Mathematical Modelling

  • Kalyan Kumar RoyEmail author
Part of the Springer Geophysics book series (SPRINGERGEOPHYS)


In this chapter, a few topics on mathematical modelling used as a forward model for inversion of geoelectrical data are presented. Brief coverage is restricted mostly to 2D and 3D problems. The topics covered are (i) the finite element method, (ii) the finite difference method, (iii) the integral equation method, (iv) thin sheet modelling and (v) hybrids. In the finite element method, the mathematical formulations are presented for (i) the energy minimization method using the concept of virtual work and variational calculus and (ii) Galerkin’s method, as well as brief mention of Galerkin’s weights using isoparametric elements and natural coordinates. In the finite difference method, Fomenko and Mogi’s 3D problem in staggered grid, as well as for plane-wave electromagnetics (magnetotellurics) is discussed. In the integral equation method, the mathematical formulations using scalar and tensor Green’s functions are discussed briefly. Ting and Hohmann’s 3D problem is presented as an example. Thin sheet modelling generally deals with modelling a very large portion of the Earth. In thin sheet modelling, Ranganayaki and Madden’s Model is presented as an example. Regarding hybrids, the Lee, Pridmore and Morrison’s model is presented.


Mathematical modelling Geophysical data interpretation 


  1. Alumbaugh, D.L., G.A. Newmann, L. Prevost, and J. Shadid. 1996. Three dimensional wide-band electromagnetic modelling on massively parallel computer. Radio Science 31: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bathe, K.J. 1977. Finite element procedures. New delhi: Prentice Hall of India Limited.Google Scholar
  3. Beasley, C.W., and S.H. Ward. 1986. Three dimensional miss-a-la-masse modeling applied to modelling fracture zones. Geophysics 51 (1): 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Best, M.E., P. Duncan, F.J. Jacobs, and W.L. Scheen. 1985. Numerical modeling of the electromagnetic response of three dimensional conductors in a layered earth. Geophysics 50: 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewitt-Taylor, C.R., and J.T. Weaver. 1976. On the finite difference solution of two-dimensional induction problems. Geophysical Journal Royal Astronomical Society 47: 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coggon, J.H. 1971. Electromagnetic and electrical modeling by the finite element method. Geophysics 36: 132–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Das, U.C. and S.K. Verma. 1981. Numerical considerations on computing the EM response of three dimensional inhomogeneities in a layered earth. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 66: 733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawson, T.W., and J.T. Weaver. 1979. Three dimensional induction in a non-uniform thin sheet at the surface of a uniformly conducting Earth. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 59: 445–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dey, A. and S.H. Ward. 1970. Inductive sounding of a layered earth: With a horizontal magnetic dipole. Geophysics 35: 660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dey, A., and H.F. Morrison. 1979. Resistivity modelling for arbitrarily shaped two-dimensional structures. Geophysical Prospecting 27: 106–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eloranta, E.H. 1984. A method for calculating mise-a-la-masse anomalies in the case of high conductivity contrast by the integral equation technique. Geoexploration 22: 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eloranta, E.H. 1986. The behaviour of mise-a-la-masse anomalies near a vertical contact. Geoexploration 24: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eloranta, E.H. 1988. The Modelling of mise-a-la-masse anomalies in an anisotropic half space by the integral equation method. Geoexploration 25: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eskola, L. 1992. geophysical interpretation using integral equations. London, New York, Tokyo: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fomenko, E.Y. 1999. MT and Controlled source modeling algorithms for 3D media with topography and large resistivity contrast. In The second international symposium on three dimensional electromagnetics (3DEM-2), Salt Lake City, Utah, Extended abstracts edited by P. Wannamaker and M.S. Zdhanov, 21–24.Google Scholar
  16. Fomenko, E.Y., and T. Mogi. 2002. A new computation method for a staggered grid of 3D EM field conservative modeling. Earth, Planet, Space 54: 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green, V.R., and J.T. Weaver. 1978. Two dimensional induction in a thin sheet of variable integrated conductivity at the surface of a uniformly conducting Earth. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 55: 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gupta, P.K. 1997. 2D/3D EM Technique, in Natural Source Electromagnetic Induction in the Earth, eds. B.R. Arora and Sriniwas, 158–181.Google Scholar
  19. Gupta, P.K., L.A. Bennett, and A.P. Raiche. 1987. Hybrid calculations of the three dimensional electromagnetic response of a buried conductor. Geophysics 52 (3): 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanneson, J.E., and G.F. West. 1984. The horizontal loop electromagnetic response of a thin plate in a conductive earth: Part-I computational method. Geophysics 49 (4): 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrington, R.F. 1968. Field computations by moment methods. New York: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  22. Hohmann, G.W. 1971. Electromagnetic scattering by conductors in the Earth near a line source of current. Geophysics 36 (1): 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hohmann, G.W. 1975. Three-dimensional induced polarization and electromagnetic modeling. Geophysics 40: 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hohmann, G.W. 1983. Three-dimensional EM modeling. Geophysical Survey 6: 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hohmann, G.W. 1988. Numerical modeling for electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics, vol. 1, Theory ed. M.N. Nabhighian. SEG Publication.Google Scholar
  26. Jepson, A.F. 1969. Resistivity and induced polarisation modeling. phD thesis (unpublished), University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  27. John, F.W., and A.T. Price. 1970. The geomagnetic effects of two dimensional conductivity inhomogeneities at different depths, Geophys. Journal Royal Astronomical Society 22: 333–345.Google Scholar
  28. Jones, A.G. 1983. The problem of “current channeling”: a critical review. Geophysical Surveys 6: 79–122.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, F.W., and L.J. Pascoe. 1971a. The perturbations of alternating geomagnetic fields by three dimensional conductivity inhomogeneities. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 27: 479–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, F.W., and L.J. Pascoe. 1971b. A general computer program to determine the perturbation of alternating electric currents in a two-dimensional model of a region of uniform conductivity with an embedded inhomogeneity. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 24: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaikkonen, P. 1977a. A finite element program package for electromagnetic modeling. The Journal of Geophysical 43: 179–192.Google Scholar
  32. Kaikkonen, P. 1977b. A finite element programme package for electromagnetic modelling. Journal of Geophysical 43: 193–213.Google Scholar
  33. Kaikkonen, P. 1986. Numerical electromagnetic modelling studies of characteristic dimensions, a review. Surveys In Geophysics 8: 301–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kardestuncer, H. 1987. Finite element handbook. McGraw Hill Company.Google Scholar
  35. Kisak, E., and P. Silvester. 1975. A finite element programme package for magnetotelluric modelling. Computer Physics Communications 10: 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krishnamoorthy, C.S. 1991. Finite element analysis, theory and programming. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company, Limited, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  37. Lajoie, J.J., and G.F. West. 1976. The electromagnetic response of a conductive inhomogeneity in a layered earth. Geophysics 41: 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, K.H., D.F. Pridmore, and H.F. Morrison. 1981. A hybrid three-dimensional electromagnetic modeling scheme. Geophysics 46: 796–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mackie, R.L., T.R. Madden, and P.E. Wannamaker. 1993. Three dimensional magnetotelluric modeling using difference equations-theory and comparisons to integral equation solutions. Geophysics 58: 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maddan, T.R., and R.L. Machie. 1989. Three dimensional magnetotelluric modelling and inversion. Proceedings of the IEEE 77 (2): 318–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mogi, T. 1996. Three-dimensional modeling of magnetotelluric data using finite element method. Journal of Geophysics 35: 185–189.Google Scholar
  42. Morse, P.M., and H. Feschback. 1953. Methods of theoretical physics, Mise-a-la-Masse, vol. 1 and 2. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  43. Mufti, I.R. 1976. Finite difference resistivity modelling for arbitrarily shaped two dimensional structures. Geophysics 41 (1): 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mufti, I.R. 1978. A practical approach to finite difference resistivity modelling. Geophysics 43 (5): 930–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mufti, I.R. 1980. Finite difference evaluation of apparent resistivity curves. Geophysical Prospecting 28: 146–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mukhopadhyay, M. 1989. Matrix, finite element computer and structural analysis. Oxford and IBH Publishing Company Private Limited.Google Scholar
  47. Neves, A.S. 1957. The magnetotelluric method in two-dimensional structures. PhD thesis, Department of Geology and Geophysics, M.I.T., 186 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Newman, G.A., G.W. Hohmann, and W.L. Anderson. 1986. Transient electromagnetic response of a three dimensional body in a layered earth. Geophysics 51 (8): 1608–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newman, G.A., W.L. Anderson, and G.W. Hohmann. 1987. Interpretation of transient electromagnetic soundings over three dimensional structures for central loop configuration. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 89: 889–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oristaglio, M.L., and G.W. Hohmann. 1984. Diffusion of electromagnetic field into a two dimensional earth. Geophysics 49 (7): 870–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Price, A.T. 1949. The induction of electric currents in the non-uniform thin sheets and shells. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics 2: 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pridmore, D.F., G.W. Hohmann, S.H. Ward, and W.R. Sill. 1981. An investigation of finite element modeling for electrical and electromagnetic data in three dimensions. Geophysics 46: 1009–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Queralt, P., J. Pous, and A. Marcuell. 1991. 2-D resistivity modelling: An approach to arrays parallel to the strike direction. Geophysics 56 (7): 941–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raiche, A.P. 1974. An integral equation approach in three dimensional modelling. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 36: 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ranganayaki, R.P., and T.R. Madden. 1980. Generalized thin sheet analysis in magnetotellurics: An extension of Price’s analysis. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 60: 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reddy, J.N. 1986. Applied functional analysis and variational methods in engineering. New York: McGraw Hill International Edition.Google Scholar
  57. Reddy, J.N. 1993. Finite element method, 2nd ed. New Delhi: McGraw Hill International Edition.Google Scholar
  58. Reddy, I.K., D. Rankin and R.J. Phillips. 1977. Three dimensional modeling in magnetotelluric and magnetic variational sounding. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 51: 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rodi, W.L. 1976. A technique for improving the accuracy of finite element solutions for magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Journal Royal Astronomical Society 44: 483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roy, K.K. 2007. Potential theory in applied geophysics. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. SanFilipo, W.A., and G.W. Hohmann. 1985. Integral equation solution for the transient electromagnetic response of a three dimensional body in a conductive half-space. Geophysics 50 (5): 798–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmucker, U. 1970. Anomalies of geomagnetic variations in the South Western United States, Bull Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, LaJolla, 165 pages.Google Scholar
  63. Silvester, P., and R.S. Haslam. 1972. Magnetotelluric modelling by the finite element method. Geophysical Prospecting 20: 872–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, J.T. 1996. Conservative modeling of 3D electromagnetic fields. Geophysics 61: 1308–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spichak, V.V. 1985. Differential boundary conditions for the electric and magnetic fields in the infinite conductive media. In Electromagnetic sounding of the earth. Moscow: IZMIRAN, 13–21.Google Scholar
  66. Stodt, J.A., G.W. Hohmann, and C. San Ting. 1981. The telluric-magnetotelluric method in two and three dimensional environments. Geophysics 46 (8): 1137–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stoyer, C.H., and R.J. Greenfield. 1976. Numerical solutions of the Response of a two dimensional earth to an oscillating magnetic dipole source. Geophysics 41 (2): 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stratton, J.A. 1941. Electromagnetic field theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  69. Taflov, A., and K. Umashankar. 1982. A hybrid moment method/A finite difference time domain approach in electromagnetic coupling and aperture penetration into complex geometries. IEEE, Transactions AP 30: 4, 617–627.Google Scholar
  70. Tai, C.T. 1971. Dyadic green’s function in electromagnetic theory. San Francisco, Toronto, London: Intext Educational Publishers.Google Scholar
  71. Tarlowski, C.Z., A.P. Raichi, and M. Nabighian. 1984. The use of summary representation of electromagnetic modelling. Geophysics 49 (9): 1506–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ting, S.C., and G.W. Hohmann. 1981. Integral equation modeling of three dimensional magnetotelluric response. Geophysics 46: 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Umashankar, K.R., and A. Taflove. 1982. A novel method to analyse electromagnetic scattering of complex objects. IEEE Transactions EM Compatibility, EMC 24: 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van Bladel, J. 1968. Electromagnetic fields. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  75. Varentsov, I.M. 1999. The selection of effective finite difference solver in 3D electromagnetic modelling. In The Second International Electromagnetics (3DEM-2). Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Extended abstracts edited by P. Wannamaker and M.S. Zhdanov, 201–204.Google Scholar
  76. Vasseur, G., and P. Weidelt. 1977. Bimodal electromagnetic induction in non-uniform thin sheets with an application to the Northern Pyrenean induction anomaly. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 51: 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wait, J.R. 1962. Electromagnetic waves in stratified media. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  78. Wannamaker, P.E. 1991. Advances in three dimensional magneto-telluric modeling using integral equations. Geophysics 56 (11): 1716–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wannamaker, P.E., G.E. Hohmann, and S.H. Ward. 1984a. Magneto-telluric response of three dimensional bodies in layered earth. Geophysics 49 (9): 1517–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wannamaker, P.E., G.W. Hohmann, and W.A. SanFilipo. 1984b. Electromagnetic modeling of three-dimensional bodies in layered earths using integral equations. Geophysics 49: 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wannamaker, P.E., G.W. Hohmann, and W.A. Sanfilipo. 1984c. Electromagnetic modeling of three dimensional bodies in layered earth using integral equations. Geophysics 49 (1): 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wannamaker, P.E., J.A. Stodt, and L. Rijo. 1987. A stable finite element solution for two dimensional magnetotelluric modelling. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 88: 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weaver, J.T. Numerical modelling in electromegnetic induction. Preprint Wannamaker, P.E. 1991. Advances in three dimensional magnetotelluric modeling using integral equations. Geophysics 56: 1716–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weidelt, P. 1975. Electromagnetic induction in three dimensional structures. Journal of Geophysics 41: 85–109.Google Scholar
  85. Weidelt, P. 1999. Three dimensional conductivity model: Implications of electric anisotropy in three dimensional electromagnetics, ed. Oristagnio, M., and Spies, B., SEG 119–137.Google Scholar
  86. Xiong, Z., A. Raiche, and F. Sugeng. 1999. Efficient solution of full domain 3D electromagnetic modelling problems. In Second international symposium on Three Dimensional Electromagnetics (3DEM-2). Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Extended abstracts Edited by P. Wannamaker and M.S. Zhdanov, 3–7.Google Scholar
  87. Xu, S.Z., and S.K. Zhao. 1987. Two dimensional magnetotelluric modelling by the boundary element method. Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity 39: 677–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Xu, S.Z., and H. Zho. 1997. Modelling the 2D terrain effect on MT by boundary element method. Geophysical Prospecting 45: 931–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Xu, S., S. Zhou, and Y. Ni. 1998. A boundary element method of 2-D DC resistivity modelling with a point current source. Geophysics 63 (2): 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yavich, N., and M.S. Zhdanov. 2016. Contraction precondition in finite difference electromagnetic modeling. Geophysical Journal International 3(10).Google Scholar
  91. Yee, K.S. 1966. Numerical solutions of initial boundary value problems, involving maxwell’s equation in isotropic media. IEEE, Trans, Antenna, Propagation, AP 14, 302–309.Google Scholar
  92. Yegorov, L.V., E.L. Cheroyak, N.A. Paulsin, T.A. Demidova, and P. Kaikkonen. 1983a. Numerical thin sheet Modelling of the telluric field distortion by the hybrid technique I, theory and an example for the Baltic shield. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 33: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Yegorov, L.V., E.L. Cheroyak, N.A. Paulsin, T.A. Demidova, and P. Kaikkonen. 1983b. Numerical thin sheet modelling of the telluric field distortion by the hybrid technique I. Theoretical background, an example, computer program, a test run and the computer listing is S.E. Hjelt and L.L. Vanyan (eds.). Development of deep geoelectrical models of the Baltic shield part I, numerical methods, Department of Geophysics, University of Oulu, Report No. 7, 39–78.Google Scholar
  94. Yonn, D., M.S. Zhdanov, J. Mattson, H. Cai, and A. Gribenko. 2016. A hybrid finite difference and integral equation method for modeling and inversion of marine controlled source electromagnetic data. Geophysics 81 (5): E323–E336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zhdanov, M.S., and G.V. Keller. 1994. Geoelectrical methods in geophysical exoloration. Elsevier: Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  96. Zhdanov, M.S., N.G. Golubev, V.V. Spichak, and I.M. Varentsov. 1982. The construction of effective methods for electromagnetic modelling. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 68: 589–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zienkiewicz, O.C. 1977. Finite element method. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  98. Zienkiewicz, O.C., and R.L. Taylor. 1989. The Finite Element Method, 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  99. Zyserman, F.I., and J.E. Santos. 2000. Parallel finite element algorithm with domain decomposition for three-dimensional magnetotelluric modeling. Journal of Applied Geophysics 44: 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesIndian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology (IIEST)HowrahIndia

Personalised recommendations