1887
Volume 34 Number 7
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Statistical multivariate methods for the integrated processing of airborne geophysical data were tested. The data consisted of magnetic, electromagnetic and gamma radiation measurements, to which cluster analysis, principal components analysis and discriminant analysis were applied. Also, auxiliary variables were derived from the original ones and their value was tested. Although the frequency distributions of the data do not favour statistical analysis, the practical results are acceptable. Principal component analyses show geological and technical aspects that are difficult to obtain from the original observations. In cluster analyses, the sources of measured fields control the grouping of variables. Discriminant analysis was applied to the automatic identification of rocks by geophysical data. The rocks investigated are metasediments and metavolcanics, some magnetic and others conductive. When all available geophysical data were included, correct identifications were made in more than 60% of cases. In particular, gamma ray observations were found to improve the discrimination of non‐magnetic and non‐conductive rocks. The geophysical similarity of rocks studied by cluster analysis depends on electrical and magnetic properties as well as on their origin; the content of radioactive elements in turn is related to the origin.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1986.tb00516.x
2006-04-27
2024-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarinsalo, J., Franssila, E., Eeronheimo, J., Lakanen, E. and Pekkonen, E.1982. On the integrated use of Landsat, geophysical and other data in exploration in the Baltic Shield, Finland, The Photogrammetric Journal of Finland9, 48–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, T.W.1958. Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York .
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arkimaa, H.1982. Some examples of multi‐channel analyses of Landsat and geophysical data, The Photogrammetric Journal of Finland9, 38–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dickson, W.J.
    (ed) 1977. BMDP Computer Programs Manual, UCLA, Los Angeles .
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Duval, J.S.1976. Statistical interpretation of airborne gamma‐ray spectrometric data using factor analysis, in Exploration for Uranium Deposits, Proceedings, Series, IAEA, Vienna , 71–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Duval, J.S.1977. High sensitivity gamma‐ray spectrometry–state of the art and trial application of factor analysis, Geophysics42, 549–559.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gaál, G.1982. Proterozoic tectonic evolution and late Svekokarelian plate deformation on the Central Baltic Shield, Geologische Rundschau71, 158–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gaál, G., Mikkola, A. and Söderholm, B.1978. Evolution of the Archean crust in Finland, Precambrian Research6, 199–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hirvas, H., Alftan, A., Pulkkinen, E., Puranen, R. and Tynni, R.1977. Raportti malminetsintää palvelevasta maaperätutkimuksesta Pohjois‐Suomessa vuosina 1972–1976, Summary: A report on glacial drift investigations for ore prospecting purposes in northern Finland 1972–1976, Geological Survey of Finland, Report19, 54.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ketola, M., Piiroinen, E. and Sarikkola, R.1975. On feasibility of airborne radiometric surveys for uranium exploration in Finland, Geological Survey of Finland, Report of Investigations7, 43.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Lanne, E.1979. Pääkomponenttianalyysin käytöstä sovelletussa geogysiikassa, in J.Yliniemi (ed.), Geofysiikan päivät Oulussa 1979, 157–164 (English abstract).
  12. Lanne, E.1984. Some basic features of the statistical interpretation of airborne gamma‐ray observations, Department of Geophysics, University of Oulu, Report 9, 35.
  13. Multala, J.1981. The construction of gamma‐ray spectrometer calibration pads, Geo-exploration19, 33–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Paakkola, J., Lanne, E., Kallio, M., KÄRKKÄINEN, N. and Sarapää, O.1979. Väliraportti vuosien 1977–78 tutkimuksista, Kuhmon ja Kittilän malminprojektit, University of Oulu, Report 13, 56 (in Finnish).
  15. Paakkola, J., Piirainen, T., Koivumaa, S., Lanne, E., Saarnisto, M. and Taipale, K.1981. Kuhmon ja Kittilän malmiprojektien loppuraportti, University of Oulu, Report 13, 2(M8 (in Finnish).
  16. Peltoniemi, M.1978. Karakteristisia käyrästöjä aerosähköisten mittaustulosten tulkintaa varten, Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, Geofysiikan osasto, Report Q 16.2/24.9/78/ 1, 8 (in Finnish).
  17. Peltoniemi, M.1979. Aeroradiometristen gammasäteilymittausten käytöstä uraaninetsintään Suomessa, in Parkkinen, J. (ed.), Uraani‐raaka‐ainesymposiumi, Sarja B, No 27, Vuorimiesyhdistys–Bergsmannaföreningen, Helsinki , 99–119 (in Finnish).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Peltoniemi, M.1982. Characteristics and results of an airborne electromagnetic method of geophysical surveying, Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 321,117.
  19. Räisänen, E.1983Uraanista energiaa, Nuclear Energy in Finland, (English summary) Geologi35, 61–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Silvennoinen, A.1985. On the Proterozoic stratigraphy of Northern Finland, in K.Laajoki , and J.Paakkola , (eds) Proterozoic exogenic processes and related metallogeny. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 331, 107–116.
  21. Simonen, A.1980. The Precambrian in Finland, Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 304, 58.
  22. Talvitie, J.1979. Seismo‐tectonics in Finland, Geologiska foreningens i Stockholm for-handlingar100, 247–253.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1986.tb00516.x
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

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