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

Abstract

Summary

Most semi-automated processing routines assume simple scenarios where the resultant anomaly is produced by a single, parallel-piped, non-dipping source in a vertical ambient field. This however does not represent any realworld situation. All magnetic sources will have some dip and not be oriented parallel or orthogonal to the ambient magnetic field. Therefore, the angle at which the magnetic field intercepts the source will not be the same along all edges. This discussion is further complicated when one considers whether the source is 2D or 3D, which is dependent on where calculations are conducted along the source edge. This raises the critical question of how does the magnetic field direction affect depth solutions along the source edges which each have a different orientation?

Tilt-depth has been shown to work reliably under ideal conditions. Since tilt-depth is a simplified formula using the assumption of a vertical magnetic field, one needs to revisit its fundamental equations. As it turns out, the fundamental equations that give rise to tilt-depth do employ basic magnetic field geometry parameters. This shows it is incorrect to assume that the same depth solution will be produced regardless of the source orientation relative to the magnetic field. The consequence of this effect becomes apparent through a solution asymmetry on either side of the source edge. By varying the field parameters in a synthetic scenario, it is shown that variable depth solutions are achieved depending on the planar orientation of the magnetic source.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041999
2010-12-01
2026-01-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Keating, P., and Pilkington, M., 2004. Euler deconvolution of the analytic signal and its application to magnetic interpretation: Geophysical Prospecting, 52, 165-182.
  2. Nabighian, M. N., 1972. The analytic signal of twodimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross-section: Its properties and use for the automated anomaly interpretation: Geophysics, 37, 507-517.
  3. Reid, A. B., Allsop, J.M., Granser, H., Millet, A.J., and Somerton, I.W., 1990. Magnetic Interpretation in 3 dimensions using Euler deconvolution: Geophysics, 55 (1), 80-91.
  4. Salem, A., William, S., Fairhead, D., Ravat, D., and Smith, R., 2007. Tilt-depth method: A simple depth estimation method using first-order magnetic derivatives: The Leading Edge, December, 1502-1505.
  5. Salem, A., William, S., Fairhead, D., Smith, R., and Ravat, D., 2008. Interpretation of magnetic data using tilt-angle derivatives: Geophysics, 73 (1), L1-L10.
  6. Smith, R.S., Thurston, J.B., Dai, T., and MacLeod, I.N., 1998. iSPI™ – the improved source parameter imaging method: Geophysical Prospecting, 46, 141-151.
  7. Spector, A., and Grant, F.S., 1970. Statistical Models for Interpreting Aeromagnetic Data: Geophysics, 35 (5), 293-302.
  8. Thurston, J. B., and Smith, R.S., 1997. Automatic conversion of magnetic data to depth, dip, and susceptibility contrast using the SPI (TM) method: Geophysics, 62 (3), 807-813.
/content/journals/10.1081/22020586.2010.12041999
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): depth estimation; magnetics
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