Advertisement

The Forward and Adjoint Methods of Global Electromagnetic Induction for CHAMP Magnetic Data

  • Zdeněk Martinec
Reference work entry

Abstract

Detailed mathematical derivations of the forward and adjoint sensitivity methods are presented for computing the electromagnetic induction response of a 2-D heterogeneous conducting sphere to a transient external-electric current excitation. The forward method is appropriate for determining the induced spatiotemporal electromagnetic signature at satellite altitudes associated with the upper and mid-mantle conductivity heterogeneities, while the adjoint method provides an efficient tool for computing the sensitivity of satellite magnetic data to the conductivity structure of the Earth’s interior. The forward and adjoint initial boundary-value problems, both solved in the time domain, are identical, except for the specification of the prescribed boundary conditions. The respective boundary-value data at the satellite’s altitude are the X magnetic component measured by the CHAMP vector magnetometer along the satellite track for the forward method and the difference between the measured and predicted Z magnetic component for the adjoint method. Both methods are alternatively formulated for the case when the time-dependent, spherical harmonic Gauss coefficients of the magnetic field generated by external equatorial ring currents in the magnetosphere and the magnetic field generated by the induced eddy currents in the Earth, respectively, are specified. Before applying these methods, the CHAMP vector magnetic data are modeled by a two-step, track-by-track spherical harmonic analysis. As a result, the X and Z components of CHAMP magnetic data are represented in terms of series of Legendre polynomial derivatives. Four examples of the two-step analysis of the signals recorded by the CHAMP vector magnetometer are presented. The track-by-track analysis is applied to the CHAMP data recorded in the year 2001, yielding a 1-year time series of spherical harmonic coefficients. The output of the forward modeling of electromagnetic induction, that is, the predicted Z component at satellite altitude, can then be compared with the satellite observations. The squares of the differences between the measured and predicted Z component summed up over all CHAMP tracks determine the misfit. The sensitivity of the CHAMP data, that is, the partial derivatives of the misfit with respect to mantle conductivity parameters, is then obtained by the scalar product of the forward and adjoint solutions, multiplied by the gradient of the conductivity, and integrated over all CHAMP tracks. Such exactly determined sensitivities are checked against the numerical differentiation of the misfit, and a good agreement is obtained. The attractiveness of the adjoint method lies in the fact that the adjoint sensitivities are calculated for the price of only an additional forward calculation, regardless of the number of conductivity parameters. However, since the adjoint solution proceeds backwards in time, the forward solution must be stored at each time step, leading to memory requirements that are linear with respect to the number of steps undertaken. Having determined the sensitivities, the conjugate gradient inversion is run to infer 1-D and 2-D conductivity structures of the Earth based on the CHAMP residual time series (after the subtraction of the static field and secular variations as described by the CHAOS model) for the year 2001. It is shown that this time series is capable of resolving both 1-D and 2-D structures in the upper mantle and the upper part of the lower mantle, while it is not sufficiently long to reliably resolve the conductivity structure in the lower part of the lower mantle.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Kevin Fleming for his comments on the manuscript. The author acknowledges support from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic through Grant No. 205/09/0546.

References

  1. Avdeev DB, Avdeeva AD (2006) A rigorous three-dimensional magnetotelluric inversion. PIER 62:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks R (1969) Geomagnetic variations and the electrical conductivity of the upper mantle. Geophys J R Astron Soc 17:457–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks RJ, Ainsworth JN (1992) Global induction and the spatial structure of mid-latitude geomagnetic variations. Geophys J Int 110:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevington PR (1969) Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cacuci DG (2003) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Volume I. Theory. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Constable S, Constable C (2004) Observing geomagnetic induction in magnetic satellite measurements and associated implications for mantle conductivity. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 5:Q01006. doi:10.1029/2003GC000634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daglis IA, Thorne RM, Baumjohann W, Orsini S (1999) The terrestrial ring current: origin, formation and decay. Rev Geophys 37:407–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Didwall EM (1984) The electrical conductivity of the upper mantle as estimated from satellite magnetic field data. J Geophys Res 89:537–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorn O, Bertete-Aquirre H, Berryman JG, Papanicolaou GC (1999) A nonlinear inversion method for 3-D electromagnetic imaging using adjoint fields. Inverse Probl 15:1523–1558CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckhardt D, Lamer K, Madden T (1963) Long periodic magnetic fluctuations and mantle conductivity estimates. J Geophys Res 68:6279–6286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Everett ME, Martinec Z (2003) Spatiotemporal response of a conducting sphere under simulated geomagnetic storm conditions. Phys Earth Planet Inter 138:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Everett ME, Schultz A (1996) Geomagnetic induction in a heterogeneous sphere: azimuthally symmetric test computations and the response of an undulating 660-km discontinuity. J Geophys Res 101:2765–2783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fainberg EB, Kuvshinov AV, Singer BSh (1990) Electromagnetic induction in a spherical Earth with non-uniform oceans and continents in electric contact with the underlying medium – I. Theory, method and example. Geophys J Int 102:273–281CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Farquharson CG, Oldenburg DW (1996) Approximate sensitivities for the electromagnetic inverse problem. Geophys J Int 126:235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamano Y (2002) A new time-domain approach for the electromagnetic induction problem in a three-dimensional heterogeneous earth. Geophys J Int 150:753–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hultqvist B (1973) Perturbations of the geomagnetic field. In: Egeland A, Holter O, Omholt A (eds) Cosmical geophysics. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp 193–201Google Scholar
  17. Jupp DLB, Vozoff K (1977) Two-dimensional magnetotelluric inversion. Geophys J R Astron Soc 50:333–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelbert A, Egbert GD, Schultz A (2008) Non-linear conjugate gradient inversion for global EM induction: resolution studies. Geophys J Int 173:365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kivelson MG, Russell CT (1995) Introduction to space physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Korte M, Constable S, Constable C (2003) Separation of external magnetic signal for induction studies. In: Reigber Ch, Lühr H, Schwintzer P (eds) First CHAMP mission results for gravity, magnetic and atmospheric studies. Springer, Berlin, pp 315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Křížek M, Neittaanmäki P (1990) Finite element approximation of variational problems and applications. Longmann Scientific and Technical/Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuvshinov AV (2010) Deep electromagnetic studies from land, sea, and space: progress status in the past 10 years. Surv Geophs 33:169–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuvshinov A, Olsen N (2006) A global model of mantle conductivity derived from 5 years of CHAMP, Ørsted, and SAC-C magnetic data. Geophys Res Lett 33:L18301. doi:10.1029/2006GL027083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuvshinov AV, Avdeev DB, Pankratov OV (1999a) Global induction by Sq and Dst sources in the presence of oceans: bimodal solutions for non-uniform spherical surface shells above radially symmetric earth models in comparison to observations. Geophys J Int 137:630–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuvshinov AV, Avdeev DB, Pankratov OV, Golyshev SA (1999b) Modelling electromagnetic fields in 3-D spherical earth using fast integral equation approach. In: Expanded abstract of the 2nd international symposium on 3-D electromagnetics, pp 84–88. The university of UtahGoogle Scholar
  26. Lanczos C (1961) Linear differential operators. Van Nostrand, PrincetonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Langel RA, Estes RH (1985a) Large-scale, near-field magnetic fields from external sources and the corresponding induced internal field. J Geophys Res 90:2487–2494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Langel RA, Estes RH (1985b) The near-Earth magnetic field at 1980 determined from Magsat data. J Geophys Res 90:2495–2510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langel RA, Sabaka TJ, Baldwin RT, Conrad JA (1996) The near-Earth magnetic field from magneto spheric and quiet-day ionospheric sources and how it is modeled. Phys Earth Planet Inter 98:235–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madden TM, Mackie RL (1989) Three-dimensional magnetotelluric modelling and inversion. Proc Inst Electron Electric Eng 77:318–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marchuk GI (1995) Adjoint equations and analysis of complex systems. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Martinec Z (1989) Program to calculate the spectral harmonic expansion coefficients of the two scalar fields product. Comput Phys Commun 54:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinec Z (1997) Spectral-finite element approach to two-dimensional electromagnetic induction in a spherical earth. Geophys J Int 130:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martinec Z (1999) Spectral-finite element approach to three-dimensional electromagnetic induction in a spherical earth. Geophys J Int 136:229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martinec Z, McCreadie H (2004) Electromagnetic induction modelling based on satellite magnetic vector data. Geophys J Int 157:1045–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martinec Z, Velímský J (2009) The adjoint sensitivity method of global electromagnetic induction for CHAMP magnetic data. Geophys J Int 179:1372–1396. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04356.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martinec Z, Everett ME, Velímský J (2003) Time-domain, spectral-finite element approach to transient two-dimensional geomagnetic induction in a spherical heterogeneous earth. Geophys J Int 155:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGillivray PR, Oldenburg DW (1990) Methods for calculating Fréchet derivatives and sensitivities for the non-linear inverse problems: a comparative study. Geophys Prospect 38:499–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGillivray PR, Oldenburg DW, Ellis RG, Habashy TM (1994) Calculation of sensitivities for the frequency-domain electromagnetic problem. Geophys J Int 116:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morse PW, Feshbach H (1953) Methods of theoretical physics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Newman GA, Alumbaugh DL (1997) Three-dimensional massively parallel electromagnetic inversion – I. Theory Geophys J Int 128:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newman GA, Alumbaugh DL (2000) Three-dimensional magnetotelluric inversion using non-linear conjugate on induction effects of geomagnetic daily variations from equatorial gradients. Geophys J Int 140:410–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oldenburg DW (1990) Inversion of electromagnetic data: an overview of new techniques. Surv Geophys 11:231–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olsen N (1999) Induction studies with satellite data. Surv Geophys 20:309–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olsen N, Stolle C (2012) Satellite Geomagnetism. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 40:441–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olsen N, Sabaka TJ, Lowes F (2005) New parameterization of external and induced fields in geomagnetic field modeling, and a candidate model for IGRF 2005. Earth Planets Space 57:1141–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olsen N, Lühr H, Sabaka TJ, Mandea M, Rother M, Toffiner-Clausen L, Choi S (2006a) CHAOS – a model of the Earth’s magnetic field derived from CHAMP, Øersted & SAC-C magnetic satellite data. Geophys J Int 166:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olsen N, Haagmans R, Sabaka T, Kuvshinov A, Maus S, Purucker M, Rother M, Lesur V, Mandea M (2006b) The swarm end-to-end mission simulator study: separation of the various contributions to earths magnetic field using synthetic data. Earth Planets Space 58:359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oraevsky VN, Rotanova NM, Semenov VYu, Bondar TN, Abramova DYu (1993) Magnetovariational sounding of the Earth using observatory and MAGSAT satellite data. Phys Earth Planet Inter 78:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Orszag SA (1970) Transform method for the calculation of vector-coupled sums: application to the spectral form of the vorticity equation. J Atmos Sci 27:890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pěč K, Martinec Z (1986) Spectral theory of electromagnetic induction in a radially and laterally inhomogeneous Earth. Studia Geoph et Geod 30:345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Petzold L, Li ST, Cao Y, Serban R (2006) Sensitivity analysis of differential-algebraic equations and partial differential equations. Comput Chem Eng 30:1553–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Praus OJ, Pěčová J, Červ V, Kovačíková S, Pek J, Velímský J (2011) Electrical conductivity at mid-mantle depths estimated from the data of Sq and long period geomagnetic variations. Studia Geoph Geod 55:241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1992) Numerical recipes in Fortran. The art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodi WL (1976) A technique for improving the accuracy of finite element solutions of MT data. Geophys J R Astron Soc 44:483–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodi WL, Mackie RL (2001) Nonlinear conjugate gradients algorithm for 2-D magnetotel-luric inversion. Geophysics 66:174–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sandu A, Daescu DN, Carmichael GR (2003) Direct and adjoint sensitivity analysis of chemical kinetic systems with KPP: I-theory and software tools. Atmos Environ 37:5083–5096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sandu A, Daescu DN, Carmichael GR, Chai T (2005) Adjoint sensitivity analysis of regional air quality models. J Comput Phys 204:222–252CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Schultz A, Larsen JC (1987) On the electrical conductivity of the mid-mantle, I, Calculation of equivalent scalar magnetotelluric response functions. Geophys J R Astron Soc 88:733–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schultz A, Larsen JC (1990) On the electrical conductivity of the mid-mantle, II. Delineation of heterogeneity by application of extremal inverse solutions. Geophys J Int 101:565–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stratton JA (1941) Electromagnetic theory. Wiley, New Jersey (reissued in 2007)Google Scholar
  62. Tarantola A (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. Tarits P, Grammatica N (2000) Electromagnetic induction effects by the solar quiet magnetic field at satellite altitude. Geophys Res Lett 27:4009–4012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Uyeshima M, Schultz A (2000) Geoelectromagnetic induction in a heterogeneous sphere: a new three-dimensional forward solver using a conservative staggered-grid finite difference method. Geophys J Int 140:636–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Varshalovich DA, Moskalev AN, Khersonskii VK (1989) Quantum theory of angular momentum World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  66. Velímský J (2010) Electrical conductivity in the lower mantle: constraints from CHAMP satellite data by time-domain EM induction modelling. Phys Earth Planet Inter 180:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Velímský J, Martinec Z (2005) Time-domain, spherical harmonic-finite element approach to transient three-dimensional geomagnetic induction in a spherical heterogeneous Earth. Geophys J Int 161:81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Velímský J, Martinec Z, Everett ME (2006) Electrical conductivity in the Earth’s mantle inferred from CHAMP satellite measurements – I. Data processing and 1-D inversion. Geophys J Int 166:529–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weaver JT (1994) Mathematical methods for geo-electromagnetic induction, research studies press. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. Weidelt P (1975) Inversion of two-dimensional conductivity structure. Phys Earth Planet Inter 10:282–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weiss CJ, Everett ME (1998) Geomagnetic induction in a heterogeneous sphere: fully three-dimensional test computations and the response of a realistic distribution of oceans and continents. Geophys J Int 135: 650–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Dublin Institute for Advanced StudiesDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations