1887
Volume 72, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Many studies have highlighted the superior performance of iterative solvers employing the auxiliary‐space Maxwell solver preconditioner in controlled‐source electromagnetic induction problems featuring isotropic conductivity. The importance of considering the presence of electrical anisotropy in controlled‐source electromagnetic data has been well recognized. However, considering anisotropic conductivity will impose difficulty in robustly solving the final system of linear equations as the electrical anisotropy may significantly increase its condition number and degrade the performances of iterative solvers. Whether or not iterative solvers using the auxiliary‐space Maxwell solver preconditioner have similar superior performances in the case of arbitrary electrical anisotropy is still an issue to be discussed. In this study, within the framework of finite element simulation employing unstructured tetrahedral meshes, we conduct a comprehensive examination to evaluate the performance of the flexible generalized minimum residual solver with the auxiliary‐space Maxwell solver preconditioner for three‐dimensional controlled‐source electromagnetic forward modelling problems involving arbitrary anisotropic media. Tests on synthetic one‐ and three‐dimensional models show that our iterative scheme performs better than widely used iterative or direct solvers for controlled‐source electromagnetic anisotropy forward problems. Its convergence rate is nearly independent of working frequencies, anisotropy ratio and problem size. Finally, we applied the newly developed parallel iterative scheme to the Bay du Nord reservoir in a complicated real‐life offshore hydrocarbon exploration scenario characterized by anisotropic conductivity, in which our iterative scheme with an auxiliary‐space Maxwell solver preconditioner has good robustness. Furthermore, we investigated how data responses at different frequencies are sensitive to the actual hydrocarbon reservoir. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that data at large measuring offsets are considerably more sensitive to the reservoir than data at shorter measuring offsets. We also assessed the impact of neglecting anisotropy in data analysis for the realistic example and found that ignoring anisotropy can lead to noticeable changes in the data. This suggests that considering anisotropy in the interpretation of the observed data is essential to guarantee the precision of controlled‐source electromagnetic field surveys.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13524
2024-09-15
2026-02-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13524
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amestoy, P. R., Guermouche, A., L'Excellent, J.‐Y. & Pralet, S. (2006) Hybrid scheduling for the parallel solution of linear systems. Parallel Computing, 32, 136–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, R., Andrej, J., Barker, A., Bramwell, J., Camier, J.‐S., Cerveny, J. et al. (2021) MFEM: A modular finite element methods library. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 81, 42–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ansari, S., Farquharson, C. & MacLachlan, S. (2017) A gauged finite‐element potential formulation for accurate inductive and galvanic modelling of 3D electromagnetic problems. Geophysical Journal International, 210, 105–129.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ansari, S. & Farquharson, C. G. (2014) 3D finite‐element forward modeling of electromagnetic data using vector and scalar potentials and unstructured grids. Geophysics, 79, E149–E165.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ansari, S., Schetselaar, E., Craven, J. & Farquharson, C. (2020) Three‐dimensional magnetotelluric numerical simulation of realistic geologic models. Geophysics, 85, E171–E190.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, A. H., Falgout, R. D., Kolev, T. V. & Yang, U. M. (2012) Scaling hypre's multigrid solvers to 100,000 cores. In High‐performance scientific computing. Berlin: Springer, pp. 261–279.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Balay, S., Abhyankar, S., Adams, M. F., Benson, S., Brown, J., Brune, P. et al. (2022) PETSc/TAO users manual. Tech. Rep. ANL‐21/39 ‐ Revision 3.18, Argonne National Laboratory.
  8. Bin Zubair Syed, H., Farquharson, C. & MacLachlan, S. (2020) Block preconditioning techniques for geophysical electromagnetics. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42, B696–B721.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cai, H., Long, Z., Lin, W., Li, J., Lin, P. & Hu, X. (2021) 3D multinary inversion of controlled‐source electromagnetic data based on the finite‐element method with unstructured mesh. Geophysics, 86, E77–E92.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Castillo‐Reyes, O., de la Puente, J. & Cela, J. M. (2018) PETGEM: a parallel code for 3D CSEM forward modeling using edge finite elements. Computers & Geosciences, 119, 123–136.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, J., Chen, Z., Cui, T. & Zhang, L.‐B. (2010) An adaptive finite element method for the eddy current model with circuit/field couplings. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 32, 1020–1042.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Commer, M. & Newman, G. A. (2008) New advances in three‐dimensional controlled‐source electromagnetic inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513–535.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Constable, S. (2010) Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics, 75, 75A67–75A81.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunham, M. W., Ansari, S. & Farquharson, C. G. (2018) Application of 3D marine controlled‐source electromagnetic finite‐element forward modeling to hydrocarbon exploration in the Flemish Pass Basin offshore Newfoundland, Canada. Geophysics, 83, WB33–WB49.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Everett, M. E. & Chave, A. D. (2019) On the physical principles underlying electromagnetic induction. Geophysics, 84, W21–W32.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Grayver, A. V. & Bürg, M. (2014) Robust and scalable 3‐D geo‐electromagnetic modelling approach using the finite element method. Geophysical Journal International, 198, 110–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Grayver, A. V. & Kolev, T. V. (2015) Large‐scale 3D geoelectromagnetic modeling using parallel adaptive high‐order finite element methodEM modeling with high‐order FEM. Geophysics, 80, E277–E291.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Grayver, A. V., Streich, R. & Ritter, O. (2013) Three‐dimensional parallel distributed inversion of CSEM data using a direct forward solver. Geophysical Journal International, 193, 1432–1446.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Grayver, A. V., Streich, R. & Ritter, O. (2014) 3D inversion and resolution analysis of land‐based CSEM data from the Ketzin CO2 storage formation. Geophysics, 79, E101–E114.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Herwanger, J., Pain, C., Binley, A., De Oliveira, C. & Worthington, M. (2004) Anisotropic resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 158, 409–425.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hiptmair, R. & Xu, J. (2007) Nodal auxiliary space preconditioning in H (curl) and H (div) spaces. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 45, 2483–2509.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hu, X., Peng, R., Wu, G., Wang, W., Huo, G. & Han, B. (2013) Mineral exploration using CSAMT data: application to Longmen region metallogenic belt, Guangdong Province, China. Geophysics, 78, B111–B119.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Jahandari, H. & Farquharson, C. G. (2014) A finite‐volume solution to the geophysical electromagnetic forward problem using unstructured grids. Geophysics, 79, E287–E302.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Jaysaval, P., Shantsev, D. V., de la Kethulle de Ryhove, S. & Bratteland, T. (2016) Fully anisotropic 3‐D EM modelling on a Lebedev grid with a multigrid pre‐conditioner. Geophysical Journal International, 207, 1554–1572.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Jin, J. (2015) The finite element method in electromagnetics. John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Koldan, J., Puzyrev, V., de la Puente, J., Houzeaux, G. & Cela, J. M. (2014) Algebraic multigrid preconditioning within parallel finite‐element solvers for 3‐D electromagnetic modelling problems in geophysics. Geophysical Journal International, 197, 1442–1458.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kolev, T. V. & Vassilevski, P. S. (2009) Parallel auxiliary space AMG for H (curl) problems. Journal of Computational Mathematics, 27, 604–623.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kunz, K. & Moran, J. (1958) Some effects of formation anisotropy on resistivity measurements in boreholes. Geophysics, 23, 770–794.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, J., Liu, J., Guo, R., Liu, R., Wang, Y. & Chen, H. (2022) Extension of the regularization technique to controlled‐source electromagnetic modeling in general anisotropic conductivity media. Geophysics, 87, E243–E251.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, J., Ren, Z., Xiao, X., Tang, J. & Lin, P. (2022) Accelerating the frequency domain controlled‐source electromagnetic data inversion using rational Krylov subspace algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Z., Ren, Z., Yao, H., Tang, J., Lu, X. & Farquharson, C. (2023) A parallel adaptive finite‐element approach for 3‐D realistic controlled‐source electromagnetic problems using hierarchical tetrahedral grids. Geophysical Journal International, 232, 1866–1885.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lu, X. & Farquharson, C. G. (2020) 3D finite‐volume time‐domain modeling of geophysical electromagnetic data on unstructured grids using potentials. Geophysics, 85, E221–E240.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lu, X., Farquharson, C. G., Miehé, J.‐M. & Harrison, G. (2021) 3D electromagnetic modeling of graphitic faults in the Athabasca Basin using a finite‐volume time‐domain approach with unstructured grids. Geophysics, 86, B349–B367.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Lu, X. & Xia, C. (2007) Understanding anisotropy in marine CSEM data. In 2007 SEG Annual Meeting. OnePetro.
  35. Luo, M. & Li, Y. (2015) Effects of the electric anisotropy on marine controlled‐source electromagnetic responses. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 58, 2851–2861 (in Chinese).
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Martí, A. (2014) The role of electrical anisotropy in magnetotelluric responses: from modelling and dimensionality analysis to inversion and interpretation. Surveys in Geophysics, 35, 179–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Miensopust, M. P. (2017) Application of 3‐D electromagnetic inversion in practice: challenges, pitfalls and solution approaches. Surveys in Geophysics, 38, 869–933.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Newman, G. A., Commer, M. & Carazzone, J. J. (2010) Imaging CSEM data in the presence of electrical anisotropy. Geophysics, 75, F51–F61.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Noh, K., Oh, S., Seol, S. J., Lee, K. H. & Byun, J. (2016) Analysis of anomalous electrical conductivity and magnetic permeability effects using a frequency domain controlled‐source electromagnetic method. Geophysical Journal International, 204, 1550–1564.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nover, G. (2005) Electrical properties of crustal and mantle rocks–a review of laboratory measurements and their explanation. Surveys in Geophysics, 26, 593–651.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Pommier, A. (2014) Interpretation of magnetotelluric results using laboratory measurements. Surveys in Geophysics, 35, 41–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Puzyrev, V., Koldan, J., de la Puente, J., Houzeaux, G., Vázquez, M. & Cela, J. M. (2013) A parallel finite‐element method for three‐dimensional controlled‐source electromagnetic forward modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 193, 678–693.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Qin, C., Wang, X. & Zhao, N. (2023) EMFEM: A parallel 3D modeling code for frequency‐domain electromagnetic method using goal‐oriented adaptive finite element method. Computers & Geosciences, 178, 105403.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Qiu, C., Yin, C., Liu, Y., Ren, X., Chen, H. & Yan, T. (2021) Solution of large‐scale 3D controlled‐source electromagnetic modeling problem using efficient iterative solvers. Geophysics, 86, E283–E296.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ren, Z., Kalscheuer, T., Greenhalgh, S. & Maurer, H. (2013) A goal‐oriented adaptive finite‐element approach for plane wave 3‐D electromagnetic modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 194, 700–718.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Rulff, P., Buntin, L. M. & Kalscheuer, T. (2021) Efficient goal‐oriented mesh refinement in 3‐D finite‐element modelling adapted for controlled source electromagnetic surveys. Geophysical Journal International, 227, 1624–1645.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Saad, Y. (2003) Iterative methods for sparse linear systems, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, pp. 275–292.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Schamper, C., Rejiba, F., Tabbagh, A. & Spitz, S. (2011) Theoretical analysis of long offset time‐lapse frequency domain controlled source electromagnetic signals using the method of moments: application to the monitoring of a land oil reservoir. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 116, B03101.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Schenk, O. & Gärtner, K. (2004) Solving unsymmetric sparse systems of linear equations with PARDISO. Future Generation Computer Systems, 20, 475–487.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Si, H. (2015) TetGen, a Delaunay‐based quality tetrahedral mesh generator. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 41, 1–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Smith, R. (2014) Electromagnetic induction methods in mining geophysics from 2008 to 2012. Surveys in Geophysics, 35, 123–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Streich, R. (2009) 3D finite‐difference frequency‐domain modeling of controlled‐source electromagnetic data: direct solution and optimization for high accuracy. Geophysics, 74, F95–F105.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Streich, R. (2016) Controlled‐source electromagnetic approaches for hydrocarbon exploration and monitoring on land. Surveys in Geophysics, 37, 47–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. The MathWorks, I. (2022) MATLAB version: 9.13.0 (R2022b). https://www.mathworks.com
  55. Um, E. S., Commer, M. & Newman, G. A. (2013) Efficient pre‐conditioned iterative solution strategies for the electromagnetic diffusion in the Earth: finite‐element frequency‐domain approach. Geophysical Journal International, 193, 1460–1473.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Van der Vorst, H. A. (2003) Iterative Krylov methods for large linear systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Wang, F., Morten, J. P. & Spitzer, K. (2018) Anisotropic three‐dimensional inversion of CSEM data using finite‐element techniques on unstructured grids. Geophysical Journal International, 213, 1056–1072.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, F., Ren, Z. & Zhao, L. (2022) A goal‐oriented adaptive finite‐element approach for 3‐D marine controlled‐source electromagnetic problems with general electrical anisotropy. Geophysical Journal International, 229, 439–458.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, N., Yin, C., Gao, L., Qiu, C. & Ren, X. (2023) 3‐D anisotropic modelling of geomagnetic depth sounding based on unstructured edge‐based finite‐element method. Geophysical Journal International, 235, 178–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Weiss, M., Neytcheva, M. & Kalscheuer, T. (2023) Iterative solution methods for 3D controlled‐source electromagnetic forward modelling of geophysical exploration scenarios. Computational Geosciences, 27, 81–102.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Werthmüller, D. (2017) An open‐source full 3D electromagnetic modeler for 1D VTI media in Python: empymod. Geophysics, 82, WB9–WB19. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2016‐0626.1
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Xu, J., Tang, J. & Xiao, X. (2022) A hybrid spectral element‐infinite element approach for 3D controlled‐source electromagnetic modeling. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 200, 104619.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Xu, S., Xu, F., Hu, X., Zhu, Q., Zhao, Y. & Liu, S. (2020) Electromagnetic characterization of epithermal gold deposits: A case study from the Tuoniuhe gold deposit, Northeast China. Geophysics, 85, B49–B62.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Yang, C.‐f. & Qin, L.‐j. (2020) Graphical representation and explanation of the conductivity tensor of anisotropic media. Surveys in Geophysics, 41, 249–281.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Henson, V. E. & Yang, U. M (2002) BoomerAMG: A parallel algebraic multigrid solver and preconditioner. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 41, 155–177.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Yao, H., Ren, Z., Tang, J. & Zhang, K. (2022) A Multi‐Resolution Finite‐Element Approach for Global Electromagnetic Induction Modeling With Application to Southeast China Coastal Geomagnetic Observatory Studies. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127, e2022JB024659.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Ye, Y., Li, Y., Li, G., Tang, W. & Zhang, Z. (2018) 3‐D adaptive finite‐element modeling of marine controlled‐source electromagnetics with seafloor topography based on secondary potentials. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 175, 4449–4463.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Yoshino, T. (2010) Laboratory electrical conductivity measurement of mantle minerals. Surveys in Geophysics, 31, 163–206.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13524
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Anisotropy; Computing aspects; Electromagnetics; Mathematical formulation; Modelling; Numerical study; Resistivity

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error