4.7 Article

First-order reversal curve diagrams: A new tool for characterizing the magnetic properties of natural samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
卷 105, 期 B12, 页码 28461-28475

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2000JB900326

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paleomagnetic and environmental magnetic studies are commonly conducted on samples containing mixtures of magnetic minerals and/or grain sizes. Major hysteresis loops are routinely used to provide information about variations in magnetic mineralogy and grain size. Standard hysteresis parameters, however, provide a measure of the bulk magnetic properties, rather than enabling discrimination between the magnetic components that contribute to the magnetization of a sample. By contrast, first-order reversal curve (FORC) diagrams, which we describe here, can be used to identify and discriminate between the different components in a mixed magnetic mineral assemblage. We use magnetization data from a class of partial hysteresis curves known as first-order reversal curves (FORCs) and transform the data into contour plots (FORC diagrams) of a two-dimensional distribution function. The FORC distribution provides information about particle switching fields and local interaction fields for the assemblage of magnetic particles within a sample. Superparamagnetic, single-domain, and multidomain grains, as well as magnetostatic interactions, all produce characteristic and distinct manifestations on a FORC diagram. Our results indicate that FORC diagrams can be used to characterize a wide range of natural samples and that they provide more detailed information about the magnetic particles in a sample than standard interpretational schemes which employ hysteresis data. It will be necessary to further develop the technique to enable a more quantitative interpretation of magnetic assemblages; however, even qualitative interpretation of FORC diagrams removes many of the ambiguities that are inherent to hysteresis data.

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

4.7
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