Joint processing of total-field and gradient magnetic data
Kristofer Davis 1 2 3 Yaoguo Li 11 Center for Gravity, Electrical, and Magnetic Studies, Department of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, 1500 Illinois Street, Golden, CO 80401, USA.
2 Present address: UBC-Geophysical Inversion Facility, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, 6339 Stores Road, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
3 Corresponding author. Email: kdavis@eos.ubc.ca
Exploration Geophysics 42(3) 199-206 https://doi.org/10.1071/EG10012
Submitted: 13 April 2010 Accepted: 9 June 2011 Published: 2 September 2011
Abstract
The processing of aeromagnetic data to account for levelling has been improved using gradient data. Utilising multiple magnetometers allows measurements of magnetic gradients and minimises the diurnal variation and other common-mode noise. We develop an equivalent source technique for jointly processing total-field and gradient data that makes use of a well known but rarely used relationship between the derivatives of the magnetic field and the derivative of its source to relate both datasets to a common equivalent source distribution. This approach treats the observed gradients as an additional and independent dataset instead of being just supplemental information. The direct result of joint processing is a set of enhanced data that incorporates information from both types of observed data as well as a higher signal-to-noise ratio. The methodology of the joint equivalent source processing technique is presented and demonstrated with a field example. Our method diminishes higher frequency noise, accentuates mid-frequency signals, and has higher resolution than that of total-field data alone.
Key words: equivalent source, gradients, joint inversion, magnetics, processing.
References
Briggs, I. C., 1974, Machine contouring using minimum curvature: Geophysics, 39, 39–48| Machine contouring using minimum curvature:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dampney, C. N. G., 1969, The equivalent source technique: Geophysics, 34, 39–53
| The equivalent source technique:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davis, K., 2010, Improving potential-field processing and inversion through the use of gradient measurements and data-adaptive models: PhD Thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Golub, G. H., Heath, M., and Wahba, G., 1979, Generalized cross-validation as a method for choosing a good ridge parameter: Technometrics, 21, 215–223
| Generalized cross-validation as a method for choosing a good ridge parameter:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hansen, P. C., 1992, Analysis of discrete ill-posed problems by means of the L-curve: SIAM Review, 34, 561–580
| Analysis of discrete ill-posed problems by means of the L-curve:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hardwick, C. D., 1999, Gradient-enhanced total-field gridding: 69th Annual International Meeting Society of Exploration Geophysics, Expanded Abstracts, 18, 381–385
Hestenes, M. R., and Stiefel, E., 1952, Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems: Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 49, 409–436
Kogbetliantz, E. G., 1944, Quantitative interpretation of magnetic and gravitational anomalies: Geophysics, 9, 463–493
| Quantitative interpretation of magnetic and gravitational anomalies:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Li, Y., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1996, 3-D inversion of magnetic data: Geophysics, 61, 394–408
| 3-D inversion of magnetic data:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Li, Y., and Oldenburg, D. W., 2010, Rapid construction of equivalent sources using wavelets: Geophysics, 75, L51–L59
| Rapid construction of equivalent sources using wavelets:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nabighian, M. N., 1972, The analytic signal of two-dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross-section: its properties and use for automated anomaly interpretation: Geophysics, 37, 507–517
| The analytic signal of two-dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross-section: its properties and use for automated anomaly interpretation:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nelson, B. J., 1988, Comparison of gradient analysis techniques for linear two-dimensional magnetic sources: Geophysics, 53, 1088–1095
| Comparison of gradient analysis techniques for linear two-dimensional magnetic sources:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nelson, B. J., 1994, Levelling total-field aeromagnetic data with measured horizontal gradients: Geophysics, 59, 1166–1170
| Levelling total-field aeromagnetic data with measured horizontal gradients:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
O’Connell, M. D., and Owers, M., 2008, A line spacing compression method and an improved minimum curvature operator for grid interpolation of airborne magnetic surveys: Exploration Geophysics, 39, 148–153
| A line spacing compression method and an improved minimum curvature operator for grid interpolation of airborne magnetic surveys:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ontario Geological Survey, 2004, Ontario airborne geophysical surveys, magnetic data, profile data (ASCII format), Central Abitibi Destor-Porcupine–Pipestone Faults area: Ontario Geological Survey, Geophysical Data Set 1049c.
Reford, S., 2006, Gradient enhancement of the total magnetic field: The Leading Edge, 25, 59–66
| Gradient enhancement of the total magnetic field:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith, W. H. F., and Wessel, P., 1990, Gridding with continuous curvature splines in tension: Geophysics, 55, 293–305
| Gridding with continuous curvature splines in tension:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Swain, C. J., 1976, A FORTRAN program for interpolating irregularly spaced data using difference equations for minimum curvature: Computers & Geosciences, 1, 231–240
| A FORTRAN program for interpolating irregularly spaced data using difference equations for minimum curvature:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tikhonov, A. N., and Arsenin, V. Y., 1977, Solution of Ill-posed Problems: Winston.
Webring, M., 1981, MINC: A gridding program based on minimum curvature: U.S. Geological Survey Open File report, 81–1224.