Geological Survey of Canada aeromagnetic surveys: design, quality assurance, and data dissemination

Coyle, M; Dumont, R; Keating, Pierre; Kiss, F; Miles, W

doi:10.4095/295088

Cited by 46 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One standard deviation from the mean is equal to ± 0.014 nT. The noise level range is approximately ± 0.05 nT; this is within the industry accepted noise level of ± 0.1 nT (Teskey et al, 1991;Coyle et al, 2014).…”

Section: Uas Data Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental aeromagnetic survey using an unmanned air system

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, Stratus Aeronautics is developing an unmanned aircraft system (UAS), called the Venturer, for aeromagnetic surveying. On 2 October 2013, in southern Alberta, Canada, an experimental survey of the UAS was conducted. Approximately 13 km of preprogrammed survey lines, along with calibration maneuvers, were flown, providing 45 minutes worth of data collection. The UAS was stable in flight and only required operator intervention for takeoff and landing. There was a + 2 m offset from the nominal altitude of 150 m, with variations of approximately ± 1.4 m. Deviations from a straight flight path were approximately ± 0.9 m along traverse lines and ± 25 m along tie-lines, the latter being affected mainly by crosswind. The noise envelope for the magnetic data acquired during the survey was approximately ± 0.05 nT, allowing a high-quality total-magneticintensity map to be created.

show abstract

Section: Uas Data Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…To determine the noise levels on the survey data, the fourth difference was calculated (Teskey et al, 1991;Coyle et al, 2014). Figure 4 shows the fourth difference noise levels for the magnetic data from all the traverse and tie lines (6453 data points included in the analysis).…”

Section: Uas Data Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental aeromagnetic survey using an unmanned air system

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The quality of a calibration is assessed using various metrics (Noriega , ; Coyle et al . ). The following metrics are calculated automatically by the AARC52:

σ_{u} -

the standard deviation (STD) of the uncompensated total magnetic intensity (TMI).

σ_{c} -

the STD of the compensated TMI. IR – the improvement ratio, defined as:

IR = \frac{σ_{u}}{σ_{c}} .

norm – the vector norm is a measure of ill‐conditioning that represents a numerical issue in the calculation of the solution.…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…These calibration flights are executed in box patterns covering large areas (∼10 km 2 ) and at high altitudes (∼3000 m above ground level (AGL)) in magnetically ‘quiet’ zones close to the intended survey area (Coyle et al . ). The same approach is not directly applicable to UAS where these criteria cannot be met due to technical and regulatory limitations that restrict the altitude and require operation within line‐of‐sight.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Real‐time compensation of magnetic data acquired by a single‐rotor unmanned aircraft system

Tuck

Samson

Polowick

et al. 2019

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two methods for low‐altitude calibration of a single‐rotor unmanned aircraft system using a real‐time compensator are tested: (1) a stationary calibration where the unmanned aircraft system executes manoeuvres while hovering in order to minimize ambient field changes due to the local geology; and (2) an adapted box calibration flown in four orthogonal directions. Both methods use two compensator‐specific limits derived from established methods for manned airborne calibration: the lowest frequency used by the compensator for the calibration algorithm and the maximum variation of the ambient magnetic intensity experienced by the unmanned aircraft system during calibration. Prior to flying, the unmanned aircraft system was magnetically characterized using the heading error and fourth difference. Magnetic interference was mitigated by extending the magnetometer‐unmanned aircraft system separation distance to 1.7 m, shielding, and demagnetization. The stationary calibration yielded an improvement ratio of 8.595 and a standard deviation of the compensated total magnetic intensity of 0.075 nT (estimated Figure‐of‐Merit of 3.8 nT). The box calibration also yielded an improvement ratio of 3.989 and a standard deviation of the compensated total magnetic intensity of 0.083 nT (estimated Figure‐of‐Merit of 4.2 nT). The stationary and box calibration solutions were robust with low cross‐correlation indexes (1.090 and 1.048, respectively) when applied to a non‐native data set.

show abstract

“…These anthropogenic anomalies are normally not removed from aeromagnetic survey data (Coyle et al 2014) but were still removed to aid in the interpretation of the current study by painstaking examination of satellite imagery and manual editing of magnetic profiles. In the centre of the Strasbourg area, the shear volume of anthropogenic anomalies may have completely masked the magnetic signature of the geology underneath.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%