Hi,
Does anyone have an analytical/numerical comparison of TDEM and FDEM modules for electric dipole? (Ward & Hohmann 2.40 and 2.50). I tried them but the analytical result was like on time and simpeg results were off time? Also, field values were really big.
Thank you.
Hi @Deniz, there is a python package called empymod:
where you can compute analytic solution for 1D layered earth.
Hi @Deniz
I just stumbled upon this today. Did you found what you were looking for?
I actually have the figures around the equations you mentioned all reproduced, see here: https://empymod.readthedocs.io/en/stable/examples/reproducing/fem_tem.html#sphx-glr-examples-reproducing-fem-tem-py
empymod has both the numerical and analytical solutions for all possible source-receiver combinations for fullspaces and halfspaces. However, the implementation does not follow Ward and Hohmann (which are derived from potentials, I think), but they follow Hunziker et al, 2015 (fullspaces) and Slob et al, 2010 (halfspaces), see https://empymod.readthedocs.io/en/stable/references.html for the full references.
I am happy to help with any questions if you have some.
(Thanks @sgkang09 for pointing to empymod!)
Hi @prisae
Thank you so much for the information. I was trying to compare analytical and numerical solutions for SimPEG. FDEM results were perfectly matched with Ward and Hohmann. However, whatever I do, TDEM result doesn’t match perfectly. Analytical and numerical results for TDEM are really close to each other but I was wondering if it is possible to get a better result.
Can you share your scripts? Then I could have a look, otherwise it is hard to tell…