1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 60, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 60, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we describe a non‐linear constrained inversion technique for 2D interpretation of high resolution magnetic field data along flight lines using a simple dike model. We first estimate the strike direction of a quasi 2D structure based on the eigenvector corresponding to the minimum eigenvalue of the pseudogravity gradient tensor derived from gridded, low‐pass filtered magnetic field anomalies, assuming that the magnetization direction is known. Then the measured magnetic field can be transformed into the strike coordinate system and all magnetic dike parameters – horizontal position, depth to the top, dip angle, width and susceptibility contrast – can be estimated by non‐linear least squares inversion of the high resolution magnetic field data along the flight lines.

We use the Levenberg‐Marquardt algorithm together with the trust‐region‐reflective method enabling users to define inequality constraints on model parameters such that the estimated parameters are always in a trust region. Assuming that the maximum of the calculated  (vertical gradient of the pseudogravity field) is approximately located above the causative body, data points enclosed by a window, along the profile, centred at the maximum of  are used in the inversion scheme for estimating the dike parameters. The size of the window is increased until it exceeds a predefined limit. Then the solution corresponding to the minimum data fit error is chosen as the most reliable one.

Using synthetic data we study the effect of random noise and interfering sources on the estimated models and we apply our method to a new aeromagnetic data set from the Särna area, west central Sweden including constraints from laboratory measurements on rock samples from the area.

© 2011 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01010.x
2011-10-10
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01010.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AsterR.C., BorchersB. and ThurberC.H.2005. Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems . Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BastaniM. and PedersenL.B.2001. Automatic interpretation of magnetic dike parameters using the analytical signal technique. Geophysics66, 551–561.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BeikiM.2010. Analytic signals of gravity gradient tensor and their application to estimate source location. Geophysics75, I59–I74.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BeikiM. and PedersenL.B.2010. Eigenvector analysis of gravity gradient tensor to locate geologic bodies. Geophysics75, I37–I49.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BeikiM., PedersenL.B. and NaziH.2011. Interpretation of aeromagnetic data using eigenvector analysis of pseudogravity gradient tensor. Geophysics76, L1–L10.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BylundG. and PatchettP.J.1977. Palaeomagnetic and Rb‐Sr isotopic evidence for the ages of the Särna alkaline complex, western central Sweden. Lithos10, 73–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DondururD. and PamukçuO.A.2003. Interpretation of magnetic anomalies from dipping dike model using inverse solution, power spectrum and Hilbert transform methods. Journal of the Balkan Geophysical Society6, 127–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GrantF.S. and WestG.F.1965. Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics . McGraw‐Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. HansenR.O. and SimmondsM.1993. Multiple‐source Werner deconvolution. Geophysics58, 1792–1800.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. HansenR.O.2005. 3D multiple‐source Werner deconvolution for magnetic data. Geophysics70, L45–L51.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HsuS.K., CoppensD. and ShyuC.T.1998. Depth to magnetic source using the generalized analytic signal. Geophysics63, 1947–1957.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. JainS.1976. An automatic method of direct interpretation of magnetic profiles. Geophysics41, 531–545.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. KuC.C. and SharpJ.A.1983. Werner deconvolution for automated magnetic interpretation and its refinement using Marquardt's inverse modeling. Geophysics48, 754–774.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MadsenK., NielsenH.B. and TingleffO.2004. Methods for Non‐linear Least Squares Problems . Technical University of Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MushayandebvuM.F., van DrielP., ReidA.B. and FairheadJ.D.2001. Magnetic source parameters of two‐dimensional structures using extended Euler deconvolution. Geophysics66, 814–823.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. NabighianM.N.1972. The analytic signal of two‐dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross‐section – Its properties and use of automated anomaly interpretation. Geophysics66, 814–823.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. NabighianM.N.1974. Additional comments on the analytic signal of two‐dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross‐section. Geophysics39, 85–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. NabighianM.N.1984. Toward a three‐dimensional automatic interpretation of potential field data via generalized Hilbert transforms – Fundamental relations. Geophysics49, 780–786.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. NabighianM.N. and HansenR.O.2001. Unification of Euler and Werner deconvolution in three dimensions via the generalized Hilbert transform. Geophysics66, 1805–1810.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. NaudyH.1971. Automatic determination of depth on aeromagnetic profiles. Geophysics36, 717–722.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PedersenL.B. and RasmussenT.M.1990. The gradient tensor of potential field anomalies: Some implications on data collection and data processing of maps. Geophysics55, 1558–1566.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. ReidA.B., AllsopJ.M., GranserH., MilletA.J. and SomertonI.W.1990. Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution. Geophysics55, 80–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. RoestW.R., VerhoefJ. and PilkingtonM.1992. Magnetic interpretation using the 3‐D analytic signal. Geophysics57, 116–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SilvaJ.B.C. and BarbosaV.C.F.2003. Euler deconvolution: Theoretical basis for automatically selecting good solutions. Geophysics68, 1962–1968.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. ThompsonD.T.1982. EULDPH – A new technique for making computer assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics47, 31–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. WelinE. and LundqvistT.1970. New Rb‐Sb age data for the sub‐Jotnian volcanic (Dala porphyries) in the Los‐Hamra region, central Sweden. Geologiska Föreningens i Stockholm Förhandlingar92, 35–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. WernerS.1953. Interpretation of magnetic anomalies of sheet‐like bodies. Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, Series C43(6).
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01010.x
Loading
Estimating magnetic dike parameters using a non‐linear constrained inversion technique: an example from the Särna area, west central Sweden
Geophysical Prospecting 60, 526 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01010.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01010.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01010.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Interpretation; Inversion; Magnetics; Parameter estimation; Potential field

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