2000
DOI: 10.1190/1.1444703
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shape and depth solutions from magnetic data using a parametric relationship

Abstract: We have developed a simple method to simultaneously determine the shape (shape factor) and the depth of a buried structure from magnetic data. The method is similar to Euler deconvolution, but it solves for shape and depth independently. The method involves using a relationship between the shape factor, the depth to the source, and a combination of observations at symmetric points with respect to the coordinate of the source center with a free parameter (graticule spacing). The relationship represents a parame… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…BARBOSA et al (1999), HSU (2002) and GEROVSKA and ARAUZO-BRAVO (2003) presented criteria for determining the correct structural index that is related to the shape of the source and is applied in magnetic interpretation using the Euler deconvolution method. ABDELRAHMAN and HASSANEIN (2000) developed a parametric-curves method (window-curves method) to determine simultaneously the shape and the depth of a buried structure from a residual magnetic anomaly profile. SALEM et al (2004) presented a method for interpreting a residual magnetic anomaly where a linear equation involving a symmetric anomalous field and its horizontal gradient is derived to provide the depth and the shape of the buried structures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…BARBOSA et al (1999), HSU (2002) and GEROVSKA and ARAUZO-BRAVO (2003) presented criteria for determining the correct structural index that is related to the shape of the source and is applied in magnetic interpretation using the Euler deconvolution method. ABDELRAHMAN and HASSANEIN (2000) developed a parametric-curves method (window-curves method) to determine simultaneously the shape and the depth of a buried structure from a residual magnetic anomaly profile. SALEM et al (2004) presented a method for interpreting a residual magnetic anomaly where a linear equation involving a symmetric anomalous field and its horizontal gradient is derived to provide the depth and the shape of the buried structures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 6 also shows an acceptable agreement between observed and computed anomalies. According to ABDELRAHMAN and HASSANEIN's (2000) results, the depth of the magnetic dike causing this anomaly is 2.1 meters, while this depth is estimated to be 3.5 meters, according to ABDELRAHMAN and SHARAFELDIN (1996) and SILVA (1989) where this result is considered as an overestimate of the real depth, (Table 7). …”
Section: Field Examplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Parameters ABDELRAHMAN and SHARAFELDIN (1996) SILVA (1989) ABDELRAHMAN and HASSANEIN (2000) Present method z in meters 3.5 3.5 2.1 2.26 ± 0.09 h F in degrees 33.3 --47.11 ± 1.13 C F in nT )58.6 --)59.81 ± 1.54 216 J. Asfahani and M. Tlas Pure appl.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The magnetic anomaly expression produced by most geologic structures with center located at x i = 0 can be represented by the following function (Abdelrahman and Hassanein, 2000) H(x i , z, θ) = KW(x i , z, θ), i = 1, 2, ... N,…”
Section: Formulation Of the Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods include, for example, the use of correlation factors between successive leastsquares residual magnetic anomalies (Abdelrahman, 1990), the use of a parametric relationship (Abdelrahman and Hassanein, 2000) and higher derivative analysis techniques (Abdelrahman and Abo-Ezz, 2001). However, effective quantitative interpretations using a numerical method based on the analytical expression of second moving average residual magnetic anomalies are yet to be developed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%