Articles | Volume 10, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3591-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3591-2017
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
28 Sep 2017
Methods for assessment of models |  | 28 Sep 2017

Ellipsoids (v1.0): 3-D magnetic modelling of ellipsoidal bodies

Diego Takahashi and Vanderlei C. Oliveira Jr.

Related authors

Estimation of the total magnetization direction of approximately spherical bodies
V. C. Oliveira Jr., D. P. Sales, V. C. F. Barbosa, and L. Uieda
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 22, 215–232, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-22-215-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-22-215-2015, 2015
Short summary

Related subject area

Solid Earth
Addressing challenges in uncertainty quantification: the case of geohazard assessments
Ibsen Chivata Cardenas, Terje Aven, and Roger Flage
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1601–1615, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1601-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1601-2023, 2023
Short summary
ClinoformNet-1.0: stratigraphic forward modeling and deep learning for seismic clinoform delineation
Hui Gao, Xinming Wu, Jinyu Zhang, Xiaoming Sun, and Zhengfa Bi
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-245,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-245, 2023
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
DeepISMNet: three-dimensional implicit structural modeling with convolutional neural network
Zhengfa Bi, Xinming Wu, Zhaoliang Li, Dekuan Chang, and Xueshan Yong
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6841–6861, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6841-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6841-2022, 2022
Short summary
Towards automatic finite-element methods for geodynamics via Firedrake
D. Rhodri Davies, Stephan C. Kramer, Sia Ghelichkhan, and Angus Gibson
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5127–5166, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5127-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5127-2022, 2022
Short summary
MagmaFOAM-1.0: a modular framework for the simulation of magmatic systems
Federico Brogi, Simone Colucci, Jacopo Matrone, Chiara Paola Montagna, Mattia De' Michieli Vitturi, and Paolo Papale
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3773–3796, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3773-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3773-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Allmendinger, R., Cardozo, N., and Fisher, D. M.: Structural Geology Algorithms: Vectors and Tensors, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Austin, J., Geuna, S., Clark, D., and Hillan, D.: Remanence, self-demagnetization and their ramifications for magnetic modelling of iron oxide copper-gold deposits: An example from Candelaria, Chile, J. Appl. Geophys., 109, 242–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2014.08.002, 2014.
Blakely, R. J.: Potential theory in gravity and magnetic applications, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Chang, H.: Fields external to open-structure magnetic devices represented by ellipsoid or spheroid, British Journal of Applied Physics, 12, 160–163, https://doi.org/10.1088/0508-3443/12/4/308, 1961.
Clark, D.: Self-Demagnetisation in Practice: the Osborne Cu-Au Deposit, Preview (Magazine of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists), 31–36, 2000.
Download
Short summary
Ellipsoids are the only bodies for which the self-demagnetization can be treated analytically. This property is useful for modelling compact orebodies having high susceptibility. We present a review of the magnetic modelling of ellipsoids, propose a way of determining the isotropic susceptibility above which the self-demagnetization must be considered, and discuss the ambiguity between confocal ellipsoids, as well as provide a set of routines to model the magnetic field produced by ellipsoids.