1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 59, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 59, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Isolation of a regional field from a Bouguer map has always been an ambiguous and troublesome problem. It is often argued that the ambiguity arises from lack of specific criteria under which the problem may be formulated. In this paper, I show that by adopting Skeels’ definition of the regional field and its corollary, criteria needed to extract the field with minimum ambiguity may be developed. The definition and its corollary allow formulation of the regional field separation problem as a weighted (robustified) and constrained least‐square fitting problem with constraints extracted directly from the Bouguer map. To emphasize the constraints, I formulate the problem from the perspective of prior information constrained by observational data. The new formalism offers several advantages: weighted fitting is more robust than ordinary least squares fitting, providing a simple mechanism to eliminate data outliers and reduce the undesirable influence of local gravity disturbances. Introducing constraints into the fitting procedure effectively reduces ambiguity and increases the resolution of the fitted regional field. Moreover, imposing conditions on the fitted regional field directly from the Bouguer map is tantamount to incorporating prior information about the underlying geology and structure of the area with minimum human subjectivity. The procedure was tested on simulated and actual data sets with excellent results. Indeed the test results indicate that with properly placed constraints, the regional field may be recovered in a manner that closely emulates the graphical method.

© 2011 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00945.x
2011-03-01
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00945.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. BeltrãoJ.F., SilvaJ.B.C. and CostaJ.C.1991. Robust polynomial fitting method for regional gravity estimation. Geophysics56, 80–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. DobrinM.B.1976. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting . McGraw‐Hill. ISBN 0070171963.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. FediM., HansenC. and PaolettiV.2005. Analysis of depth resolution in potential‐field inversion. Geophysics70, A1–A11.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. GuptaV.A. and RamaniN.1980. Some aspects of regional‐residual separation of gravity anomalies in a Precambrian terrain. Geophysics45, 1412–1426.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HinzeW.J.1990. The role of gravity and magnetic methods in engineering and environmental studies. In: Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics I: Review and Tutorial (ed. S. H.Ward ), pp. 75–126. SEG. ISBN 1560800003.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. KimH.J., YoonhoS. and LeeK.H.1999. Inequality constraint in least‐squares inversion of geophysical data. Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences51, 255–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. MadsenK. and NielsenH.B.2005. Supplementary Notes for 02611 Optimization and Data Fitting. http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/hbn/immoptibox/SN05b.pdf‐‐Similar.
  8. NabighianM.N., AnderM.E., GrauchV.J.S., HansenR.O., LaFehrT.R., LiY. et al . 2005. Historical development of the gravity method in exploration. Geophysics70, 63ND–89ND.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. NettletonL.I.1976. Gravity and Magnetics in Oil Prospecting. Mc‐Graw Hill. ISBN 007046303.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. QueipoN.V., HaftkaaR.T, ShyyaW., GoelaT., VaidyanathanaR.P. and TuckerK.2005. Surrogate‐based analysis and optimization. Progress in Aerospace Sciences41, 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ScalesJ.A. and TenorioL.2001. Prior information and uncertainty in inverse problems. Geophysics66, 389–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. SkeelsD.C.1967. What is residual gravity?Geophysics32, 872–876.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. SniederR. and TrampertJ.1999. Inverse problems in geophysics. In: Wavefield Inversion (ed. A.Wirgin ), pp. 119–190. Springer‐Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. UlrychT.J.1968. Effect of wavelength filtering on the shape of the residual anomaly. Geophysics33, 1015–1018.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. YiM.J., KimJ.H. and ChungS.H.2003. Enhancing the resolving power of least‐squares inversion with active constraints balancing. Geophysics68, 931–941.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00945.x
Loading
Constrained polynomial fitting for recovery of regional gravity
Geophysical Prospecting 59, 749 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00945.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00945.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.00945.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Constrained least‐squares; Regional gravity

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