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
ShellSet v1.1.0 parallel dynamic neotectonic modelling: a case study using Earth5-049
Jon B. May, Peter Bird, and Michele M. C. Carafa
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6153–6171, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6153-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6153-2024, 2024
Short summary
FastIsostasy v1.0 – a regional, accelerated 2D glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model accounting for the lateral variability of the solid Earth
Jan Swierczek-Jereczek, Marisa Montoya, Konstantin Latychev, Alexander Robinson, Jorge Alvarez-Solas, and Jerry Mitrovica
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5263–5290, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5263-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5263-2024, 2024
Short summary
Automatic adjoint-based inversion schemes for geodynamics: reconstructing the evolution of Earth's mantle in space and time
Sia Ghelichkhan, Angus Gibson, D. Rhodri Davies, Stephan C. Kramer, and David A. Ham
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5057–5086, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5057-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5057-2024, 2024
Short summary
Benchmarking the accuracy of higher-order particle methods in geodynamic models of transient flow
Rene Gassmöller, Juliane Dannberg, Wolfgang Bangerth, Elbridge Gerry Puckett, and Cedric Thieulot
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4115–4134, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4115-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4115-2024, 2024
Short summary
REHEATFUNQ (REgional HEAT-Flow Uncertainty and aNomaly Quantification) 2.0.1: a model for regional aggregate heat flow distributions and anomaly quantification
Malte Jörn Ziebarth and Sebastian von Specht
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2783–2828, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2783-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2783-2024, 2024
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.