1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 53, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 53 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Recent improvements in the local wavenumber approach have made it possible to estimate both the depth and model type of buried bodies from magnetic data. However, these improvements require calculation of third‐order derivatives of the magnetic field, which greatly enhances noise. As a result, the improvements are restricted to data of high quality. We present an alternative method to estimate both the depth and model type using the first‐order local wavenumber approach without the need for third‐order derivatives of the field. Our method is based on normalization of the first‐order local wavenumber anomalies and provides a generalized equation to estimate the depth of some 2D magnetic sources regardless of the source structure. Information about the nature of the sources is obtained after the source location has been estimated. The method was tested using synthetic magnetic anomaly data with random noise and using three field examples.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00435.x
2004-12-23
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00435.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. GayP.1963. Standard curves for interpretation of magnetic anomalies over tabular bodies. Geophysics28,161–200.DOI: 10.1190/1.1439164
     [Google Scholar]
  2. IrvineR.J., GodboutM.G. and WitherlyK.E.2000. Reid‐Mahaffy Field Guide: Comparison of airborne EM systems, Reid‐Mahaffy test site, Ontario, Canada . Condor Consulting .
    [Google Scholar]
  3. NabighianM.N.1972. The analytic signal of two‐dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross‐section: its properties and use for automated anomaly interpretation. Geophysics37,507–517.DOI: 10.1190/1.1440276
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ontario Geological Survey
    Ontario Geological Survey2000. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and electromagnetic data, Matheson area . Geophysical data set 1101.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ontario Geological Survey
    Ontario Geological Survey2002. Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic and electromagnetic data, profile data, Geosoft® format, Timmins area MEGATEM ® . Geophysical data set 1041d.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. PressW.H., TeukolskyS.A., VetterlingW.T. and FlanneryB.P.1992. Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing . Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. SmithR.S., ThurstonJ.B., DaiT. and MacLeodI.N.1998. iSPI™– The improved source parameter imaging method. Geophysical Prospecting46,141–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ThompsonD.T.1982. ‘EULDPH’– a new technique for making computer‐assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics47,31–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ThurstonJ.B. and SmithR.S.1997. Automatic conversion of magnetic data to depth, dip, susceptibility contrast using the SPI™ method. Geophysics62,807–813.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ThurstonJ.B., SmithR.S. and GuillonJ.2002. A multimodel method for depth estimation from magnetic data. Geophysics67,555–561.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ValleeM.A., KeatingP., SmithR.S. and St‐HilaireC.2004. Estimating depth and model type using the continuous wavelet transform of magnetic data. Geophysics69,191–199.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00435.x
Loading
Depth and structural index from normalized local wavenumber of 2D magnetic anomalies
Geophysical Prospecting 53, 83 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00435.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00435.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00435.x
Loading

Data & Media 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