1887
Volume 62, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Window‐based Euler deconvolution is commonly applied to magnetic and sometimes to gravity interpretation problems. For the deconvolution to be geologically meaningful, care must be taken to choose parameters properly. The following proposed process design rules are based partly on mathematical analysis and partly on experience.

  1. The interpretation problem must be expressible in terms of simple structures with integer Structural Index (SI) and appropriate to the expected geology and geophysical source.
  2. The field must be sampled adequately, with no significant aliasing.
  3. The grid interval must fit the data and the problem, neither meaninglessly over‐gridded nor so sparsely gridded as to misrepresent relevant detail.
  4. The required gradient data (measured or calculated) must be valid, with sufficiently low noise, adequate representation of necessary wavelengths and no edge‐related ringing.
  5. The deconvolution window size must be at least twice the original data spacing (line spacing or observed grid spacing) and more than half the desired depth of investigation.
  6. The ubiquitous sprays of spurious solutions must be reduced or eliminated by judicious use of clustering and reliability criteria, or else recognized and ignored during interpretation.
  7. The process should be carried out using Cartesian coordinates if the software is a Cartesian implementation of the Euler deconvolution algorithm (most accessible implementations are Cartesian).

If these rules are not adhered to, the process is likely to yield grossly misleading results. An example from southern Africa demonstrates the effects of poor parameter choices.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12119
2014-04-07
2020-05-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BarbosaV.C.F., SilvaJ.B.C. and MedeirosW.E.1999. Stability analysis and improvement of structural index estimation in Euler deconvolution. Geophysics64, 48–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CooperG. R. J.2012. Euler deconvolution in cylindrical and spherical coordinate systems. 74th EAGE meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts, H047.
  3. HansenR. and SuciuL.2002. Multiple‐source Euler deconvolution. Geophysics67, 525–535.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. KeatingP.B.1998. Weighted Euler deconvolution of gravity data. Geophysics63, 1595–1603.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. KlingeleE.E., MarsonI. and KahleH‐G.1991. Automatic interpretation of gravity gradiometric data in two dimensions: vertical gradient. Geophysical Prospecting39, 407–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. KuttikulP.1995. Optimization of 3D Euler deconvolution for the interpretation of potential field data. M.Sc. Thesis, ITC Delft.
  7. 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]
  8. RavatD.1996. Analysis of the Euler method and its applicability in environmental magnetic investigations. Journal of Environmental Engineering Geophysics1, 229–238.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. RavatD.2011. Interpretation of Mars southern highlands high amplitude magnetic field with total gradient and fractal source modeling: New insights into the magnetic mystery of Mars. Icarus214, 400–412.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. RavatD., WangB., WildermuthA. and TaylorP.T.2002. Gradients in the interpretation of satellite‐altitude magnetic data: an example from central Africa. Journal of Geodynamics33, 131–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ReidA.B.1980. Aeromagnetic survey design. Geophysics45, 973–976.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ReidA.B., AllsopJ.M., GranserH., MilletA.J. and SomertonI.W.1990. Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution. Geophysics55, 80–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ReidA.B., EbbingJ. and WebbS.J.2012. Comment on “A crustal thickness map of Africa derived from a global gravity field model using Euler deconvolution” by Getachew E. Tedla, M. van der Meijde, A.A. Nyblade and F.D. van der Meer. Geophysical Journal International189, 1217–1222.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. StavrevP. and ReidA.B.2007. Degrees of homogeneity of potential fields and structural indices of Euler deconvolution. Geophysics71, L1–L12.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. StavrevP. and ReidA.B.2010. Euler deconvolution of gravity anomalies from thick contact/fault structures with extended negative structural index. Geophysics75, 151–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. SteenlandN.C.1968. Discussion on “The geomagnetic gradiometer” by H.A.Slack, V.M. Lynch & L.Langan (Geophysics, October 1967, p 877‐892). Geophysics33, 680–683.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. TedlaG. E., van der MeijdeM., NybladeA. A. and van der MeerF. D.2011. A crustal thickness map of Africa derived from a global gravity field model using Euler deconvolution. Geophysical Journal International187, 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ThompsonD.T.1982. EULDPH – A new technique for making computer assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics47, 31–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. WebbS.J.2009. The use of potential field and seismological data to analyze the structure of the lithosphere beneath southern Africa. Ph.D. thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ZhangC., MushayandebvuM.F., ReidA.B., FairheadJ.D., and OdegardM.E.2000. Euler deconvolution of gravity tensor gradient data. Geophysics65, 512–520.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12119
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12119
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Euler Deconvolution , Gravity , Interpretation , Magnetics and Potential Fields
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