Magnetic Data Interpretation Using Advanced Techniques: A Comparative Study

Essa, Khalid S.; Elhussein, Mahmoud; Youssef, Mohamed Ahmed

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28909-6_10

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The interpretation of gravity and self-potential data falls on the main two categories as follows: the first category depends on threedimensional and two-dimensional data elucidation [8][9][10][11][12][13], the second category is depending using the simple geometric-shaped model such as spheres, cylinders, and sheets which are playing a vital role in interpreting the subsurface structures to reach the priors information that help in more investigations [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. In addition, methods depend on the global optimization algorithms such as genetic algorithm [21][22][23][24], particle swarm [25,26], simulated annealing [27][28][29][30][31][32], flower pollination [33], memory-based hybrid dragonfly [34], differential evolution [35,36].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined Gravity or Self-Potential Anomaly Formula for Mineral Exploration

Essa¹,

Elhussein²

2021

Geophysics and Ocean Waves Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A combined gravity and/or self-potential anomaly formula is utilized to estimate the model parameters of the buried geologic structures represented by simple geometric. The simple geometric shapes (spheres, cylinders, and sheets) are not really found but often applied to reduce the nonuniqueness in interpreting the gravity and self-potential data. Numerous approaches through the combined formula such as least squares, Werner deconvolution, and the particle swarm optimization method are used. The application of these methods was demonstrated by applying a synthetic gravity and self-potential example without and with 10% random noise to compare their efficiency in estimating the model parameters of the buried structures. Besides, they were applied to two field data for mineral exploration. The appraised model parameter values from each method were compared together and with those published in literature.

show abstract