1887
Volume 52, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Euler deconvolution and the analytic signal are both used for semi‐automatic interpretation of magnetic data. They are used mostly to delineate contacts and obtain rapid source depth estimates. For Euler deconvolution, the quality of the depth estimation depends mainly on the choice of the proper structural index, which is a function of the geometry of the causative bodies. Euler deconvolution applies only to functions that are homogeneous. This is the case for the magnetic field due to contacts, thin dikes and poles. Fortunately, many complex geological structures can be approximated by these simple geometries. In practice, the Euler equation is also solved for a background regional field. For the analytic signal, the model used is generally a contact, although other models, such as a thin dike, can be considered. It can be shown that if a function is homogeneous, its analytic signal is also homogeneous. Deconvolution of the analytic signal is then equivalent to Euler deconvolution of the magnetic field with a background field. However, computation of the analytic signal effectively removes the background field from the data. Consequently, it is possible to solve for both the source location and structural index. Once these parameters are determined, the local dip and the susceptibility contrast can be determined from relationships between the analytic signal and the orthogonal gradients of the magnetic field. The major advantage of this technique is that it allows the automatic identification of the type of source. Implementation of this approach is demonstrated for recent high‐resolution survey data from an Archean granite‐greenstone terrane in northern Ontario, Canada.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00408.x
2004-04-26
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AyerJ.A., TrowellN.F., BergerB., MadonZ., ZalnieriunasR. and ValadeL.1999. Geological compilation of the Lake Abitibi area, Abitibi Greenstone Belt . Ontario Geological Survey Miscellaneous Release – Data 46.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BarbosaV.C.F., SilvaJ.B.C. and MedeirosW.E.1999. Stability analysis and improvement of structural index estimation in Euler deconvolution. Geophysics64,48–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. HsuS.‐K., CoppensD. and ShyuC.‐T.1998. Depth to magnetic source using the generalized analytic signal. Geophysics63,1947–1957.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HuangD., GubbinsD., ClarkR.A. and WhalerK.A.1995. Combined study of Euler's homogeneity equation for gravity and magnetic field. 57th EAGE conference, Glasgow , UK , Extended Abstracts, P144.
  5. JensenL.S., BakerC.L. and TrowellN.F.1985. Preliminary results of bedrock samples from sonic drilling program in the Matheson area, Cochrane District, Map P. 2848, scale 1:100000 . Ontario Geological Survey .
    [Google Scholar]
  6. MacLeodI.C., JonesK. and Fan DaiT.1993. 3‐D analytic signal in the interpretation of total magnetic field data at low magnetic latitudes. Exploration Geophysics24,679–688.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. MarsonI. and KlingeleE.1993. Advantages of using the vertical gradient of gravity for 3‐D interpretation. Geophysics58,1588–1595.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. NabighianM.N.1972. The analytic signal of two‐dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross‐section: its properties and use for automated anomaly interpretation. Geophysics37,507–517.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ontario Geological Survey
    Ontario Geological Survey1999. The Ontario Drill Hole Database. ERLIS data set 13 . Ontario Geological Survey .
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ontario Geological Survey
    Ontario Geological Survey2000. Ontario Airborne Geophysical Surveys, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Data, Matheson Area. Geophysical data set 1101 . Ontario Geological Survey .
    [Google Scholar]
  11. PalackyG.J., MwenifumboC.J. and StephensL.E.1992. Geophysical studies at the Val Gagné test site, Ontario. In: Current Research, Part E, Paper 92‐1E , pp. 185–193. Geological Survey of Canada .
    [Google Scholar]
  12. PullanS.E., HunterJ.A., GagnéR.M. and GoodR.L.1987. Delineation of bedrock topography at Val Gagné, Ontario, using seismic reflection techniques. In: Current Research, Part A, Paper 87‐1A , pp. 905–912. Geological Survey of Canada .
    [Google Scholar]
  13. RavatD.1996. Analysis of the Euler method and its applicability in environmental investigations. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics1,229–238.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ReidA.B.1995. Euler deconvolution: Past, present and future – A review. 65th SEG meeting, Houston , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 272–273.
  15. ReidA.B., AlsopJ.M., GranderH., MilletA.J. and SomertonI.W.1990. Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution. Geophysics55,80–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. RoestW., VerhoefJ. and PilkingtonM.1992. Magnetic interpretation using the 3‐D analytic signal. Geophysics57,116–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SmithR.S., ThurstonJ.B., Ting‐FaiD. and MacLeodI.N.1998. iSPI™– the improved source parameter imaging method. Geophysical Prospecting46,141–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ThompsonD.T.1982. EULDPH – A technique for making computer‐assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics47,31–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. ThurstonJ.B. and SmithR.S.1997. Automatic conversion of magnetic data to depth, dip, and susceptibility contrast using the SPI(TM) method. Geophysics62,807–813.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00408.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00408.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error