1887
ASEG2004 - 17th Geophysical Conference
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Recent implementations of Euler deconvolution allow to solve simultaneously for the source position and the structural index. This opens the way to a comparison between this technique and the Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT) method, that allows the estimation of essentially the same parameters. Direct comparison of Euler deconvolution and CWT methods is possible only by applying the first method to a potential field upward continued to many altitudes. While the two methods give very similar results when the gravity or magnetic field of a one-point source is concerned, they behave different for those sources characterized by fractional structural index, as many real geologic structures are (for example a limited throw fault). In this paper, the variation of the Euler estimated parameters at many altitudes above a magnetized prism is described. Such a variation gives additional information on source geometric parameters and position, which may be recovered from plots of estimated depth and structural index vs. altitude: a) the extended or one-point nature of the source results clearly; b) it is possible to understand to which part of the source the depth estimate is related to; c) it is possible to get indications about the source thickness and lateral dimensions. On the other hand, for sources of finite extent, the CWT analysis may be made only for sets of levels and not at any level, differently from the above outlined Euler deconvolution approach. Nevertheless the results from these two methods are substantially consistent at high or low altitudes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2004ab043
2004-12-01
2026-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Fedi, M., Rapolla, A., 1999. 3-D inversion of gravity and magnetic data with depth resolution. Geophysics 64, 452-460.
  2. Fedi M. and Florio G., 2000. Euler Deconvolution with no a priori definition of Structural Index. Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol. 4. 27th General Assembly of the European Geophysical Society, Nice (France), april, 21-26, 2002.
  3. Honrby, P., Boschetti, F., Horowitz, F.G., 1999. Analysis of Potential field data in the wavelet domain. Geophys. J. Int. 37,175-196
  4. Hsu, S.K., 2002. Imaging magnetic sources using Euler’s equation. Geophysical Prospecting, 50,15-25.
  5. McGrath, P.H., 1991. Dip and depth extent of density boundaries using horizontal derivatives of upward-continued gravity data. Geophysics 56 (10), 1533-1542.
  6. Nabighian, M.N. and Hansen R.O, 2001. Unification of Euler and Werner deconvolution in three dimensions via the generalized Hilbert transform. Geophysics, 66, 1805-1810.
  7. Paul, M.K., Datta, S., Banerjee, B., 1966. Direct interpretation of two-dimensional structural faults from gravity data. Geophysics 31, 940-948.
  8. Pedersen. L.B., 1991. Relations between potential fields and some equivalent sources. Geophysics 56, 961-971.
  9. Reid, A.B., Allsop, J.M., Granser, H., Millet, AJ. and Somerton, I.W., 1990. Magnetic interpretation in three dimension using Euler deconvolution. Geophysics, 55, 80-91.
  10. Sailhac, P. and Gibert, D., 2003. Identification of sources of potential fields with the continuous wavelet transform: Two dimensional wavelets and multipolar approximations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108, B5, 2262.
  11. Thompson, D.T., 1982. EULDPH: A new technique for making computer-assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics, 47, 31-37.
/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2004ab043
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CWT; Euler method; structural index
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