2009
DOI: 10.1071/eg09005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpretation of magnetic anomalies using some simple characteristic positions over tabular bodies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(2005) provided a detailed work on the historical development of geomagnetic anomaly interpretation techniques. 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).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2005) provided a detailed work on the historical development of geomagnetic anomaly interpretation techniques. 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).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
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%
“…The strategies are based on: (i) graphical methods utilizing some distinctive features of the magnetic profile ( Koulomzine et al., 1970 ; Am, 1972 ; Subrahmanyam and Prakasa Rao, 2009 ); (ii) spectral analysis techniques ( Prakasa Rao et al., 1986 ); and (iii) numerical techniques such as the Werner Deconvolution method ( Hartman et al., 1971 ; Ku & Sharp; McGrath and Hood, 1973 ; Silva, 1989 ; Dondurur and Pamukcu, 2003 ). Large potential field data necessitate automatic interpretation techniques like Euler's algorithm and Werner deconvolution ( Thompson, 1982 ; Werner, 1953 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%