2016
DOI: 10.1007/s11770-016-0548-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

2.5D forward modeling and inversion of frequency-domain airborne electromagnetic data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The original electromagnetic field can be transformed in the wave domain by the Dufort-Frankel difference approach: (18) and (19), as shown at the top of the next page, where µ,σ , and represent magnetic permeability, average conductivity, and step size, respectively. The forward model is divided into several small rectangular elements ( Figure 2) by a nonuniform grid to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the electromagnetic field.…”
Section: 5-d Mine Tem Methods a 25-d Forward Calculationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The original electromagnetic field can be transformed in the wave domain by the Dufort-Frankel difference approach: (18) and (19), as shown at the top of the next page, where µ,σ , and represent magnetic permeability, average conductivity, and step size, respectively. The forward model is divided into several small rectangular elements ( Figure 2) by a nonuniform grid to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the electromagnetic field.…”
Section: 5-d Mine Tem Methods a 25-d Forward Calculationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the iterative process of this method can invert the optimal parameters quantitatively and obtain an accurate inversion result. The damped least squares method is widely used in geophysical inverse problems and can be expressed as follows [18], [23]- [25]:…”
Section: 5-d Damped Least Squares Inversionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…I N modelling the responses of electromagnetic (EM) surveys for geophysical exploration, it is usually necessary to separate the EM fields into the primary (background) field in the subsurface background (i.e., the subsurface without the specific scatterers) and the secondary (scattered) field due to the responses of the specific scatterers (i.e., anomalies) in the subsurface background. The secondary fields are widely employed in various EM exploration methods such as multicomponent induction tools [1], controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) method [2], the marine controlled-source electromagnetic (MCSEM) method [3], inversion of airborne electromagnetic data [4], helicopter-borne electromagnetic (HEM) measurements [5], semi-airborne electromagnetic method (SAEM) [6], the ground-airborne frequency-domain electromagnetic (GAFDEM) survey [7], ground penetrating radar [8], [9] and other detection methods [10], [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering this and the inherent computational burden of doing full 3D inversions, it is clear that there are areas where it is sufficient and even desirable to operate within a 2D formulation. Several 2D inversion algorithms have been presented over the years: Mitsuhata and Uchida (2002), Wilson et al (2006), Li et al (2016), and Key and Ovall (2011) develop 2D finite-element algorithms, whereas Abubakar et al (2008) use a finite-difference approach and Yu and Haber (2012) present a finite-volume approach. In general, finite-difference approaches are considered the most simple and inaccurate of the three approaches, but they can sometimes be justified due to their superior parallel scaling.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%