1887
Volume 72, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

The basin environment is a widely studied subject in both geology and geophysics for its economic significance in energy and mineral explorations. However, the estimation of the basement depth is often a challenging task given the complexity of the basement relief and lateral physical property change. Previous works simplify the problem by only inverting for the depth to the basement, and more recent studies have suggested the need to incorporate the variation of physical properties to improve basement structure imaging. In this study, we develop an inversion method with the associated workflow to simultaneously recover both the depth to a magnetic basement and a laterally varying magnetic susceptibility in the basement rock. To achieve this, we employ a set of constraints on the inverse problem. Particularly, both the recovered susceptibility and basement depth models are bounded below a possible maximum value, and the depth model is guided by a few depth points obtained from the resistivity models that are obtained from the one‐dimensional blocky inversions of magnetotelluric (MT) data. In addition, we apply the fuzzy C‐means (FCM) clustering to the susceptibility model during the inversion and use the inverted cluster centers to differentiate for different geological units in the basement. To show the effectiveness of our work, we compare the existing approaches and our method using two test inversions on one synthetic model resembling the basin–basement environment before demonstrating our method on a field data example with magnetic data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) over the Illinois Basin. Our results show improved recovery in both basement relief and susceptibility in the basement rock, and inversion with field data is able to identify three different susceptibility zones in basement rock below the Illinois Basin.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13572
2024-09-15
2026-02-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13572
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abert, C.C., Marshak, S. & Larson, T.H. (2016) Geological and geophysical maps of the Illinois Basin‐Ozark Dome region. Illinois Map 23.
  2. Ali, M.Y., Geng, M., Fairhead, J.D. & Adan, A. (2021) 3D constrained inversion of gravity and magnetic data to image basement and plutonic bodies: a case study from Dood Arale Basin, Eastern Somaliland. Geophysics, 86(6), B321–B334.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbosa, V.C., Menezes, P.T. & Silva, J.B. (2007) Gravity data as a tool for detecting faults: in‐depth enhancement of subtle Almada's basement faults, Brazil. Geophysics, 72(3), B59–B68.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barbosa, V.C., Silva, J.B. & Medeiros, W.E. (1999a) Gravity inversion of a discontinuous relief stabilized by weighted smoothness constraints on depth. Geophysics, 64(5), 1429–1437.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbosa, V.C., Silva, J.B. & Medeiros, W.E. (1999b) Stable inversion of gravity anomalies of sedimentary basins with nonsmooth basement reliefs and arbitrary density contrast variations. Geophysics, 64(3), 754–764.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbosa, V. C.F., Silva, J.B. & Medeiros, W.E. (1997) Gravity inversion of basement relief using approximate equality constraints on depths. Geophysics, 62(6), 1745–1757.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Berdichevsky, M.N. & Dmitriev, V.I. (2008) Models and methods of magnetotellurics. Cham: Springer Science & Business Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bezdek, J.C. (1981) Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blakely, R.J. (1996) Potential theory in gravity and magnetic applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Buschbach, T.C. & Kolata, D.R. (1990) Regional setting of Illinois Basin: Chapter 1: Part I. Illinois Basin: Regional setting. In: M 51: Interior cratonic basins. AAPG Special Volumes. Tulsa, OK: AAPG, pp 29–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cagniard, L. (1953) Basic theory of the magnetotelluric method of geophysical prospecting. Geophysics, 18(3), 605–635.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cai, H. & Zhdanov, M.S. (2015) Modeling and inversion of magnetic anomalies caused by sediment‐basement interface using three‐dimensional Cauchy‐type integrals. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 12(3), 477–481.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Chakravarthi, V. & Sundararajan, N. (2007) 3D gravity inversion of basement relief—a depth‐dependent density approach. Geophysics, 72(2), I23–I32.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cockett, R., Kang, S., Heagy, L.J., Pidlisecky, A. & Oldenburg, D.W. (2015) SimPEG: an open‐source framework for simulation and gradient‐based parameter estimation in geophysical applications. Computers & Geosciences, 85, 142–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cordell, L. (1973) Gravity analysis using an exponential density‐depth function—San Jacinto Graben, California. Geophysics, 38(4), 684–690.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Courtillot, V., Ducruix, J. & Le Mouël, J.‐L. (1974) A solution of some inverse problems in geomagnetism and gravimetry. Journal of Geophysical Research, 79(32), 4933–4940.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Daniels, D.L., Kucks, R.P. & Hill, P.L. (2008) Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio magnetic and gravity maps and data: a website for distribution of data: U.S. Geological Survey data series 321. Technical report. Boulder, CO: U.S. Geological Survey
  18. Davis, K. & Li, Y. (2009) Enhancement of depth estimation techniques with amplitude analysis. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2009. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 908–912.
  19. Ekblom, H. (1973) Calculation of linear best lp‐approximations. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 13(3), 292–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Florio, G. (2018) Mapping the depth to basement by iterative rescaling of gravity or magnetic data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123(10), 9101–9120.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Freiburg, J.T., McBride, J.H., Malone, D.H. & Leetaru, H.E. (2020) Petrology, geochronology, and geophysical characterization of Mesoproterozoic rocks in Central Illinois, USA. Geoscience Frontiers, 11(2), 581–596.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fullagar, P.K., Pears, G.A. & McMonnies, B. (2008) Constrained inversion of geologic surfaces—pushing the boundaries. The Leading Edge, 27(1), 98–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gill, P.E., Murray, W., Ponceleon, D.B. & Saunders, M.A. (1991) Solving reduced KKT systems in barrier methods for linear and quadratic programming. DTIC Document. https://web.stanford.edu/group/SOL/reports/SOL-91-7.pdf
  24. Harris, C.R., Millman, K.J., van der Walt, S.J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N.J., Kern, R., Picus, M., Hoyer, S., van Kerkwijk, M.H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., del Río, J.F., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., Gérard‐Marchant, P., Sheppard, K., Reddy, T., Weckesser, W., Abbasi, H., Gohlke, C. & Oliphant, T.E. (2020) Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825), 357–362.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hathaway, R.J. & Bezdek, J.C. (2001) Fuzzy C‐means clustering of incomplete data. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 31(5), 735–744.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. He, S., Cai, H., Liu, S., Xie, J. & Hu, X. (2021) Recovering 3D basement relief using gravity data through convolutional neural networks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(10), e2021JB022611.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Heagy, L.J., Cockett, R., Kang, S., Rosenkjaer, G.K. & Oldenburg, D.W. (2017) A framework for simulation and inversion in electromagnetics. Computers & Geosciences, 107, 1–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hidalgo‐Gato, M.C. & Barbosa, V.C. (2019) Fast 3D magnetic inversion of a surface relief in the space domain. Geophysics, 84(5), J57–J67.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hidalgo‐Gato, M.C., Barbosa, V.C. & Oliveira, V.C., Jr,. (2021) Magnetic amplitude inversion for depth‐to‐basement and apparent magnetization‐intensity estimates. Geophysics, 86(1), J1–J11.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. IRIS Transportable Array (2003) USArray transportable array. The USArray MT data is available at https://www.fdsn.org/networks/detail/TA/
  31. Kelbert, A. (2020) Emtf XML: new data interchange format and conversion tools for electromagnetic transfer functions. Geophysics, 85(1), F1–F17.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kolata, D.R. (1990) Overview of sequences: Chapter 2: Part I. Illinois Basin: stratigraphy. In M 51: Interior cratonic basins. AAPG Special Volumes. Tulsa, OK: AAPG. pp. 59–73
  33. Leão, J.W., Menezes, P.T., Beltrão, J.F. & Silva, J.B. (1996) Gravity inversion of basement relief constrained by the knowledge of depth at isolated points. Geophysics, 61(6), 1702–1714.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Y., He, Z. & Liu, Y. (2012) Application of magnetic amplitude inversion in exploration for volcanic units in a basin environment. Geophysics, 77(5), B219–B225.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Li, Y. & Oldenburg, D.W. (2000) 3‐D inversion of induced polarization data. Geophysics, 65(6), 1931–1945.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Luman, D.E., Smith, L.R. & Goldsmith, C.C. (2003) Illinois surface topography. Champaign, IL: Illinois State Geological Survey.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Maag, E. & Li, Y. (2018) Discrete‐valued gravity inversion using the guided fuzzy C‐means clustering technique. Geophysics, 83(4), G59–G77.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Martins, C.M., Barbosa, V.C. & Silva, J.B. (2010) Simultaneous 3D depth‐to‐basement and density‐contrast estimates using gravity data and depth control at few points. Geophysics, 75(3), I21–I28.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Murthy, I.R. & Rao, D.B. (1979) Gravity anomalies of two‐dimensional bodies of irregular cross‐section with density contrast varying with depth. Geophysics, 44(9), 1525–1530.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nunes, T.M., Barbosa, V. C.F. & Silva, J. B.C. (2008) Magnetic basement depth inversion in the space domain. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 165, 1891–1911.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Pilkington, M. (1989) Variable‐depth magnetization mapping: application to the Athabasca Basin, Northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada. Geophysics, 54(9), 1164–1173.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Pilkington, M. & Crossley, D. (1986) Determination of crustal interface topography from potential fields. Geophysics, 51(6), 1277–1284.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Rao, C.V., Chakravarthi, V. & Raju, M. (1994) Forward modeling: gravity anomalies of two‐dimensional bodies of arbitrary shape with hyperbolic and parabolic density functions. Computers & Geosciences, 20(5), 873–880.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Salem, A., Green, C., Cheyney, S., Fairhead, J.D., Aboud, E. & Campbell, S. (2014) Mapping the depth to magnetic basement using inversion of pseudogravity: application to the Bishop model and the Stord Basin, Northern North Sea. Interpretation, 2(2), T69–T78.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Santos, D.F., Silva, J.B. & Lopes, J.F. (2022) In‐depth 3D magnetic inversion of basement relief. Geophysics, 87(3), G45–G56.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Saunders, M.A. et al. (1996) Cholesky‐based methods for sparse least squares: the benefits of regularization. Linear and Nonlinear Conjugate Gradient‐Related Methods, 100, 92–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Shalivahan& B.B,. (2002) Implications of novel results about Moho from magnetotelluric studies. Current Science, 1259–1264.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Spector, A. & Grant, F. (1970) Statistical models for interpreting aeromagnetic data. Geophysics, 35(2), 293–302.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Strang, G. (1980) Linear algebra and its applications (2nd ed.) Orlando, FL: Academic Press, p. 22.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sun, J. & Li, Y. (2014) Adaptive lp$l_{p}$ inversion for simultaneous recovery of both blocky and smooth features in a geophysical model. Geophysical Journal International, 197(2), 882–899.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Sun, J. & Li, Y. (2016) Joint inversion of multiple geophysical data using guided fuzzy C‐means clustering. Geophysics, 81(3), ID37–ID57.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Thompson, D. (1982) Euldph: a new technique for making computer‐assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics, 47(1), 31–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Williams, S., Fairhead, J.D. & Flanagan, G. (2002) Realistic models of basement topography for depth to magnetic basement testing. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2002. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 814–817.
  54. Wright, S.J. (1997) Primal‐dual interior‐point Methods. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Xu, K. & Li, Y. (2020) Constraining magnetic amplitude inversion with magnetotelluric data to image volcanic units: a case study. Geophysics, 85(3), B63–B75.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13572
Loading
Constrained simultaneous recovery of the depth to basement and lateral susceptibility variation
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 3008 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13572
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13572
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13572
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): aeromagnetics; basement complex; constrained inversion; magnetotelluric; potential field inversion

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