Advertisement

GEM - International Journal on Geomathematics

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 163–194 | Cite as

The adjoint method in geodynamics: derivation from a general operator formulation and application to the initial condition problem in a high resolution mantle circulation model

  • André HorbachEmail author
  • Hans-Peter Bunge
  • Jens Oeser
Original Paper

Abstract

The adjoint method is a computationally efficient way to compute the gradient of a physical observable or an associated objective function relative to its parameters. In geodynamics the observable can be thought of as a representation of the present day heterogeneity structure in the Earth’s mantle, inferred in some form through seismic imaging, while a crucial derivative of interest is that relative to an earlier convective system state. Since mantle convection is governed by coupled, non-linear conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy, computation of the derivative consists of iterative solutions to the forward and the adjoint problem, rendering the approach superior to finite difference approximations, which become impractical at the resolution of modern geodynamic models. Moreover, similarities in the forward and adjoint equations allow one to apply existing numerical codes that solve the forward problem to the adjoint equations with little adaptation. Bunge et al. (Geophys J Int 152(2):280–301 (2003)), have derived the adjoint equations for mantle convection using the concept of Lagrangian multipliers. Here we introduce a more general approach using an operator formulation in Hilbert spaces, in order to connect to recent work in seismology (Fichtner et al. Phys Earth Planet Int 157(1–2):86–104 (2006a)), where the approach was used to derive the adjoint equations for the scalar wave equation. We demonstrate the practicality of the method for use in a high resolution mantle circulation model with more than 80 million finite elements by restoring a representation of present day mantle heterogeneity derived from the global seismic shear wave study of Grand et al. (GSA Today 7(4):1–7 1997) back in time for the past 40 million years. An important result is our finding of a strong global minimum for the unknown initial condition, regardless of the assumed first guess for the initial heterogeneity structure, which we attribute to the uniqueness theorem by Serrin. Paleo mantle convection modelling will improve our ability to test assumptions about the internal structure and dynamics of the Earth’s mantle against the geologic record.

Keywords

Adjoint method Inverse problem Geodynamics Seismic tomography Regularisation Mantle convection 

Mathematics Subject Classifications

65M32 65N21 49N45 86A22 86A17 

References

  1. Artemieva, I.M.: The continental lithosphere: reconciling thermal, seismic, and petrologic data. Lithos 109(1–2), 23–46 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boehler, R.: High-pressure experiments and the phase diagram of lower mantle and core materials. Rev. Geophys. 1998, 221–245 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braess, D.: Finite elements: theory, fast solvers, and applications in solid mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  4. Braun, J.: The many surface expressions of mantle dynamics. Nat. Geosci. 3(12), 825–833 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunge, H.-P., Richards, M.A., Baumgardner, J.R.: The effect of depth dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection. Nature 379, 436–438 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunge, H.-P., Hagelberg, C.R., Travis, B.J.: Mantle circulation models with variational data assimilation: inferring past mantle flow and structure from plate motion histories and seismic tomography. Geophys. J. Int. 152(2), 280–301 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunge, H.-P., Richards, M.A., Baumgardner, J.R.: Mantle-circulation models with sequential data assimilation: inferring present-day mantle structure from plate-motion histories. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 360(1800), 2545–67 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunge, H.-P., Richards, M.A., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C., Baumgardner, J.R., Grand, S.P., Romanomicz, B.A.: Time scales and heterogeneous structure in geodynamic earth models. Science 280(5360), 91–95 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunge, H.-P., Richards, M.A., Baumgardner, J.R.: Study of three-dimensional mantle convection at \(10^{8}\) Rayleigh number: Effects of depth-dependent phase change formulation. J. Geophys. Res. 102 (B6), 11991–12007 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. Burstedde, C., Stadler, G., Alisic, L., Wilcox, L.C., Tan, E., Gurnis, M., Ghattas, O.: Large-scale adaptive mantle convection simulation. Geophys. J. Int. 192(3), 889–906 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conrad, C.P., Gurnis, M.: Seismic tomography, surface uplift, and the breakup of Gondwanaland: integrating mantle convection backwards in time. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 4(3) (2003) . doi: 10.1029/2001GC000299
  12. Davies, D.R., Goes, S., Davies, J.H., Schuberth, B.S.A., Bunge, H.-P., Ritsema, J.: Reconciling dynamic and seismic models of Earth’s lower mantle: the dominant role of thermal heterogeneity. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 353–354, 253–269 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dziewonski, A.M., Anderson, D.L.: Preliminary reference Earth model. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 25(4), 297–356 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fichtner, A., Bleibinhaus, F., Capdeville, Y.: Full seismic waveform modelling and inversion. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  15. Fichtner, A., Bunge, H.-P., Igel, H.: The adjoint method in seismology: I. Theory. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 157(1–2), 86–104 (2006a)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Fichtner, A., Bunge, H.-P., Igel, H.: The adjoint method in seismology—II. Applications: traveltimes and sensitivity functionals. Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 157(1–2), 105–123 (2006b)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Fletcher, R., Reeves, C.M.: Function minimization by conjugate gradients. Comp. J. 7, 149–154 (1964)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Forte, A.M., Quéré, S., Moucha, R., Simmons, N.A., Grand, S.P., Mitrovica, J.X., Rowley, D.B.: Joint seismic-geodynamic-mineral physical modelling of African geodynamics: A reconciliation of deep-mantle convection with surface geophysical constraints. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 295(3–4), 329–341 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fournier, A., Hulot, G., Jault, D., Kuang, W., Tangborn, A., Gillet, N., Canet, E., Aubert, J., Lhuillier, F.: An introduction to data assimilation and predictability in geomagnetism. Space Sci. Rev. 155(1–4), 247–291 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeden, W., Gervens, T., Schreiner, M.: Constructive approximation on the sphere (With applications to geomathematics). Oxford Science Publication, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Freeden, W., Maier, T., Zimmermann, S.: A survey on wavelet methods for (geo) applications. Rev. Matemática 16(1), 277–310 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. Freeden, W.: A General Construction Principle of Wavelets. Min. Sky 53–70 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. Glatzmaier, G.A.: Numerical simulations of mantle convection: time-dependent, three-dimensional, compressible, spherical shell. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 43(2), 223–264 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Gmeiner, B., Gradl, T., Gaspar, F., Rüde, U.: Optimization of the multigrid-convergence rate on semi-structured meshes by local Fourier analysis. Comput. Math. Appl. 65(4), 694–711 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grand, S.P., van der Hilst, R.D., Widiyantoro, S.: Global seismic tomography: a snapshot of convection in the Earth. GSA Today 7(4), 1–7 (1997)Google Scholar
  26. Gurnis, M., Turner, M., Zahirovic, S., DiCaprio, L., Spasojevic, S., Müller, R., Boyden, J., Seton, M., Manea, V.C., Bower, D.J.: Plate tectonic reconstructions with continuously closing plates. Comput. Geosci. 38(1), 35–42 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hadamard, J.: Sur les problèmes aux dérivées partielles et leur signification physique. Princet. Univ. Bull. 13(49–52), 28 (1902)Google Scholar
  28. Hager, B.H., Richards, M.A.: Long-wavelength variations in Earth’s geoid: physical models and dynamical implications. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond Ser. A Math. Phys. Sci. 328(1599), 309–327 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hager, B.H., O’Connell, R.J.: Subduction zone dip angles and flow driven by plate motion. Tectonophysics 50(2–3), 111–133 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hager, B.H., O’Connell, R.J.: Kinematic models of large-scale flow in the Earth’s mantle. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 84(B3), 1031–1048 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heine, C., Müller, R.D., Steinberger, B., DiCaprio, L.: Integrating deep Earth dynamics in paleogeographic reconstructions of Australia. Tectonophysics 483(1–2), 135–150 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iaffaldano, G., Bunge, H.-P., Bücker, M.: Mountain belt growth inferred from histories of past plate convergence: a new tectonic inverse problem. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 260(3–4), 516–523 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ismail-Zadeh, A., Schubert, G., Tsepelev, I., Korotkii, A.: Inverse problem of thermal convection: numerical approach and application to mantle plume restoration. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 145(1–4), 99–114 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jarvis, G.T., McKenzie, D.P.: Convection in a compressible fluid with infinite Prandtl number. J. Fluid Mech. 96(03), 515–583 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Jordan, T.H.: Composition and development of the continental tectosphere. Nature 5671, 544–548 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kress, R.: Linear integral equations. Springer, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  37. Li, K., Jackson, A., Livermore, P.W.: Variational data assimilation for the initial-value dynamo problem. Phys. Rev. E 84(5), 056321 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, L., Gurnis, M.: Simultaneous inversion of mantle properties and initial conditions using an adjoint of mantle convection. J. Geophys. Res. 113(B8), B08405 (2008)Google Scholar
  39. McNamara, A.K., Zhong, S.: Thermochemical structures beneath Africa and the Pacific Ocean. Nature 437(7062), 1136–1139 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Menemenlis, D., Wunsch, C.: Linearization of an oceanic general circulation model for data assimilation and climate studies. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 1995, 1420–1443 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitrovica, J.X., Forte, A.M.: A new inference of mantle viscosity based upon joint inversion of convection and glacial isostatic adjustment data. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 225(1–2), 177–189 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moucha, R., Forte, A.M., Mitrovica, J.X., Rowley, D.B., Quéré, S., Simmons, N.A., Grand, S.P.: Dynamic topography and long-term sea-level variations: there is no such thing as a stable continental platform. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 271(1–4), 101–108 (2008a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moucha, R., Forte, A.M., Rowley, D.B., Mitrovica, J.X., Simmons, N.A., Grand, S.P.: Mantle convection and the recent evolution of the Colorado Plateau and the Rio Grande Rift valley. Geology 36(6), 439 (2008b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Müller, R.D., Sdrolias, M., Gaina, C., Roest, W.R.: Age, spreading rates, and spreading asymmetry of the world’s ocean crust. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 9(4), Q04006 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oeser, J., Bunge, H.-P., Mohr, M.: Cluster Design in the Earth Sciences: TETHYS. In: Gerndt, M., Kranzlmüller, D.: (eds.) High Perform. Comput. Commun., vol. 4208 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp 31–40 (2006)Google Scholar
  46. Paulson, A., Zhong, S., Wahr, J.: Inference of mantle viscosity from GRACE and relative sea level data. Geophys. J. Int. 171(2), 497–508 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piazzoni, A., Steinle-Neumann, G., Bunge, H.-P., Dolejš, D.: A mineralogical model for density and elasticity of the Earth’s mantle. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 8(11), (2007) . doi: 10.1029/2007GC001697
  48. Richards, M.A., Engebretson, D.C.: Large-scale mantle convection and the history of subduction. Nature 355(6359), 437–440 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schuberth, B.S.A., Bunge, H.-P., Ritsema, J.: Tomographic filtering of high-resolution mantle circulation models: Can seismic heterogeneity be explained by temperature alone? Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10(5), (2009a) . doi: 10.1029/2009GC002401
  50. Schuberth, B.S.A., Bunge, H.-P., Steinle-Neumann, G., Moder, C., Oeser, J.: Thermal versus elastic heterogeneity in high-resolution mantle circulation models with pyrolite composition: High plume excess temperatures in the lowermost mantle. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10(1), (2009b) . doi: 10.1029/2008GC002235
  51. Schuberth, B.S.A., Zaroli, C., Nolet, G.: Synthetic seismograms for a synthetic Earth: long-period P- and S-wave traveltime variations can be explained by temperature alone. Geophys. J. Int. 188(3), 1393–1412 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Serrin, J.: Mathematical principles of classical fluid mechanics. Handb. der Phys. VIII, 125–263 (1959)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. Seton, M., Müller, R., Zahirovic, S., Gaina, C., Torsvik, T., Shephard, G., Talsma, A., Gurnis, M., Turner, M., Maus, S., Chandler, M.: Global continental and ocean basin reconstructions since 200Ma. Earth Sci. Rev. 113(3–4), 212–270 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spasojevic, S., Liu, L., Gurnis, M.: Adjoint models of mantle convection with seismic, plate motion, and stratigraphic constraints: North America since the Late Cretaceous. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10(5), (2009) . doi: 10.1029/2008GC002345
  55. Steinberger, B., O’Connell, R.: Changes of the Earth’s rotation axis owing to advection of mantle density heterogeneities. Nature 387 (6629), 169–173 (1997)Google Scholar
  56. Steinberger, B., O’Connell, R.: Advection of plumes in mantle flow: implications for hotspot motion, mantle viscosity and plume distribution. Geophys. J. Int. 132 (2), 412–434 (1998)Google Scholar
  57. Steinle-Neumann, G., Stixrude, L., Cohen, R.E., Gülseren, O.: Elasticity of iron at the temperature of the Earth’s inner core. Nature 413(6851), 57–60 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tackley, P.J.: Dynamics and evolution of the deep mantle resulting from thermal, chemical, phase and melting effects. Earth Sci. Rev. 110(1–4), 1–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Talagrand, O., Courtier, P.: Variational assimilation of meteorological observations with the adjoint vorticity equation. I: theory. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 113(478), 1311–1328 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tarantola, A.: Linearized inversion of seismic reflection data. Geophys. Prospect. 32(6), 998–1015 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tromp, J., Tape, C., Liu, Q.: Seismic tomography, adjoint methods, time reversal and banana-doughnut kernels. Geophys. J. Int. 160(1), 195–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang, Z., Stixrude, L., Brodholt, J.: Elastic properties of MgSiO3-perovskite under lower mantle conditions and the composition of the deep Earth. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 379, 1–12 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesLudwig-Maximilians University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations