) modes of vibration, particularly at higher frequencies, that must be suppressed. 22923 From the referenced papers it may be concluded that to correctly model a wave it is necessary to approximate it using at least 10 nodes per wavelength. In this case all the above-mentioned effects are minimized. The effects associated with the temporal discretization depend strongly on the method of integration chosen and will be discussed in the Section on numerical experiments.

SOLVERS FOR SPARSE, SYMMETRIC, LINEAR SYSTEMS OF ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS All the time integration schemes described in the preceding Section (except for explicit central difference) lead to a linear, sparse, symmetric, well conditioned, positive-definite system of algebraic equations with constant coefficients, Adn+l = b (3) This type of system can be solved by either direct or iterative methods. Direct methods are based on Gaussian e l i m i n a t i ~ n and ~ ~ generally the sparse matrices are stored using skyline or row-wise modes. These methods have been very frequently used in the past and generally provide satisfactory results. However, for large systems their effectiveness decreases, mainly because of the large amount of fill-in which results in large storage requirements. In this work we have used: (a) Crouts method, using pivoting for symmetric, sparse, positive-definite matrix A, stored in the skyline representation. (b) Gaussian elimination, using a modified Markowitz count with threshold pivoting, 2 5 for a general sparse matrix A stored in the row-wise representation. Iterative methods, on the other hand, do not generate fill-in and therefore need much less storage when using an adequate storage representation scheme. Furthermore, if the number of iterations needed to solve the system with the required accuracy is not large, iterative systems have a lower computational cost since they only operate on the elements which are different from zero. Among iterative methods, successive over-relaxation (SOR), Jacobi semi-iterative (JSI) and Jacobi conjugate-gradient (JCG) are very frequently used. These methods are described in detail in Reference 26. Matrix representation Several procedures have been proposed to represent efficiently the sparse matrices in storage. In iterative methods the procedures most generally used are the row-wise representation, which

FEM FOR ELASTIC WAVE PROPAGATION

363

Table I
~~

Method Skyline Row-wise Compressed-matrix Compressed-diagonal

63 x 63 934 * 2 70.4 143.1 83.2

121 x 127 1922 296-2 598.5 346.5

251 x 251 6618 1 1234 248 1 1436

minimizes the storage requirements and is very useful for scalar solvers, the compressed-matrix representation, which is very well suited for vectorized solvers, and the compressed-diagonal representation, which can only be used when the domain and the grid are regular, but leads to the most efficient vectorized solvers. Table I shows the storage requirements in Kwords for matrix A, corresponding to a regular mesh with boundary conditions and two degrees of freedom per node, for three different grid sizes. It is observed that the row-wise method is the most efficient scheme, followed by compressed-diagonal and compressed-matrix. However, for irregular grids the compresseddiagonal representation deteriorates, while the compressed-matrix retains its efficiency. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS The object of this work is the analysis of the different numerical techniques described in the preceding Sections from the point of view of accuracy, performance and storage requirements. To this end we have implemented a 2-D finite-element program on an IBM 3090 vector multiprocessor. The program has been used t o understand the computational aspects of the method and its suitability for vector and scalar architectures. The block structure of the program is the one generally used in computer-assisted design packages: a preprocessor, a processor and a postprocessor. To analyse the performance of the different methods, we have used Co, bilinear, quadrilateral, isoparametric elements, and we have simulated the propagation of a P-wave and a S-wave in a homogeneous medium with elastic properties V, = 6.0 km/s, V, = 3.464 km/s and p = 2526 kg/m3, using a mesh with spatial resolution A x = A y = 30m, time step A t = 0.002 S .

*'

Table I1 Method
63 x 63 1 -36 0.47 4.87 2.07 1 *48 1-33 0.30 2.34 20.5 8.70 6.20 5.61 1 a24 86.9 35.4 26.0 23.1 5.54 127 x 121 251 X 251

Direct CROUT (scalar) ESSL DGSS (vector) Iterative ITPACK-2C JSI (scalar) SOR (scalar) JCG (scalar) JCG (vector) ESSL DSDCG (vector)

364

F. J. SER6N E T A L .

Table I1 shows for different spatial resolutions the time in seconds necessary to advance one time step the solution using all the linear equation solvers considered in this work and constant average acceleration for time integration. Among the direct methods we have used a scalar solver designed for matrices using the skyline representation, and a vector solver, DGSS, from the ESSL library2* designed for matrices using the row-wise representation. The time corresponding to these methods does not include the time necessary to carry out the decomposition of the matrix, which in the case of 63 x 63 resolution amounts to 563.4 s for the Crout method and to 51 s for the DGSS method. Therefore, the time per step should be increased by including the time to decompose the matrix divided by the number of time steps. It is observed that for very small problems, vectorized direct methods might represent an efficient solution when the matrix is factorized only once at the beginning of the simulation. However, for larger problems the performance deteriorates and, in particular, the storage requirements become much larger than those of iterative methods because of the fill-in introduced by Gaussian elimination. From Table I1 one may conclude that iterative methods require fewer operations and therefore in the case of large sparse systems, such as those resulting from large 2-D problems, and even more in 3-D cases, direct methods are inefficient. Among iterative methods we have used the following three routines from the ITPACK-2C SOR, JSI and JCG. Table I1 shows that JCG has greater efficiency than SOR and 1ibra1-y:~~ JSI. This is due to the fact that the rate of convergence of JCG is higher. JCG has also the advantage of not depending on any parameter to be optimized, and of having a greater vectorization potential. However, if routine JCG from ITPACK-2C is compiled with the VS Fortran vector compiler, 30 the results in Table I1 show that the vector/scalar speed-up is only 1.11. The method used by ITPACK-2C to store sparse matrices is the row-wise representation. However, this method of representation is ill-suited to vector computers because the matrix-vector product, which accounts for most of the solution time of the JCG algorithm, does not vectorize efficiently when this type of storage representation is used. 3 1 In the case of vector processors, other storage representations are more efficient. In fact, the vectorized ITPACKV-2C library 32 uses the compressed matrix representation scheme. In cases that the coefficients of the matrix are located along a few diagonals (i.e. on regular grids), the compressed diagonal representation is the most appropriate to generate highly vectorizable code.31 In this work we use routine DSDCG from the ESSL library,28 which is an implementation of the conjugate gradient algorithm, highly tuned to the vector feature of the IBM 3090 multiprocessor. To use the same algorithm that is implemented in routine JCG from ITPACK-2C we use the option of diagonal preconditioning in routine DSDCG. The results reported in Table I1 for routine DSDCG of ESSL show a very satisfactory speed-up of 4.9 with respect to the scalar JCG. Table 111 shows the time in seconds necessary to advance one time step the solution using the different time integration schemes considered in this work and, for the implicit case, the conjugate gradient algorithm with row-wise and compressed diagonal storage representations. These results have been obtained using a grid resolution of 257 x 257 and a time step A t = 0.001 s, which is below the critical value of the implicit central difference method (At,, = 0.0026 s). These results show that explicit central difference is much more efficient than the implicit methods, and therefore, from the point of view of performance, it should be preferred. Among the implicit schemes, Houbolts is the most efficient, followed in decreasing order by Wilson, constant average acceleration and implicit central difference. In previous work elastic modelling using pseudospectral 33 and finite-difference methods, 34

FEM FOR ELASTIC WAVE PROPAGATION

365

Table 111
~~

Solver
Explicit Implicit

CD

CAA

Wilson

Houbolt

0.26 28-6 6.77 23.7 5.54 22.0 5.14 20.1 4.98

ITPACK-2C ESSL

based on the elastic wave equations in terms of stresses, have been implemented on the same computer architecture (3090VF). Table IV shows the time in seconds per time step and performance in Mflop/s for the solution of the 2-D elastic wave equations using pseudospectral, finite-difference and finite-element methods. These results show that the explicit finite-element method, based on the elastic wave equations in terms of displacements, is faster than pseudo-spectral methods and approximately 50% slower than explicit finite difference. The errors resulting from the different integration methods are generally measured in terms of period elongation and amplitude decay. T o analyse these errors we have simulated the propagation of a plane wave through eight wavelengths in a homogeneous medium with elastic properties V, = 2 km/s, Vs = 1 km/s and p = 2740 kg/m3, using a mesh with spatial resolution Ax = A y = 10 m and different time steps between 1 and 8 ms (the critical value for ICD is 2 - 9 ms and the critical value for ECD is 5 ms). Computing the time Fourier transform of the Table IV Method Pseudospectral FDM FEM Time(s)I Mflops
~

127 x 127

Time(s)1 Mflops
0.762 I 3 1 * 1 0.164 132.2 0.263 124.8

255 x 255

0.187 128.3 0.040 132.7 0.061 125.7

1 .oo

0 0.60
N
0

I "
o.BO
0.20

\\
2 3

1 0Explicit C . D .

i0.401 0.40

\
4 5 6 TlmE STEP (mscc] 7 0 6

0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0

I
1

Figure 1 . Normalized area of the power spectrum of the modelled wave as a function of the time step Af using different time integration schemes

366

F. J. SERdN ET A L .

modelled and theoretical waves and estimating the area, the fundamental frequency, the width of the power spectrum and the ratio of both spectra, we measure the errors due to amplitude decay and period elongation. From the point of view of amplitude decay Figure 1 shows that the HouboIt and Wilson methods produce large damping of the waves and therefore they cannot be used in realistic
Table V. Performance summary for the simulation Time integration scheme Linear solver Time step Number of time steps Number of elements Number of nodes Number of equations CPU time Elapsed time Minimum number of iterations Maximum number of iterations CAA DSDCG 0.002" 800 1 12000 112681 222642 298' 48" 512' 00" 6 83

Figure 2. Geological structure

400

800

1.200

1.800 2 . 0 0 0 2 . 4 0 0 2 . 8 0 0 3 . 2 0 0

0.00

. 0.00

0.10

. 0.10

0.20

'

0.20

0.30

0.50

0.40

0.40

0.60

0.60

0.00

0.60

0.70

0.70

SEISMOGRAMS V-COMPONENT
Figure 3. Common shot gather

FEM FOR ELASTIC WAVE PROPAGATION

367

applications. ICD difference shows a satisfactory behaviour, but having a low Ato leads to poor efficiency since other methods produce the same errors with much larger A?. CAA and ECD exhibit very small amplitude variations. Similar behaviour is observed when considering period elongation. However, in this case, the CAA method results in period elongation for time steps slightly over the critical value of ECD ( A t 0.008 s) since the spectrum deteriorates for larger A ? and therefore with the implicit methods analysed in this work it is not possible to use a time step much larger than those used with explicit methods. As an example of the application of the method, we have modelled the geological structure shown in Figure 2. It consists of a flat layer and a dipping layer below. Beneath this nonconformity there is an anticlinal layer containing a simulated hydrocarbon reservoir at the top. The model width is 3200 m and depth extends to 2240 m. The performance summary for the simulation is described in Table V, and Figure 3 shows a shot gather obtained by running the model.

CONCLUSIONS From the results of our numerical experiments it is concluded that: (a) For time integration, central difference with lumped mass and lumped damping (ECD) is very cost-effective in terms of speed and storage but its accuracy is not always sufficient. Therefore it is adequate to understand the physical phenomena qualitatively and to study arrival times. (b) CAA is more accurate and therefore it is adequate to understand the physical phenomena quantitatively and to study arrival times and amplitude effects. (c) For the solution of the resulting linear systems, iterative methods are best because of their lower storage requirements and lower computational cost for large problems. Among iterative methods JCG performs best. (d) For storage representation schemes, row-wise is the most economical for scalar computers. However, for vector computers it does not vectorize and therefore other representation schemes are needed. The compressed diagonal representation results in the most efficient vectorized schemes but it can only be used in the case of regular grids which generate matrices whose elements are distributed in a few diagonals. The compressed matrix scheme is slightly less efficient but can also be used with irregular grids.
REFERENCES
1 . K . R. Kelly, R. W. Ward, S. Treitel and R. M. Alford, Synthetic seismograms: a finite-difference approach, Geophysics, 41, 2-27 1976. 2. R. M. Alford, K. R. Kelly and D. M. Boore, Accuracy of finite difference modeling of the acoustic wave equation, Geophysics, 39, 834-842 1974. 3. J . Lysmer, and L. A . Drake, A finite element method for seismology, in B. A . Bolt (ed.), Methods in Computational Physics, Academic Press, New York, 1972, Vol. 1 1 , pp. 181-216. 4. F. J . Seron and J . Badal, A weak variational formulation for the propagation of love waves, Znt. j . numer. methods eng., 23, 1601-1613 (1986). 5. D. D. Kosloff and E. Baysal, Forward modeling by a Fourier method, Geophysics, 47, 1402-1412 (1982). 6. B. Fornberg, The pseudospectral method: comparisons with finite difference for the elastic wave equation, Geophysics, 52, 483-501 (1987). 7. M . Kindelan, G . Seriani and P . Sguazzero, Pseudo-spectral elastic modeling and its application to amplitude versus angle interpretation, Geophysical Prospecting, 1988. 8. 0. C. Zienkiewicz. The Finite EIement Method, McGraw-Hill, London, 1977.

368

F. J . SERdN ET A L .

9. T. J. R. Hughes, The Finite Element Method, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1987. 10. Y. K. Chow, Accuracy of consistent and lumped viscous damper in wave propagation problems, Int. j . mmer. methods eng., 21, 723-732 (1985). 1 1 . J. Sochacki, R. Kubichek, J. George, W. R. Fletcher and S. Smithson, Absorbing boundary conditions and surface waves, Geophysics, 52, 60-71 (1987). 12. N. M. Newmark, A method of computation for structural dynamics, Am. SOC.Civil Eng. Mech. Div., 85, 67-94 (1959). 13. M. Geradin, A classification and discussion of integration operators for transient structural response, Paper presented at AIAA 12th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Washington, D.C., Jan/Feb 1974, pp, 74-105. 14. J. C. Houbolt, A recurrence matrix solution for the dynamic response of elastic aircraft, J. Aer. Sci., 17, 540-550 (1950). 15. E. L. Wilson, I. Farhoomand and K. J. Bathe, Nonlinear dynamic analysis of complex structures, Earthq. eng. struct. dyn., 1, 241-252 (1973). 16. H. M. Hilber and T. J . R. Hughes, Collocation, dissipation and overshoot for time integration schemes in structural dynamics, Earthq. eng. struct. dyn., 6, 99-1 18 (1978). 17. K. J. Bathe and E. L. Wilson, Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976. 18. A. Bamberger, G. Chavent and P. Lailly, Etude de schemas numeriques pour Ies equations de Ielastodynamique lineaire, INRIA, Rapports de Recherche, 41 (1980). 19. K. J. Marfurt, Accuracy of finite-difference and finite-element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations, Geophysics, 49, 533-549 (1984). 20. T. Belytschko and R. Mullen, On dispersive properties of finite element solutions, in J. Miklowitz et al. (eds.), Modern Problems in Elastic Wave Propagation, Wiley, 1978. 21. R. Mullen and T. Belytschko, Dispersion analysis of finite element semidiscretizations of the twodimensional wave equation, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 18, 11-29 (1982). 22. M. J. P. Cullen, The use of quadratic finite element methods and irregular grids in the solution of hyperbolic problems, J. Comput. Phys., 45, 221-245 (1982). 23. I. Fried, Irregular finite element meshes in elastodynamics, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 16, 626-628 (1980). 24. I. S. Duff, A. M. Erisman and J. K. Reid, Direct Methods f o r Sparse Matrices, Oxford University Press (Clarendon), Oxford, 1986. 25. Z. Zlatev, On some pivotal strategies in Gaussian elimination by sparse technique, Siam J. Nurner Anal., 17 (l), 18-30 (1980). 26. L. Hageman and D. M. Young, Applied Iterative Methods, Academic Press, New York, 1981. 27. S. G. Tucker, The IBM 3090 system: an overview, IBM Syst. J . , 25 (I), 4-19 (1986). 28. ESSL, Engineering and scientific subroutine library, Guide and reference, Order no. SC23-0184-2, available through IBM branch offices. 29. D. Kincaid, J. Respess, D. Young and R. Grimes, Algorithm 586 ITPACK-2C: A Fortran package for solving large sparse linear systems by adaptive accelerated iterative methods, ACM Trans. Math. Soft., 8 , 302-322 (1982). 30. VS FORTRAN, Version 2, General Description, Order no. GC26-4219, available through IBM branch offices. 31. G. Radicati, and M. Vitaletti, Sparse matrix-vector product and storage representations on the IBM 3090 with vector facility, IBM Research Report G513-4098, IBM ECSEC, Rome, 1986. 32. D. R. Kincaid, T. C. Oppe, J. R. Respers and D. M. Young, ITPACKV-2C users guide, CNA-191, Center Numerical Analysis, Univ. Texas, Austin, Texas, 1984. 33. M. Kindelan, P. Sguazzero and A. Kamel, Elastic modeling with Fourier methods on the I3M 3090 vector multiprocessor, In R. Benzi and P. Sguazzero (eds.) Scientific Computing on IBM Vector Multiprocessors, IBM European Center for Scientific and Engineering Computing, Rome, 635-674, 1987. 34. A. Kamel, M. Kindelan and P. Sguazzero, Seismic computations on the IBM 3090 vector multiprocessor, IBM Syst J . , 1988.