1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 62, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 62, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

When anomalous gravity gradient signals provide a large signal‐to‐noise ratio, airborne and marine surveys can be considered with wide line spacing. In these cases, spatial resolution and sampling requirements become the limiting factors for specifying the line spacing, rather than anomaly detectability. This situation is analysed by generating known signals from a geological model and then sub‐sampling them using a simulated airborne gravity gradient survey with a line spacing much wider than the characteristic anomaly size. The data are processed using an equivalent source inversion, which is used subsequently to predict and grid the field in‐between the survey lines by means of forward calculations. Spatial and spectral error analysis is used to quantify the accuracy and resolution of the processed data and the advantages of acquiring multiple gravity gradient components are demonstrated. With measurements of the full tensor along survey lines spaced at 4 × 4 km, it is shown that the vertical gravity gradient can be reconstructed accurately over a bandwidth of 2 km with spatial root‐mean square errors less than 30%. A real airborne full‐tensor gravity gradient survey is presented to confirm the synthetic analysis in a practical situation.

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12098
2014-02-04
2024-04-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12098
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BarnesG.2012. Interpolating the gravity field using full tensor gradient measurements. First Break30, 97–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BarnesG. and BarraudJ.2012. Imaging geologic surfaces by inverting gravity gradient data with depth horizons. Geophysics77(1), G1–G11.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BarnesG.J., BarraudJ., LumleyJ. and DaviesM.2008. Advantages of multi‐tensor high resolution gravity gradient data. 78th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 3587–3590.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BarnesG. and LumleyJ.2011. Processing gravity gradient data. Geophysics76(2), I33–I47.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BarnesG.J., LumleyJ.M., HoughtonP.I. and GleaveR.J.2011. Comparing gravity and gravity gradient surveys. Geophysical Prospecting59(1), 176–187.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BlakelyR.J.1995. Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BrewsterJ.2011. Description and evaluation of a full tensor interpolation method. SEG Expanded Abstracts30, 811–814.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BrewsterJ.2012. Full tensor interpolation: Evaluation of the effect of line spacing and noise. SEG Expanded Abstracts31, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BrzezowskiS.J. and HellerG.H.1988. Gravity gradiometer survey errors. Geophysics53(10), 1355–1361.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. DampneyC.N.G.1969. The equivalent source technique. Geophysics34, 38–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. FitzGeraldD.J. and HolsteinH.2006. Innovative data processing methods for gradient airborne geophysical data sets. The Leading Edge25, 87–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. FitzGeraldD., HolsteinH. and FossC.2011. Automatic modelling and inversion for dykes from magnetic tensor gradient profiles – Recent progress. SEG Expanded Abstracts30, 796–800.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. FitzGeraldD.J., PatersonR. and HolsteinH.2012. Comparing two methods for gridding and honouring gravity gradient tensor data. 74th Annual International Conference & Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. JekeliC.1993. A review of gravity gradiometer survey system data analyses. Geophysics58(4), 508–514.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. MendonçaC.A. and SilvaJ.B.A.1995. Interpolation of potential‐field data by equivalent layer and minimum curvature: A comparative analysis. Geophysics60(2), 399–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. PedersenL.B. and RasmussenT.M.1990. The gradient tensor of potential field anomalies: Some implications on data collection and data processing of maps. Geophysics55(12), 1558–1566.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. PilkingtonM.2012. Analysis of gravity gradiometer inverse problems using optimal design measures. Geophysics77(2), G25–G31.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. ReidA.B.1980. Aeromagnetic survey design. Geophysics45, 973–976.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. RimH. and LiY.2012. Single‐hole imaging using borehole gravity gradiometry. Geophysics77(5), G67–G76.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. WhileJ., BiegertE. and JacksonA.2008. Interpolation of gravity and gravity gradient data by using the generalized sampling expansion: Theory. Geophysics73(2), 111–121.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12098
Loading
Reconstructing the gravity gradient anomaly field from surveys with wide line spacing using equivalent source processing: an error analysis
Geophysical Prospecting 62, 646 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12098
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12098
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12098
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Data processing; Gravity; Numerical study; 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