Patent US5355313A successfully refreshed from Google Patents.
US5355313A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Neural network interpretation of aeromagnetic data
Assignee: Texaco Inc
•
Filing: 1991-10-25
•
Granted: 1994-10-11
•
Expires: 2011-10-25
Abstract
Abstract A method for determining depth to basement from aeromagnetic data utilizes neural networks to automate the laborious process of profile interpretation. The neural networks provide consistency, accuracy and overall quality without bias of interpretation.
Inventors
- 👤 Robert F. Moll
- 👤 William C. Pearson
- 👤 John R. Rogers
- 👤 Jacky M. Wiener
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-10-26 15:51
CPC Classifications
G; G01; G01V; G01V3/00; G01V3/38; G01V3/15; G01V3/165
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 22
Claim 1
Independent Claim
139 words
A computer implemented method for studying structural anomalies along aeromagnetic traces comprising the steps of: providing a neural network having at least input, intermediate and output layers; forming at least one two-dimensional profile magnetic basement structural model, each said at least one model having a range of geometric dimension approximating an area to be studied; reprocessing aeromagnetic survey profiles to remove erroneous readings and the International Geomagnetic Reference Field; windowing said profiles for input into the network; training the neural network through weight adjustment using computer generated magnetic profiles from basement structures representative of those anticipated to be found in the basin of interest; testing the trained network on aeromagnetic profiles where basement structures are already known from other means to validate the network; and applying the network to recorded aeromagnetic profiles over an unknown portion of the basin.
Claim 2
Dependent Claim
139 words
A computer implemented method for studying structural anomalies along aeromagnetic traces comprising the steps of: providing a neural network having at least input, intermediate and output layers; forming at least one two-dimensional profile magnetic basement structural model, each said at least one model having a range of geometric dimension approximating an area to be studied; reprocessing aeromagnetic survey profiles to remove erroneous readings and the International Geomagnetic Reference Field; windowing said profiles for input into the network; training the neural network through weight adjustment using computer generated magnetic profiles from basement structures representative of those anticipated to be found in the basin of interest; testing the trained network on aeromagnetic profiles where basement structures are already known from other means to validate the network; and applying the network to recorded aeromagnetic profiles over an unknown portion of the basin.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
49 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 further comprising the step of adjusting node weights during the learning process to minimize the error between network prediction and known models according to the Delta Rule of learning and back propagation as understood in the general art of neural networks.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
19 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 wherein said two-dimensional profile magnetic basement structural model is computer generated.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
27 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 wherein said windowing is accomplished by: lagging the profile with samples spaced symmetrically to make a window of values.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
49 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 further comprising the step of: creating a cumulative back propagation network of a plurality of processing elements in the input layer, a plurality of processing elements in at least one hidden layer, and at least one element in an output layer.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
28 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 further comprising: affixing a non-linear transfer function to the processing elements in order to achieve optimum learning through weight adjustment.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
17 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 6 wherein said non-linear transfer function is a hyperbolic tangent.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
28 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 further comprising: affixing a linear transfer function to the processing elements in order to achieve optimum learning through weight adjustment.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
35 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 further comprising: allowing the network to learn for a plurality of iterations, then jogging the weighing and resume learning for at least twice the number of iterations.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
21 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 further comprising: testing the network by calculating structural values from the input data.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
13 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 used for basement depth determination.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
13 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 used to locate basement structures.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
13 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 used to locate basement faults.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
16 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 used to determine vertical relief of basement structures.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
20 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 used to determine separation of structural and compositional anomalies on aeromagnetic profiles.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
16 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 used for aeromagnetic profile interpretation for basement mapping.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim
88 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 1 further comprising the step of: creating a cumulative back propagation network of at least one processing element in the input layer, at least one element in at least one hidden layer, and at least one element in an output layer; affixing a transfer function to the processing elements in order to achieve optimum learning; and allowing the network to learn for a plurality of iterations, then jogging the weighting and resuming learning for at least twice the number of iterations.
Claim 19
Dependent Claim
53 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 17 wherein a processing element can have many input paths coming into it an whose value is the sum of the incoming neuron values times their respective connection weights: I.sub.j ΣW.sub.ji X.sub.i where I j is termed the Internal Activation of the j th processing element.
Claim 20
Dependent Claim
34 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 18 wherein the interval activation of this processing element is modified by a linear transfer function which then becomes input to the next layer of processing elements.
Claim 21
Dependent Claim
115 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 17 wherein the matrix of weights are determined or adjusted in response to an input and is referred to as the learning rule and, back-propogation, the responsibility for reducing output error is shared among all of the connection weights, said error first being calculated at the output layer by the difference between the desired output and the actual output, then multiplying this difference by the derivative of the transfer function: E.sub.k.sup.(out) =F'(I.sub.k.sup.(out))*(D.sub.k -O.sub.k) and using a sum of products to the previous layer, the previous PE's are then assigned proportional error computed in a fashion similar to a feed forward sum of products: E.sub.j.sup.(s) =F'(I.sub.j.sup.(s))* Σ.sub.k (E.sub.k.sup.(s+1) *W.sub.kj.sup.(s+1))
Claim 22
Dependent Claim
35 words
The computer implemented method according to claim 20 wherein the recursive process back-propagates the error throughout the network and finally the weights are adjusted with the following formula: ΔW.sub.ji =lcoef*E.sub.j.sup.(s) *X.sub.i.sup.(s-1) E where: lcoef=learning coefficient.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US4628266A
Cited
US4646240A
Cited
US4633182A
Cited
US4713775A
Cited
US4939648A
Cited
US5181171A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 1997-10-10 | 1998-04-11 | 1998-10-11 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2001-10-10 | 2002-04-11 | 2002-10-11 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2005-10-10 | 2006-04-11 | 2006-10-11 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |