Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:04:44.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taylor state dynamos found by optimal control: axisymmetric examples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2018

Kuan Li ,
Andrew Jackson Open the ORCID record for Andrew Jackson [Opens in a new window]  and
Philip W. Livermore
Kuan Li*
Affiliation:
Institut für Geophysik, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Andrew Jackson
Affiliation:
Institut für Geophysik, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Philip W. Livermore
Affiliation:
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Earth’s magnetic field is generated in its fluid metallic core through motional induction in a process termed the geodynamo. Fluid flow is heavily influenced by a combination of rapid rotation (Coriolis forces), Lorentz forces (from the interaction of electrical currents and magnetic fields) and buoyancy; it is believed that the inertial force and the viscous force are negligible. Direct approaches to this regime are far beyond the reach of modern high-performance computing power, hence an alternative ‘reduced’ approach may be beneficial. Taylor (Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 274 (1357), 1963, pp. 274–283) studied an inertia-free and viscosity-free model as an asymptotic limit of such a rapidly rotating system. In this theoretical limit, the velocity and the magnetic field organize themselves in a special manner, such that the Lorentz torque acting on every geostrophic cylinder is zero, a property referred to as Taylor’s constraint. Moreover, the flow is instantaneously and uniquely determined by the buoyancy and the magnetic field. In order to find solutions to this mathematical system of equations in a full sphere, we use methods of optimal control to ensure that the required conditions on the geostrophic cylinders are satisfied at all times, through a conventional time-stepping procedure that implements the constraints at the end of each time step. A derivative-based approach is used to discover the correct geostrophic flow required so that the constraints are always satisfied. We report a new quantity, termed the Taylicity, that measures the adherence to Taylor’s constraint by analysing squared Lorentz torques, normalized by the squared energy in the magnetic field, over the entire core. Neglecting buoyancy, we solve the equations in a full sphere and seek axisymmetric solutions to the equations; we invoke $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$- and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}$-effects in order to sidestep Cowling’s anti-dynamo theorem so that the dynamo system possesses non-trivial solutions. Our methodology draws heavily on the use of fully spectral expansions for all divergenceless vector fields. We employ five special Galerkin polynomial bases in radius such that the boundary conditions are honoured by each member of the basis set, whilst satisfying an orthogonality relation defined in terms of energies. We demonstrate via numerous examples that there are stable solutions to the equations that possess a rapidly decreasing spectrum and are thus well-converged. Classic distributions for the $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$- and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}$-effects are invoked, as well as new distributions. One such new $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$-effect model possesses oscillatory solutions for the magnetic field, rarely before seen. By comparing our Taylor state model with one that allows torsional oscillations to develop and decay, we show the equilibrium state of both configurations to be coincident. In all our models, the geostrophic flow dominates the ageostrophic flow. Our work corroborates some results previously reported byWu & Roberts (Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., vol. 109 (1), 2015, pp. 84–110), as well as presenting new results; it sets the stage for a three-dimensional implementation where the system is driven by, for example, thermal convection.

JFM classification

Flow Control: Control theory MHD and Electrohydrodynamics: Dynamo theory Mathematical Foundations: Variational methods
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 853 , 25 October 2018 , pp. 647 - 697
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, M. & Stegun, I. A. 1972 Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover.Google Scholar
Anufriev, A. P., Cupal, I. & Hejda, P. 1995 The weak Taylor state in an 𝛼𝜔-dynamo. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 79 (1–4), 125–145.Google Scholar
Arakawa, A. & Lamb, V. R. 1981 A potential enstrophy and energy conserving scheme for the shallow water equations. Mon. Weath. Rev. 109 (1), 18–36.Google Scholar
Athans, M. & Falb, P. L. 1966 Optimal Control: An Introduction to the Theory and its Application. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Braginsky, S. I. 1964 Self-excitation of a magnetic field during the motion of a highly conducting fluid. Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 726–735.Google Scholar
Braginsky, S. I. 1970 Torsional magnetohydrodynamic vibrations in the Earth’s core and variations in the length of day. Geomagn. Aeron. 10, 1–10.Google Scholar
Bullard, E. C. & Gellman, H. 1954 Homogeneous dynamos and terrestrial magnetism. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 247 (928), 213–278.Google Scholar
Chen, L.2017 Optimization of kinematic dynamos using variational methods. PhD thesis, ETH, Zurich.Google Scholar
Chen, L., Herreman, W., Li, K., Livermore, P. W., Luo, J. W. & Jackson, A. 2018 The optimal kinematic dynamo driven by steady flows in a sphere. J. Fluid Mech. 839, 1–32.Google Scholar
Christensen, U. R. & Wicht, J. 2015 Numerical dynamo simulations. Treatise Geophys. 8, 245–277.Google Scholar
Cowling, T. G. 1933 The magnetic field of sunspots. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 94 (1), 39–48.Google Scholar
Fearn, D. 1998 Hydromagnetic flow in planetary cores. Rep. Prog. Phys. 61, 175–235.Google Scholar
Fearn, D. & Proctor, M. R. E. 1987 Dynamically consistent magnetic fields produced by differential rotation. J. Fluid Mech. 178, 521–534.Google Scholar
Fearn, D. & Rahman, M. M. 2004 Evolution of non-linear 𝛼2 -dynamos and Taylor’s constraint. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 98 (5), 385–406.Google Scholar
Fearn, D. R., Roberts, P. H. & Soward, A. M. 1988 Convection, stability, and the dynamo. In Energy Stability and Convection: Proceedings of the Workshop, Capri, May 1986 (ed. Galdi, G. P. & Straughan, B.), pp. 60–324. Halsted Press.Google Scholar
Gillet, N., Jault, D., Canet, E. & Fournier, A. 2010 Fast torsional waves and strong magnetic field within the Earth’s core. Nature 465, 74–77.Google Scholar
Glatzmaier, G. A. 1984 Numerical simulations of stellar convective dynamos. I. The model and method. J. Comput. Phys. 55, 461–484.Google Scholar
Glatzmaier, G. A. & Roberts, P. H. 1995a A three-dimensional convective dynamo solution with rotating and finitely conducting inner core and mantle. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 91, 63–75.Google Scholar
Glatzmaier, G. A. & Roberts, P. H. 1995b A three-dimensional self-consistent computer simulation of a geomagnetic field reversal. Nature 377, 203–209.Google Scholar
Greenspan, H. P. 1974 On 𝛼-dynamos. Stud. Appl. Maths 53 (1), 35–43.Google Scholar
Gubbins, D. & Zhang, K. 1993 Symmetry properties of the dynamo equations for paleomagnetism and geomagnetism. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 75, 225–241.Google Scholar
Hollerbach, R. & Ierley, G. 1991 A modal 𝛼2 -dynamo in the limit of asymptotically small viscosity. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 56, 133–158.Google Scholar
Ivers, D. J., Jackson, A. & Winch, D. 2015 Enumeration, orthogonality and completeness of the incompressible Coriolis modes in a sphere. J. Fluid Mech. 766, 468–498.Google Scholar
Jault, D. 1995 Model Z by computation and Taylor’s condition. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 79 (1), 99–124.Google Scholar
Jault, D. 1996 Magnetic field generation impeded by inner cores of planets. C. R. Acad. Sci. II A 323 (6), 451–458.Google Scholar
Kageyama, A. & Sato, T. 1995 Computer simulation of a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo. II. Phys. Plasmas 2 (5), 1421–1431.Google Scholar
Kerswell, R. R., Pringle, C. C. T. & Willis, A. P. 2014 An optimization approach for analysing nonlinear stability with transition to turbulence in fluids as an exemplar. Rep. Prog. Phys. 77 (8), 085901.Google Scholar
Larmor, J. 1919 How could a rotating body such as the Sun become a magnet? Rep. Brit. Assoc. 87, 159–160.Google Scholar
Li, K., Jackson, A. & Livermore, P. W. 2011 Variational data assimilation for the initial value dynamo problem. Phys. Rev. E 84, 056321.Google Scholar
Li, K., Livermore, P. W. & Jackson, A. 2010 An optimal Galerkin scheme to solve the kinematic dynamo eigenvalue problem in a full sphere. J. Comput. Phys. 229, 8666–8683.Google Scholar
Lions, J. L. 1971 Optimal Control of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations. Springer.Google Scholar
Livermore, P. W. 2010 Galerkin orthogonal polynomials. J. Comput. Phys. 229, 2046–2060.Google Scholar
Livermore, P. W. & Ierley, G. 2009 Quasi-L p norm orthogonal expansions in sums of Jacobi polynomials. Num. Alg. 54, 533–569.Google Scholar
Livermore, P. W., Ierley, G. & Jackson, A. 2008 The structure of Taylor’s constraint in three dimensions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 464, 3149–3174.Google Scholar
Livermore, P. W., Ierley, G. & Jackson, A. 2009 The construction of exact Taylor states I: the full sphere. Geophys. J. Intl 177 (2), 367–382.Google Scholar
Livermore, P. W., Ierley, G. & Jackson, A. 2011 The evolution of a magnetic field subject to Taylor’s constraint using a projection operator. Geophys. J. Intl 187 (2), 690–704.Google Scholar
Livermore, P. W. & Jackson, A. 2005 A comparison of numerical schemes to solve the magnetic induction eigenvalue problem in a spherical geometry. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 99 (6), 467–480.Google Scholar
Livermore, P. W., Jones, C. A. & Worland, S. 2007 Spectral radial basis functions for full sphere computations. J. Comput. Phys. 227, 1209–1224.Google Scholar
Maffei, S. & Jackson, A. 2016 Propagation and reflection of diffusionless torsional waves in a sphere. Geophys. J. Intl 204, 1477–1489.Google Scholar
Marti, P. & Jackson, A. 2016 A fully spectral methodology for magnetohydrodynamic calculations in a whole sphere. J. Comput. Phys. 305, 403–422.Google Scholar
Namikawa, T. & Matsushita, S. 1970 Kinematic dynamo problem. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 19 (4), 395–415.Google Scholar
Nocedal, J. 1980 Updating quasi-Newton matrices with limited storage. Math. Comput. 35, 773–782.Google Scholar
Nocedal, J. & Wright, S. J. 2006 Numerical Optimization, 2nd edn. Springer.Google Scholar
Pringle, C. C. T. & Kerswell, R. R. 2010 Using nonlinear transient growth to construct the minimal seed for shear flow turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (15), 154502.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. & Wu, C. C. 2014 On the modified Taylor constraint. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 108, 696–715.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. H. 1960 Characteristic value problems posed by differential equations arising in hydrodynamics and hydromagnetics. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1, 195–214.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. H. 1972 Kinematic dynamo models. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 272 (1230), 663–698.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. H. & King, E. M. 2013 On the genesis of the Earth’s magnetism. Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 (9), 096801.Google Scholar
Rotvig, J. & Jones, C. A. 2002 Rotating convection-driven dynamos at low Ekman number. Phys. Rev. E 66, 056308.Google Scholar
Rüdiger, G. & Hollerbach, R. 2004 The Magnetic Universe: Geophysical and Astrophysical Dynamo Theory. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Salmon, R. 1986 A simplified linear ocean circulation theory. J. Mar. Res. 44 (4), 695–711.Google Scholar
Steenbeck, M., Krause, F. & Rädler, K.-H. 1966 Berechnung der mittleren Lorentz–Feldstärke für ein elektrisch leitendes Medium in turbulenter, durch Coriolis–Kräfte beeinflusster Bewegung. Z. Naturforsch. A 21, 369.Google Scholar
Talagrand, O. & Courtier, P. 1987 Variational assimilation of meteorological observations with the adjoint vorticity equation. I: Theory. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 113 (478), 1311–1328.Google Scholar
Tarantola, A. 1984 Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics 49 (8), 1259–1266.Google Scholar
Tarduno, J. A., Cottrell, R. D., Davis, W. J., Nimmo, F. & Bono, R. K. 2015 A Hadean to Paleoarchean geodynamo recorded by single zircon crystals. Science 349 (6247), 521–524.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. B. 1963 The magneto-hydrodynamics of a rotating fluid and the Earth’s dynamo problem. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 274 (1357), 274–283.Google Scholar
Tromp, J., Tape, C. & Lui, Q. 2005 Seismic tomography, adjoint methods, time reversal and banana–doughnut kernels. Geophys. J. Intl 160, 195–216.Google Scholar
Wu, C. C. & Roberts, P. H. 2015 On magnetostrophic mean-field solutions of the geodynamo equations. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 109 (1), 84–110.Google Scholar
Zhang, K. & Liao, X. 2017 Theory and Modeling of Rotating Fluids: Convection, Inertial Waves, and Precession. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar