Statistical estimation of systematic errors at intersections of lines of aeromagnetic survey data

Foster, M. R.; Jines, W.R.; Weg, Kirian van der

doi:10.1029/jb075i008p01507

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this simple technique will not be useful if the error distribution was significantly non-normal (for example, if a systematic error was suddenly introduced into measurements while a survey was underway). In this case a more vigorous approach could be used (Johnson, 1971;Foster et al, 1970;Wells, 1976) at the expense of a great deal more computational effort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Crossover differences as an indication of survey accuracy

Swan

Young

1978

Marine Geophysical Researches

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Differences in values obtained at trackline crossovers can be used to give an indication of the overall accuracy of marine geophysical surveys. A study of the statistical validity and interpretative value of several parameters commonly used to summarize crossover discrepancies has been made. It was found that the interpretation of commonly reported statistical parameters such as standard deviation and R.M.S. error can be complicated by the presence of a systematic error in the survey data, by possible nonnormalities in the error distribution, or by the use of a distribution of positive differences. A standard procedure for the analysis of survey error on the basis of crossover discrepancies is outlined, including techniques for estimating systematic survey errors and for the evaluation of the normality of the observed distribution of crossover discrepancies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Crossover differences as an indication of survey accuracy

Swan

Young

1978

Marine Geophysical Researches

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Foster et al, 1970;Yarger et al, 1978;Green, 1983;Bandy et al, 1990;Luyendyk, 1997;Mauring et al, 2002) requires tie-line data; therefore it is also called tie-line levelling. The tie lines normally cross the lines perpendicularly, but that is not a necessary condition.…”

Section: Statistical Levellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Foster et al, 1970;Yarger et al, 1978;Green, 1983;Bandy et al, 1990;Minty, 1991;Luyendyk, 1997;Ferraccioli et al, 1998;Mauring et al, 2002;Mauring and Kihle, 2006) describing the levelling techniques based on statistical methods and/or 2-D filter techniques called statistical levelling (tie-line levelling) and empirical levelling (microlevelling), respectively. Tie-line levelling corrects discrepancies between the intersections of the lines and tie lines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levelling of helicopter-borne frequency-domain electromagnetic data

Siemon

2009

Journal of Applied Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A common technique for levelling is minimizing mis‐ties by least‐squares polynomial fitting for each flight line (Foster, Jines and van der Weg 1970; Yarger, Robertson and Wentland 1978; Bandy, Gangi and Morgan 1990; Luyendyk 1997). The polynomial levelling technique is described in detail in this paper and compared with related levelling techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of aeromagnetic levelling techniques with an introduction to median levelling

Mauring

Beard

Kihle

et al. 2002

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aeromagnetic data collected in areas with severe diurnal magnetic variations (auroral zones) are difficult to level. This paper describes levelling of an aeromagnetic survey where such conditions prevail, and where sophisticated levelling techniques are needed. Corrections based on piecewise low‐order polynomial functions are often used to minimize mis‐ties in aeromagnetic data. We review this technique and describe similar mis‐tie fitting methods based on low‐pass filter levelling, tensioned B‐spline levelling and median levelling. It is demonstrated that polynomial levelling, low‐pass filter levelling and tensioned B‐spline levelling depend on the careful editing of outlying mis‐ties to avoid the introduction of false anomalies. These three techniques are equally efficient at removing level errors. Median levelling also removes level errors efficiently, but it is more robust in the sense that mis‐tie editing is not required. This is due to the inherent noise‐removal capabilities of the median filter. After mis‐tie editing, the total field anomalies of the other three techniques closely resemble the unedited median‐levelled total field anomaly.

show abstract

Statistical estimation of systematic errors at intersections of lines of aeromagnetic survey data

Cited by 27 publications

References 2 publications

Crossover differences as an indication of survey accuracy

Crossover differences as an indication of survey accuracy

Levelling of helicopter-borne frequency-domain electromagnetic data

A comparison of aeromagnetic levelling techniques with an introduction to median levelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About