2013
DOI: 10.1071/eg13010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Alternative local wavenumber methods to estimate magnetic source parameters

Abstract: Three alternative local wavenumber methods are proposed to estimate the depth and the nature (structural index) of the 2D magnetic source simultaneously using various combinations of different forms of the local wavenumbers to compute the source parameters without any prior information about the source. A clustering method is also provided to get more accurate results. The proposed local wavenumber methods are demonstrated on synthetic noise-free and noise-corrupted magnetic data, and they successfully estimat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some of the data processing techniques for the anomaly interpretation use Fourier transform, Hilbert transform, nomograms, matching curve approach, distinctive points and distances (Bhattacharyya, 2012; Gay, 1965; Kara, 1997; McGrath & Hood, 1970; Nuamah & Dobroka, 2019; T. Rao et al., 1986; Subrahmanyam & Prakasa Rao, 2009). Moreover, inversion methodologies, local wave number approaches, directional derivative‐based methods, spectral analysis techniques, some special algorithms such as simplex algorithm and R‐parameter imaging were proposed for anomaly interpretation (Abdelrahman & Essa, 2005; Abdelrahman et al., 2012; Abo‐Ezz & Essa, 2016; Aziz et al., 2013; Cooper, 2015; Ekinci, 2016; Essa & Elhussein, 2019; Essa, Munschy, et al., 2022; Kelemework et al., 2021; Li & Oldenburg, 1996; Ma & Li, 2013; Mehanee et al., 2021; Melo & Barbosa, 2020; Pham et al., 2020; Salem et al., 2004; Tlas & Asfahani, 2011a, 2011b, 2015). Among these methods, inversion methodologies are the frequently used data processing tool in anomaly interpretation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some of the data processing techniques for the anomaly interpretation use Fourier transform, Hilbert transform, nomograms, matching curve approach, distinctive points and distances (Bhattacharyya, 2012; Gay, 1965; Kara, 1997; McGrath & Hood, 1970; Nuamah & Dobroka, 2019; T. Rao et al., 1986; Subrahmanyam & Prakasa Rao, 2009). Moreover, inversion methodologies, local wave number approaches, directional derivative‐based methods, spectral analysis techniques, some special algorithms such as simplex algorithm and R‐parameter imaging were proposed for anomaly interpretation (Abdelrahman & Essa, 2005; Abdelrahman et al., 2012; Abo‐Ezz & Essa, 2016; Aziz et al., 2013; Cooper, 2015; Ekinci, 2016; Essa & Elhussein, 2019; Essa, Munschy, et al., 2022; Kelemework et al., 2021; Li & Oldenburg, 1996; Ma & Li, 2013; Mehanee et al., 2021; Melo & Barbosa, 2020; Pham et al., 2020; Salem et al., 2004; Tlas & Asfahani, 2011a, 2011b, 2015). Among these methods, inversion methodologies are the frequently used data processing tool in anomaly interpretation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ologies, local wave number approaches, directional derivative-based methods, spectral analysis techniques, some special algorithms such as simplex algorithm and R-parameter imaging were proposed for anomaly interpretation (Abdelrahman & Essa, 2005;Abdelrahman et al, 2012;Abo-Ezz & Essa, 2016;Aziz et al, 2013;Cooper, 2015;Ekinci, 2016;Essa & Elhussein, 2019;Essa, Munschy, et al, 2022;Kelemework et al, 2021;Li & Oldenburg, 1996;Ma & Li, 2013;Mehanee et al, 2021;Melo & Barbosa, 2020;Pham et al, 2020;Salem et al, 2004;Tlas & Asfahani, 2011a, 2011b, 2015. Among these methods, inversion methodologies are the frequently used data processing tool in anomaly interpretation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Magnetic anomalies are inferred utilizing simple geometric models (point sources, dikes, spheres, horizontal and vertical cylinders, and prisms) to estimate model parameters. Several graphical and numerical approaches for analyzing magnetic data have been created using simple geometric models, for example, the matching curve, nomograms, and characteristic points methods are examples of these approaches 29 32 , Werner and Euler deconvolution 33 – 35 , moving average techniques 36 , least-squares approaches 36 , 37 , Fourier transforms 38 , 39 , alternative local wave number technique 40 , numerical gradient-based technique 17 , tilt-angle methods 41 , 42 , correlation techniques 43 , and spectral analysis techniques 44 . However, most of these methods have several defects such as individual subjectivity, use of only a few data points along with the measurement profile, hypersensitivity to noise, and influence of adjacent effect (which might degrade the accuracy of the results).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%