1887

Abstract

Summary

Measuring local perturbations of the Earth’s magnetic field is one of the most successful methods in geophysical exploration, even though it has an inherent ambiguity. In order to avoid misinterpretations, more and more interpreters gravitate towards techniques that allow including not only induced, but also remanent magnetization in the modelling process. One of today’s common approaches is magnetization vector inversion (MVI), which has been successfully applied on many data sets with very promising results. The application of vectorial-type magnetometers or gradiometers such as full tensor magnetic gradiometery (FTMG) systems based on Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices (SQUID), provides additional directional information, which are very useful, in particular in the MVIs. Independent information, e.g. magnetic susceptibility is still necessary in order to perform a reliable separation of the magnetization types. The application of electromagnetic methods, e.g. frequency domain electromagnetics (FDEM) allows to gain independend information on magnetic susceptibility. Here, we combine different approaches, i.e. dc-resistivity (electrical resistivity tomography, ERT), FDEM and FTMG measurements, in order to produce robust subsurface models. This staggered work flow is tested on a small study site in the West Eifel Volcanic field in Germany, where a basaltic lava flow is investigated

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800952
2018-06-11
2020-08-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beard, L.P. and Nyquist, J.E.
    [1998] Simultaneous inversion of airborne electromagnetic data for resistivity and magnetic permeability. Geophysics, 63(5), 1556–1564.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Clark, D.A.
    [2014] Methods for determining remanent and total magnetisations of magnetic sources – a review. Exploration Geophysics, 45(4), 271.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Čuma, M., Wilson, G.A. and Zhdanov, M.S.
    [2012] Large-scale 3D inversion of potential field data. Geophysical Prospecting, 60(6), 1186–1199.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Farquharson, C.G., Oldenburg, D.W. and Routh, P.S.
    [2003] Simultaneous 1D inversion of loop–loop electromagnetic data for magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity. Geophysics, 68(6), 1857–1869.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Foss, C.A.
    [2006a] Evaluation of strategies to manage remanent magnetization effects in magnetic field inversion. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2006, 938–942.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. [2006b] Improvements in source resolution that can be expected from inversion of magnetic field tensor data. The Leading Edge, 25(1), 81–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Günther, T., Rücker, C. and Spitzer, K.
    [2006] Three-dimensional modelling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography - II. Inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 166(2), 506–517.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Huang, H. and Fraser, D.C.
    [2001] Mapping of the resistivity, susceptibility, and permittivity of the earth using a helicopter-borne electromagnetic system. Geophysics, 66(1), 148–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kubota, R., and UchiyamaA.
    , 2005, Three-dimensional magnetization vector inversion of a seamount: Earth, Planets and Space, 57, 691–699, doi: 10.1186/BF03351849.
    https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03351849 [Google Scholar]
  10. Lange, T. and Büchel, G.
    [1917] Hochauflösende geomagnetische Rasterkartierung des Stohner- und Sprinker Lavastroms im Alfbachtal – Quartäres Vulkanfeld der Westeifel. Mainer geowiss. Mitt, 45, 177–202
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Li, Y., Shearer, S.E., Haney, M.M. and Dannemiller, N.
    [2010] Comprehensive approaches to 3D inversion of magnetic data affected by remanent magnetization. Geophysics, 75(1), L1–L11.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Li, Y. and Sun, J.
    [2016] 3D magnetization inversion using fuzzy c -means clustering with application to geology differentiation. Geophysics, 81(5), WC1–WC18.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Noh, K., Lee, K.H., Oh, S., Seol, S.J. and Byun, J.
    [2017] Numerical evaluation of active source magnetics as a method for imaging high-resolution near-surface magnetic heterogeneity. Geophysics, 82(5), J27–J38.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Schiffler, M.
    [2015] Enhancements in Processing, Analysis and Inversion of Full Tensor Magnetic Gradiometry Data., Dissertation. Jena.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Stolz, R., Zakosarenko, V., Schulz, M., Chwala, A., Fritzsch, L., Meyer, H.-G. and Köstlin, E.O.
    [2006] Magnetic full-tensor SQUID gradiometer system for geophysical applications. The Leading Edge, 25(2), 178–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Tschirhart, P., Morris, B. and Hodges, G.
    [2013] A new regional/residual separation for magnetic data sets using susceptibility from frequency-domain electromagnetic data. Geophysics, 78(6), B351–B359.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800952
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800952
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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