1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 70, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 70, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Euler deconvolution of potential field data is widely applied to obtain the location of concealed sources automatically. A lot of improvements have been proposed to eliminate the dependence of Euler deconvolution on the structural index that are based on the use of high‐order derivatives of the potential field and, therefore, sensitive to data noise. We describe the elimination of the dependence on the Ratio‐Euler method, which is based on the original Euler deconvolution function. The proposed method does not involve high‐order derivatives. Testing on simulated and field data indicates that the proposed method has better noise resistance than the existing Tilt‐Euler method, which is based on high‐order derivatives. The proposed method is first applied to the ground magnetic data from Weigang iron deposit, Eastern China. It reveals that the ore body could be approximated by a horizontal prism with a considerable vertical extent with a top depth of 55 m, which are very close to the information obtained from drill holes. In addition, the proposed method works well in estimating the depth to a cavity centre from the ground gravity anomaly.

© 2022 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2022 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13201
2022-06-16
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13201
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alamdar, K., Kamkare‐Rouhani, A. and Ansari, A.H. (2014) Interpretation of the magnetic data from anomaly 2c of Soork iron ore using the combination of the Euler deconvolution and TDX filter. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8, 6021–6035.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Amaral Mota, E.S., Medeiros, W.E. and Oliveira, R.G. (2020) Can Euler deconvolution outline three‐dimensional magnetic sources?Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 2271–2291.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbosa, V.C.F., Silva, J.B.C. and Medeiros, W.E. (1999) Stability analysis and improvement of structural index estimation in Euler deconvolution. Geophysics, 64, 48–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beiki, M. (2010) Analytic signals of gravity gradient tensor and their application to estimate source location. Geophysics, 75, I59–I74.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blakely, R.J. and Simpson, R.W. (1986) Approximating edges of source bodies from magnetic or gravity anomalies. Geophysics, 51, 1494–1498.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Castro, F.R., Oliveira, S.P., de Souza, J. and Ferreira, F.J.F. (2020) Constraining Euler deconvolution solutions through combined tilt derivative filters. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 177, 4883–4895.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cella, F. and Fedi, M. (2012) Inversion of potential field data using the structural index as weighting function rate decay. Geophysical Prospecting, 60, 313–336.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooper, G.R.J. (2014) Euler deconvolution in a radial coordinate system. Geophysical Prospecting, 62, 1169–1179.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Davis, K., Li, Y. and Nabighian, M. (2010) Automatic detection of UXO magnetic anomalies using extended Euler deconvolution. Geophysics, 75, G13–G20.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Ebbing, J., Skilbrei, J.R. and Olesen, O. (2007) Insights into the magmatic architecture of the Oslo Graben by petrophysically constrained analysis of the gravity and magnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 112, B04404.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Fedi, M., Florio, G. and Quarta, T. (2009) Multiridge analysis of potential fields: geometric method and reduced Euler deconvolution. Geophysics, 74, 780–784.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. FitzGerald, D., Reid, A. and McInerney, P. (2004) New discrimination techniques for Euler deconvolution. Computers & Geosciences, 30, 461–469.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fregoso, E., Gallardo, L.A. and García‐Abdeslem, J. (2015) Structural joint inversion coupled with Euler deconvolution of isolated gravity and magnetic anomalies. Geophysics, 80, G67–G79.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gerovska, D., Stavrev, P. and Araúzo‐Bravo, M.J. (2005) Finite‐difference Euler deconvolution algorithm applied to the interpretation of magnetic data from Northern Bulgaria. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 162, 591–608.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Guo, C.‐C., Xiong, S.‐Q., Xue, D.‐J. and Wang, L.‐F. (2014) Improved Euler method for the interpretation of potential data based on the ratio of the vertical first derivative to analytic signal. Applied Geophysics, 11, 331–339.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Guo, C., Xing, Z., Wang, L., Ma, Y. and Huan, H. (2020) Three‐directional analytic signal analysis and interpretation of magnetic gradient tensor. Applied Geophysics, 17, 285–296.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hsu, S.‐K. (2002) Imaging magnetic sources using Euler's equation. Geophysical Prospecting, 50, 15–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Huang, L., Zhang, H., Sekelani, S. and Wu, Z. (2019) An improved Tilt‐Euler deconvolution and its application on a Fe‐polymetallic deposit. Ore Geology Reviews, 114, 103114.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, Z. and Huang, J. (2008) Analysis on deep prospecting prospect of Weigang iron ore district in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu. Journal of Geology (in Chinese), 32, 184–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Keating, P. and Pilkington, M. (2004) Euler deconvolution of the analytic signal and its application to magnetic interpretation. Geophysical Prospecting, 52, 165–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kumar, C.R., Raj, A.S., Pathak, B., Maiti, S. and Naganjaneyulu, K. (2020) High density crustal intrusive bodies beneath Shillong plateau and Indo Burmese Range of northeast India revealed by gravity modeling and earthquake data. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 307, 106555.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu, P., Liu, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, H. and Liu, S. (2015) An Improved tilt angle method and its application: a case of Weigang iron‐ore deposit, Jiangsu. Earth Science (in Chinese), 40, 2091–2102.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, P., Liu, T., Zhu, P., Yang, Y., Zhou, Q., Zhang, H. and Chen, G. (2017) Depth estimation for magnetic/gravity anomaly using model correction. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 174, 1729–1742.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, Q., Yao, C. and Zheng, Y. (2019) Euler deconvolution of potential field based on damped least square method. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 62, 3710–3722.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ma, G. (2013) Combination of horizontal gradient ratio and Euler methods for the interpretation of potential field data. Geophysics, 78, J53–J60.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ma, G. (2014) The application of extended Euler deconvolution method in the interpretation of potential field data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 107, 188–194.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Melo, F.F. and Barbosa, V.C.F. (2018) Correct structural index in Euler deconvolution via base‐level estimates. Geophysics, 83, J87–J98.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Melo, F.F. and Barbosa, V.C.F. (2020) Reliable Euler deconvolution estimates throughout the vertical derivatives of the total‐field anomaly. Computers & Geosciences, 138, 104436.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller, H.G. and Singh, V. (1994) Potential field tilt a new concept for location of potential field sources. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 32, 213–217.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Mu, Y., Zhang, X., Xie, W. and Zheng, Y. (2020) Automatic detection of near‐surface targets for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) magnetic survey. Remote Sensing, 12, 452.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mushayandebvu, M.F., Driel, P.V., Reid, A.B. and Fairhead, J.D. (2001) Magnetic source parameters of two‐dimensional structures using extended Euler deconvolution. Geophysics, 66, 814–823.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Njeudjang, K., Abate Essi, J.M., Kana, J.D., Teikeu, W.A., Njandjock Nouck, P., Djongyang, N. and Tchinda, R. (2020) Gravity investigation of the Cameroon volcanic line in Adamawa region: geothermal features and structural control. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 165, 103809.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Nuñez Demarco, P., Masquelin, H., Prezzi, C., Aïfa, T., Muzio, R., Loureiro, J., et al. (2020) Aeromagnetic patterns in Southern Uruguay: Precambrian–Mesozoic dyke swarms and Mesozoic rifting structural and tectonic evolution. Tectonophysics, 789, 228373.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Reid, A.B., Allsop, J.M., Granser, H., Millett, A.J. and Somerton, I.W. (1990) Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution. Geophysics, 55, 80–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Roy, L., Agarwal, B.N.P. and Shaw, R.K. (2000) A new concept in Euler deconvolution of isolated gravity anomalies. Geophysical Prospecting, 48, 559–575.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Salem, A. and. Ravat, D. (2003) A combined analytic signal and Euler method (AN‐EUL) for automatic interpretation of magnetic data. Geophysics68, 1952–1961.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Salem, A., Williams, S., Fairhead, D., Smith, R. and Ravat, D. (2008) Interpretation of magnetic data using tilt‐angle derivatives. Geophysics73, 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Thompson, D.T. (1982) EULDPH: A new technique for making computer‐assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics, 47, 31–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Vitale, A. and Fedi, M. (2020) Self‐constrained inversion of potential fields through a 3D depth weighting. Geophysics, 85, G143–G156.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Wang, J., Meng, X. and Fang, L. (2017) New improvements for lineaments study of gravity data with improved Euler inversion and phase congruency of the field data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 136, 326–334.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, T., Yu, P., Ma, G., Li, L. and Zeng, S. (2019) Edge detection and space location inversion techniques of magnetic tensor gradient data based on ratio of analytic signal. Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 62, 3723–3733.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhang, C., Mushayandebvu, M.F., Reid, A.B., Fairhead, J.D. and Odegard, M.E. (2000) Euler deconvolution of gravity tensor gradient data. Geophysics, 65, 512–520.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhou, W., Nan, Z. and Li, J. (2016) Self‐constrained Euler deconvolution using potential field data of different altitudes. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 173, 2073–2085.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Reid, A.B. and Thurston, J.B. (2014) The structural index in gravity and magnetic interpretation errors, uses, and abuses. Geophysics, 79, J61–J66.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Reid, A.B., Ebbing, J. and Webb, S.J. (2014) Avoidable Euler errors: The use and abuse of Euler deconvolution applied to potential fields. Geophysical Prospecting, 62, 1162–1168.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13201
Loading
Ratio‐Euler deconvolution and its applications
Geophysical Prospecting 70, 1016 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13201
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13201
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13201
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Euler deconvolution; Interpretation; Magnetics; Parameter estimation; 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