Magnetic potential, vector and gradient tensor fields of a tesseroid in a geocentric spherical coordinate system

• Published in: Geophysical journal international 2015-06, Vol.201 (3), p.1977-2007
• Main Authors: Du, Jinsong, Chen, Chao, Lesur, Vincent, Lane, Richard, Wang, Huilin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0956-540X; 1365-246X
• DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggv123

We examined the mathematical and computational aspects of the magnetic potential, vector and gradient tensor fields of a tesseroid in a geocentric spherical coordinate system (SCS). This work is relevant for 3-D modelling that is performed with lithospheric vertical scales and global, continent or large regional horizontal scales. The curvature of the Earth is significant at these scales and hence, a SCS is more appropriate than the usual Cartesian coordinate system (CCS). The 3-D arrays of spherical prisms (SP; ‘tesseroids’) can be used to model the response of volumes with variable magnetic properties. Analytical solutions do not exist for these model elements and numerical or mixed numerical and analytical solutions must be employed. We compared various methods for calculating the response in terms of accuracy and computational efficiency. The methods were (1) the spherical coordinate magnetic dipole method (MD), (2) variants of the 3-D Gauss–Legendre quadrature integration method (3-D GLQI) with (i) different numbers of nodes in each of the three directions, and (ii) models where we subdivided each SP into a number of smaller tesseroid volume elements, (3) a procedure that we term revised Gauss–Legendre quadrature integration (3-D RGLQI) where the magnetization direction which is constant in a SCS is assumed to be constant in a CCS and equal to the direction at the geometric centre of each tesseroid, (4) the Taylor's series expansion method (TSE) and (5) the rectangular prism method (RP). In any realistic application, both the accuracy and the computational efficiency factors must be considered to determine the optimum approach to employ. In all instances, accuracy improves with increasing distance from the source. It is higher in the percentage terms for potential than the vector or tensor response. The tensor errors are the largest, but they decrease more quickly with distance from the source. In our comparisons of relative computational efficiency, we found that the magnetic potential takes less time to compute than the vector response, which in turn takes less time to compute than the tensor gradient response. The MD method takes less time to compute than either the TSE or RP methods. The efficiency of the (GLQI and) RGLQI methods depends on the polynomial order, but the response typically takes longer to compute than it does for the other methods. The optimum method is a complex function of the desired accuracy, the size of the volume elements, th