1887
ASEG2010 - 21st Geophysical Conference
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Summary

We aim to provide a novel approach to the inversion of EM data through transform of moving-source EM data to an equivalent fixed-source potential field. We call this potential field the Surrogate potential field. The proposed approach then provides accurate and efficient depth estimates by Euler deconvolution. Under the quasi-static approximation at each instant a “smoke ring” of induced current will be the source of a potential field, samples of which will be mathematically manipulated to create a surrogate potential field from multiple realisations of induced current. The surrogate potential field is proportional to the square root of a coincident loop response. Processing will involve inspecting data and correcting for the sign ambiguity at suitably stable locations.

Surrogate potential field inversion will be most useful for horizontal and steeply dipping plates that are of relatively small size, where stitched 1D layered earth EM inversions are slow and often overestimate the depth of a small near surface body. Conductive overburden introduces a “DC offset” which may be subtracted before transformation to a surrogate potential. Confidence limits on solutions are part of a least squares regression involving a cluster analysis. These form the basis for evaluation of the reliability with which the proposed method estimated target parameters from EM data. Successful estimations of depth and location have been performed for synthetic horizontal and vertical tabular plate models calculated by Maxwell. A successful inversion of field data has been achieved using the surrogate potential field method.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041883
2010-12-01
2026-01-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Blakely, R. 1996. Potential Teory in Gravity & Magnetic Applications. Cambridge.
  2. Cooper, G., Combrinck, M. & Cowan, D. 2004. The application of Euler deconvolution to airborne EM data. ASEG Conference Extended Abstracts.
  3. Grant, F.S. & West, G.F. 1965. Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics. McGraw-Hill.
  4. Macnae, J. 1986. A manual of large-loop EM interpretation. Lamontagne Geophysics.
  5. Macnae, J., King, A., Stolz, N., Osmakoff, A. & Blaha, A. 1998. Fast AEM data processing and inversion. Exploration Geophysics29, 163-169.
  6. McDonald, P. 2008. A VTEM survey along the 2006 central Victorian seismic transect. (DPI Victoria).
  7. Mushayandebvu, M.F., Lesur, V., Reid, A.B. & Fairhead, J.D. 2004. Grid Euler deconvolution with constraints for 2D structures. Geophysics69, 489-496.
  8. Reid, A.B., Allsop, J.M., Granser, H., Millett, A.J. & Somerton, I.W. 1990. Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution. Geophysics55, 80-91.
  9. Roy, A. 1966. Downward continuation and its application to electromagnetic data interpretation. Geophysics31, 167-184.
/content/journals/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041883
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Coincident Loop; Electromagnetic; Euler Deconvolution; Inversion
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