4.6 Article

Rescaled-range and power spectrum analyses on well-logging data

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
卷 153, 期 1, 页码 201-212

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.01893.x

关键词

borehole geophysics; Fourier transforms; fractals; geostatistics; numerical techniques

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fractal theory and related developments have significantly enlightened our understanding of many natural phenomena and led to an upsurge in research efforts in many different disciplines. This has unfortunately caused some ambiguities, misunderstandings, and even misuses in the published literature concerning some new concepts in fractal theory and their actual implementations. As new applications and ideas arise almost daily, it is important to present the methods in a common framework to minimize further confusion. In this paper, we scrutinize and compare two of the most frequently applied methods for characterizing fractal time-series, namely the rescaled-range (R /S ) and the power spectrum method, and describe their proper applications in wire line well-logging data. We outline the problems related to applications of these two methods. Based on numerical analysis on fractional Gaussian noise (fGn) and fractional Brownian motion (fBm), we demonstrate the clear necessity to distinguish between fGn-like and fBm-like data series. For fBm-like data series, the use of their successive increments is proposed against using various other alternatives in R /S analysis in order to make the estimated Hurst exponent (Hu ) comparable with the global scaling exponent (H ) from power spectrum analysis. We argue that well-logging data are generally analogous to fBm, and thus we use their incremental series rather than raw well data themselves to estimate Hu when applying R /S . We also reveal a connection between the transient zone length in the R /S technique and the shortest-wavelength that can be included for a linear regression in the power spectrum method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据