Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Computers & Geosciences Vol. 23, No. 10, pp.

10351038, 1997
# 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0098-3004(97)00089-7 0098-3004/98 $19.00 + 0.00


G. S. YADAV, and T. LAL
Department of Geophysics, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India

(Received 4 January 1996; revised 13 March 1997)

AbstractThe solution of the one-dimensional magnetotelluric problem for a multi-layered earth with
varying magnetic permeability has been obtained in the form of a 2  2 matrix by considering appropri-
ate boundary conditions. A Fortran 77 computer program for the computations of apparent resistivity
and phase has been presented. The applicability of the program is demonstrated by computing magne-
totelluric response over a three-layered earth model having variable magnetic permeability. # 1998
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Key Words: Magnetotelluric, Magnetic permeability.

INTRODUCTION surface of the layered earth containing a magnetized

layer. The code is based on the solution obtained in
The increasing popularity of the magnetotelluric
the form of a 2  2 matrix by considering appropri-
(MT) method has led to scores of contributions to
ate boundary conditions. An example is presented
its interpretational theory, to quote a few Yungul
to demonstrate the applicability of the program.
(1961), Rankins and Reddy (1969), Kunetz (1972),
The code is available by anonymous ftp from
Patella (1976), Jupp and Vozo (1977), Jones and
ftp.iamg.org, or via internet at www.iamg.org.
Vozo (1978), Larsen (1981), Park, Orange, and
Madden (1983), Wannamaker, Hohmann, and
Ward (1984), Bahr (1988), Torres-Verdin and FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
Bostick (1992), and Bahr (1993). In the interpret-
ation of MT sounding data over a stratied earth, Let us consider an n-layered earth model (Fig. 1)
frequently the assumption is made to take the free having resistivities, rm; magnetic permeabilities,
space value of the magnetic permeability of the mm=mrmm0 (mrm being relative magnetic permeabil-
layer without considering any change. However, in ities and m0, the free space permeability), layer
regions covered with extensive basalt ows like thicknesses, hm and corresponding depths, zm where
Deccan traps of India, Columbia river plateau of m = 1, 2,... n; hm and zm tends to innity for the
U.S.A., Parana basin of Brazil which contain mag- bottom-most half-space. It is well known that for
netized basaltic lava ows with varying percentage plane waves with time dependence exp(iot) nor-
of magnetite, magnetic permeability exceeds the free mally incident on a layered earth, the horizontal
space value. Yadav and Lal (1989) have presented electric eld component satises the eld equation
the eect of magnetic permeability on MT response in each layer which has been given by various
considering the multilayered earth model. authors, for example Keller and Frischknecht
The processed MT sounding data in the form of (1966, pp. 243248), Porstendorfer (1975, pp. 19
apparent resistivity and phase curves are usually 26), Patra and Mallick (1980), Kumar (1982), and
interpreted by employing inversion techniques. One Yadav and Lal (1989). The solution of the eld
of the rst steps required for the inversion is to equations for the electric eld, Ex, and the associ-
compute the MT response over a layered earth with ated magnetic eld, Hy, in each layer is obtained to
some ``initial guess'' values of layer parameters. dene the wave impedance, Z, as a ratio of Ex and
Evidently, a computer program is desirable that Hy which becomes
should enable one to compute the forward problem  
Ex io m Aekz Bekz
of MT sounding for a layered earth containing a Z 1
Hy k Aekz Bekz
magnetized layer.
In this paper, a computer program in with k2=ioms, o= 2pf and s= 1/r, and where k is
FORTRAN-77 is described for computing MT the propagation constant (the displacement currents
apparent resistivity and the phase response on the are neglected), s is the conductivity, A and B are
1036 G. S. Yadav and T. Lal

y where
0 1
um 1
0 (air) B pm vm qm
um vm C
(0,0,0) x Cm B
C 5a
h 1, 1, 1
z=z1 vm A
h 2, 2, 2 qm um vm pm
z=z2 um

pm sm =mm 1=2 sm1 =mm1 1=2 5b

qm sm =mm 1=2 sm1 =mm1 1=2 5c

hm+1, m, m
hm+1, m+1, m+1
z=zm+1 um ekm1 zm and 5d

vm ekm1 zm 5e
hn-1, n-1, n-1 Similarly, for zm=zm+1, one can write
h n, n, n    
z=zn Am1 Cm1 Am2
z  1=2 B : 6
Bm1 2 sm1 =mm1 m2

=0, r
Considering all the interfaces, Equation (5) can
Figure 1. Stratied earth model showing notations for var- be rewritten as
ious layer parameters. m, mr and m0 are magnetic per-    
meability, relative magnetic permeability and free-space Am Cm Cm1    Cn1 An
 1=2 B : 7
magnetic permeability, respectively. Bm s s
m m1    s n1 n
mm mm1    mn1
the coecients, and other terms are dened earlier.
The impedance, Z0 at the surface of the earth As the solution must remain nite as z tends to
(z = 0) is written as innity, the coecient Bn (for the bottom-most
  semi-innite media) can be assumed to be equal to
io m1 A1 B1
Z 2 zero. Now the expressions for A1 and B1 can be
k1 A 1 B 1
written as
where sux 1 refers to the rst layer.    
The coecients A1 and B1 can be evaluated by A1 Y
S1 Cm 8
considering the boundary conditions which require B1 m1
the continuity of tangential components of electric
and magnetic elds at the interfaces. At z = zm, we where
get the equations An
S1  1=2 A constant:
Exm Exm1 and Hym Hym1 s1 s2    sn1
m1 m2    mn1
Am ekm zm Bm ekm zm Am1 ekm1 zm Although the coecients A1 and B1 can be com-
puted using Eq. (8), the equation is not in a con-
Bm1 ekm1 zm 3 venient form. The form can be improved by
factorizing matrix Cm into
 1=2 Cm Vm Qm Um 9
sm  km zm km zm

Am e Bm e where
 1=2 1=vm 0
  Vm 9a
sm1 0 vm
Am1 ekm1 zm Bm1 ekm1 zm : 4
pm qm
From these equations, the solution for the coe- Qm 9b
qm pm
cients Am and Bm can be written in matrix notation
as and
Am Cm Am1 um 0
 1=2 B 5 Um : 9c
Bm 2 sm =m m1 0 1=um
A FORTRAN 77 program for computing magnetotelluric response 1037

Therefore, 1
ra jZ0 j2 : 15
n1 o m0
Cm V1 Q1 U1 V2 Q2 U2    Vn1 Qn1 Un1
m1 Substituting Equation (14) into Equation (15)
and simplifying leads to
U 1
0 U0 V1 Q1 U1 V2 Q2    Un2 Vn1 Qn1 Un1
C11 C21 2
ra r1 mr1 16
C11 C21
U 1
0 Um1 Vm Qm Un1 and the phase is expressed as
f tan1 : 17
n1 RealZ0
U 0 Rm Un1
m1 Equations (16) and (17) can be used to compute
the apparent resistivity and phase with time over
the desired multi-layered magnetized earth model.
0 um1 um1 1
pm qm
B vm vm C
Rm @ vm vm A:
um1 um1
Based on the above formulation, a computer pro-
Using Equations (5d) and (5e), it can be seen gram was written in FORTRAN-77. The source
that code is available by anonymous FTP from
um1 vm FTP.IAMG.ORG, or via internet at
ekm hm , ekm hm and U 1
0 1: WWW.IAMG.ORG. The variables used for layer
vm um1
parameters are dimensioned so that the input par-
ameters can take up to fteen layers, and the MT
Therefore, Equation (8) nally becomes response is obtainable for a maximum of 100 dier-
    ent values of the period. The dimensions of the
A1 Y
1 variables can be changed, if required. The value of
Un1 S1 Rm 11
B1 m1
0 the magnetic permeability is taken as a relative
value with respect to the free space value, that is,
where mrm=mm/m0 where mm is the permeability of the
  layers, mrm is the relative permeability and m0 is con-
pm ekm hm qm ekm hm
Rm 12 sidered to be free-space value, that is, 4p107. The
qm ekm hm pm ekm hm
values of resistivity and thickness for each layer

Un1 ekn zn1 :

As the matrix product n1 m1 Rm is a 2  2 matrix,
the nal result of this product can be written as
d11 d12
: 13
d21 d22

Then, using Equations (11) and (13), Equation (2)

takes the following form
io m1 d11 d21
Z0 : 14
k1 d11 d21

Equation (14) represents the impedance on the

surface of the earth which has a simple compu-
tational form and involves only an operation of
product of matrices Rm. Matrix Rm is a simple 2  2
matrix as given in Equation (12). The apparent res-
Figure 2. Example showing (A) apparent resistivity and
istivity, ra and phase retardation, f of Hy with (B) phase response obtained from the MTSPERM pro-
respect to Ex can easily be obtained as gram for model with characteristics shown in Table 1.
1038 G. S. Yadav and T. Lal

Table 1. Model characteristics

Layer Relative mag. permeability Resistivity (O m) Thickness (km)
i mr ri hi
1 1.0 20 0.02
2 mr2 100 1.00
3 1.0 1000 99999.99

must only be given in units of ohm metres and kilo- Jupp, D. L. B. and Vozo, K. (1977) Two-dimensional
metres, respectively. magnetotelluric inversion. Geophysical Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society 50, 333352.
Keller, G. V. and Frischknecht, F. C. (1966) Electrical
Methods in Geophysical Prospecting, pp. 243248.
Pergamon Press, New York.
Using the computer program, apparent resistivity Kumar, R. (1982) An algorithm for computing magneto-
telluric forward problem of a layered earth.
and phase responses for a three-layered earth model Geophysical Research Bulletin 20, 7582.
containing a magnetized layer have been computed Kunetz, G. (1972) Prospecting and interpretation of mag-
and presented in Figure 2A and B and Table 1. In netotelluric soundings. Geophysics 37, 10051021.
this example, the second layer is assumed to be Larsen, J. C. (1981) A new technique for layered earth
magnetized having relative magnetic permeabilities magnetotelluric inversion. Geophysics 46, 12471257.
Park, S. K., Orange, A. S. and Madden, T. R. (1983)
as 1.2 and 1.5 with resistivity 100 O m and thickness Eects of three-dimensional structure on magnetotellu-
1 km. The resistivity and thickness of the unmagne- ric sounding curves. Geophysics 48, 14021405.
tized surface layer is assumed to be 20 O m and Patella, D. (1976) Interpretation of magnetotelluric resis-
0.02 km, respectively, and the resistivity of the last tivity and phase soundings over horizontal layers.
layer (unmagnetized and extending to an innite Geophysics 41, 96105.
Patra, H. P. and Mallick, K. (1980) Geosounding
depth) is assumed to be 1000 O m. One such curve Principles 2: Time Varying Geoelectric Soundings,
is also prepared for the unmagnetized model to Elsevier, Amsterdam, 419 pp.
show the relationship between magnetized and Porstendorfer, G. (1975) Principle of Magnetotelluric
unmagnetized models. Prospecting, Gebrueder Borntraeger, Berlin, 118 pp.
Rankins, D. and Reddy, I. K. (1969) A magnetotelluric
AcknowledgmentsFacilities provided by the Department study of resistivity anisotropy. Geophysics 34, 438449.
of Geophysics, Banaras Hindu University are thankfully Torres-Verdin, C. and Bostick, F. X. (1992) Principles of
acknowledged. spatial surcial electric eld ltering in magnetotellu-
rics: Electromagnetic Array Proling (EMAP).
Geophysics 57, 603622.
REFERENCES Wannamaker, P. E., Hohmann, G. W. and Ward,
S. H. (1984) Magnetotelluric responses of three-dimen-
Bahr, K. (1988) Interpretation of magnetotelluric impe- sional bodies in layered earths. Geophysics 49 , 1517
dance tensor: regional induction and local telluric dis- 1533.
tortion. Journal of Geophysics 62, 119127. Yadav, G. S. and Lal, T. (1989) Analysis of the eect of
Bahr, K. (1993) Joint interpretation of magnetotelluric magnetic permeability variation on magnetotelluric
and geomagnetic data and local telluric distortions. (MT) response in relation to delineation of Deccan
Journal of Geomagnetics Geoelectrics 35, 555566. Traps, India. Journal Association Exploration
Jones, F. W. and Vozo, K. (1978) The calculation of Geophysics 10, 135145.
magnetotelluric quantities for three-dimensional con- Yungul, S. (1961) Magnetotelluric sounding for three-layer
ductivity inhomogeneities. Geophysics 43, 11671175. interpretation curves. Geophysics 26, 465473.