Euler deconvolution and the analytic signal are both used for semi-automatic interpretation of magnetic data. They are used mostly to delineate contacts and obtain rapid source depth estimates. For Euler deconvolution, the quality of the depth estimation depends mainly on the choice of the proper structural index, which is a function of the geometry of the causative bodies. Euler deconvolution applies only to functions that are homogeneous. This is the case for the magnetic field due to contacts, thin dikes and poles. Fortunately, many complex geological structures can be approximated by these simple geometries. In practice, the Euler equation is also solved for a background regional field. For the analytic signal, the model used is generally a contact, although other models, such as a thin dike, can be considered. It can be shown that if a function is homogeneous, its analytic signal is also homogeneous. Deconvolution of the analytic signal is then equivalent to Euler deconvolution of the magnetic field with a background field. However, computation of the analytic signal effectively removes the background field from the data. Consequently, it is possible to solve for both the source location and structural index. Once these parameters are determined, the local dip and the susceptibility contrast can be determined from relationships between the analytic signal and the orthogonal gradients of the magnetic field. The major advantage of this technique is that it allows the automatic identification of the type of source. Implementation of this approach is demonstrated for recent high-resolution survey data from an Archean granite-greenstone terrane in northern Ontario, Canada.
[1]
Richard S. Smith,et al.
iSPITM— the improved source parameter imaging method
,
1998
.
[2]
Richard S. Smith,et al.
Automatic conversion of magnetic data to depth, dip, and susceptibility contrast using the SPI (TM) method
,
1997
.
[3]
Keith Jones,et al.
3-D analytic signal in the interpretation of total magnetic field data at low magnetic latitudes
,
1993
.
[4]
I. W. Somerton,et al.
Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution
,
1990
.
[5]
I. Marson,et al.
Advantages of using the vertical gradient of gravity for 3-D interpretation
,
1993
.
[6]
D. T. Thompson,et al.
EULDPH: A new technique for making computer-assisted depth estimates from magnetic data
,
1982
.
[7]
Shu-Kun Hsu,et al.
Depth to magnetic source using the generalized analytic signal
,
1998
.
[8]
D. Ravat.
Analysis of the Euler Method and Its Applicability in Environmental Magnetic Investigations
,
1996
.
[9]
Valéria C. F. Barbosa,et al.
Stability analysis and improvement of structural index estimation in Euler deconvolution
,
1999
.
[10]
A. Reid,et al.
Euler Deconvolution: Past, Present, And Future-A Review
,
1995
.
[11]
Misac N. Nabighian,et al.
The analytic signal of two-dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross-section; its properties and use for automated anomaly interpretation
,
1972
.
[12]
Walter R. Roest,et al.
Magnetic interpretation using the 3-D analytic signal
,
1992
.