Earth, Planets and Space

, Volume 54, Issue 5, pp 499–509 | Cite as

A new computation method for a staggered grid of 3D EM field conservative modeling

Open Access
Article

Abstract

A new three-dimensional (3D) MT modeling scheme conserving electric current and magnetic flux is developed. The scheme is based on finite difference (FD) staggered rectangular non-uniform grid formulation for the secondary electric field with continuous components of tangential electric and normal magnetic fields, in contrast to existing FD algorithms with a discontinuous E-field at the face of the cells. The scheme leads to a sparse 13-band complex symmetrical system of linear equations, which is effectively solved by fast and stable conjugate gradient (CG) methods. The preconditioning procedure was used to decrease the condition of a number of an ill-conditioned matrix system by several orders and stably and quickly solves the matrix system. The special module for the correction of divergence-free current J greatly increased the speed of convergence and accuracy, especially at low frequencies and for high-contrast resistivity or conductivity structures. A special procedure was developed to improve the accuracy of tangential magnetic and vertical electrical components at the Earth’s surface and at the interface with a large conductivity contrast. The validity of the new algorithm was demonstrated for difficult models with high-contrast resistivity structures including topography and for COMMEMI project models.

Keywords

Apparent Resistivity Stagger Grid Polarization Case Irregular Grid Electromagnetic Modeling 

References

  1. Alumbaugh, D. L., G. A. Newmann, L. Prevost, and J. Shadid, Three-dimensional wide-band electromagnetic modeling on massively parallel computers, Radio Sci., 31, 1–23, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avdeev, D. B., A. V. Kuvshinov, O. V. Pankratov, et al., High performance three dimensional electromagnetic modeling using modified Neumann series. Wide-band numerical solution and examples, J. Geomag. Geoelectr., 49, 1519–1539, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan, T. F., E. Gallopoulos, V. Simoncini, et al., A quasi-minimal residual variant of the Bi-CGSTAB algorithm for non-symmetric systems, SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput., 15, 338–347, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fomenko, E. Yu., MT and control source modeling algorithms for 3D media with topography and large resistivity contrasts, in The Second International Symposium on Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics (3DEM-2), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Extended Abstracts, edited by P. Wannamaker and M. Zhdanov, pp. 21–24, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. Harrington, R. F., Time-harmonic electromagnetic fields, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961.Google Scholar
  6. Mackie, R. L., T. R. Madden, and P. E. Wannamaker, Three-dimensional magnetotelluric modeling using finite difference equations—Theory and comparisons to integral equation solutions, Geophysics, 58, 215–226, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Manteuffel, T. A., G. Starke, and R. S. Varga, Adaptive k-step iterative methods for non-symmetric systems of linear equations, Electron. Trans. on Num. Analysis., 3, 50–65, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. Ngoc, P. V., Magnetotelluric survey of the mount Meager region of the Squamish Valley (British Columbia), Geomagnetic Service of Canada, Earth Physics Branch of the Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, OF Rep., 80-8-E, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. Sasaki, Y., Three-Dimensinal Frequency-Domain Electromagnetic Modeling Using the Finite-Difference Method, Buturi-Tansa (Geophysical Exploration), 52, 421–431, 1999 (in Japanese with English abstract and figure captions).Google Scholar
  10. Smith, J. T., Conservative modelling of 3-D electromagnetic fields, Geophysics, 61, 1308–1324, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Spichak, V. V., Differential boundary conditions for the electric and magnetic fields in the infinite conductive media, Electromagnetic Sounding of the Earth, Moscow, IZMIRAN, 13–21, 1985 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  12. Spichak, V. V., Mathematical modeling of EM fields in 3D inhomogeneous media, 191 pp., Moscow, Nauka, 1992 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  13. Steijpen, G. L. G., H. A. Van der Vorst, and D. R. Fokkema, BICGSTAB(1) and other hybrid BiCG methods, Num. Algorithms, 7, 75–109, 1994. aiVan der Vorst, H. A., BI-CGSTAB: a fast and smoothly convergent variant of Bi-CG for the solution of non-symmetric linear systems, SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput., 13, 631–644, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Varentsov, Iv. M., The selection of effective finite difference solvers in 3D electromagnetics modeling, in The Second International Symposium on Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics (3DEM-2), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Extended Abstracts, edited by P. Wannamaker and M. Zhdanov, pp. 201–204, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. Varentsov, Iv. M., E. Yu. Fomenko, N. G. Golubev, S. Mehanee, G. Hursan, and M. Zhdanov, Comparative study of 3-D finite-difference and integral equation methods, Annual Report of the Consortium for Electromagnetic Modeling and Inversion (CEMI), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 401–440, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. Wannamaker, P. E., Advances in modeling three-dimensional magnetotelluric responses using integral equations, Geophysics, 56, 1716–1728, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wannamaker, P. E., J. A. Stodt, and L. Rijo, Two-dimensional topographic responses in magnetotellurics modeled using finite elements, Geophysics, 51, 2131–2144, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weaver, J. T., A. K. Agarwal, and X. H. Pu, Recent developments in three-dimensional finite difference modelling of the magnetic field in geo-electromagnetic induction, in Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics, edited by M. Oristaglio and B. Spies, SEG, pp. 131–141, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Weidelt, P., Three-dimensional conductivity models: implications of electric anisotropy, in Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics, edited by M. Oristaglio and B. Spies, SEG, pp. 119–137, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. Xiong, Z., A. Raiche, and F. Sugeng, Efficient solutions of full domain 3D electromagnetic modelling problems, in The Second International Symposium on Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics (3DEM-2), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Extended Abstracts, edited by P. Wannamaker and M. Zhdanov, pp. 3–7, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. Zhdanov, M. S., N. G. Golubev, V. V. Spichak, and Iv. M. Varentsov, The construction of effective methods for electromagnetic modeling, Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc., 68, 589–607, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhdanov, M. S., Iv. M. Varentsov, J. T. Weaver, N. G. Golubev, and V. A. Krylov, Methods for modeling electromagnetic fields (results from COMMEMI), J. Appl. Geophys., 37, 133–271, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Geomagnetism and Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences (SGEPSS); The Seismological Society of Japan; The Volcanological Society of Japan; The Geodetic Society of Japan; The Japanese Society for Planetary Sciences. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geoelectromagnetic Research Institute RASTroitskRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Seismology and VolcanologyHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations