Automatic interpretation of magnetic data using euler deconvolution with nonlinear background

Pure and Applied Geophysics

Volumn 164, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 2359-2372

  Dewangan, Pawan ^a   Ramprasad, T ^a   Ramana, M V ^a   Desa, M ^a   Shailaja, B ^a  

^a Department of Geological Oceanography ^*  (India)

Author keywords

Euler's homogeneity equation; Nonlinear background field; Nonlinear inversion

Indexed keywords

BATHYMETRY; CONTINENTAL MARGIN; DATA INTERPRETATION; DATA INVERSION; DATA SET; DECONVOLUTION; MAGNETIC ANOMALY; OPTIMIZATION;

ASIA; EURASIA; INDIA; SOUTH ASIA;

EID: 37449024952     PISSN: 00334553     EISSN: 14209136     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00024-007-0264-x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. BARBOSA, V.C.F., SILVA, J.B.C., and MEDEIROS, W.E. (1999), Stability analysis and improvement of structural index estimation in Euler deconvolution, Geophys. 64, 48-60.
2. COLEMAN, T.F. and LI Y. (1996), An interior, trust region approach for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds, SIAM J. on Optimization 6, 418-445.
3. FITZGERALD, D., REID A., and MCINERNEY, P. (2004), New discrimination techniques for Euler deconvolution, Computers and Geosci. 30, 461-469.
4. GEROVSKA, D. and ARAU' ZO-BRAVO, M.J. (2003), Automatic interpretation of magnetic data based on Euler deconvolution with unprescribed structural index, Computers and Geosci. 29, 949-960.
5. GEROVSKA, D., STAVREV, Y., and ARAUZO-BRAVO, M.J. (2005), Finite-difference Euler deconvolution algorithm applied to the interpretation of magnetic data from northern Bulgaria, Pure Appl. Geophys. 162, 591-608.
6. HARTMAN, R.R., TESKEY, D.J., and FRIEDBERG, J.L. (1971), A system for rapid digital aeromagnetic interpretation, Geophys. 36, 891-918.
7. HSU, S.K. (2002), Imaging magnetic sources using Euler's equation, Geophys. Prosp. 50, 15-25.
8. KOPAL, Z., Numerical Analysis (Chapman and Hall Ltd., London, 1961), pp. 551-553.
9. NABIGHIAN, M.N. (1984), Towards a three-dimensional automatic interpretation of potential field data via generalized Hilbert transforms: Fundamental relations, Geophys. 49, 780-786.
10. NAUDY, H. (1971), Automatic determination of depth on aeromagnetic profiles, Geophys.36, 717-722.
11. REID, A.B., ALLSOP, J.M., GRANSER, H., MILLET, A.J., and SOMERTON, I.W. (1990), Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution, Geophys. 55, 80-91.
12. SILVA, J.B.C. and BARBOSA, V.C.F. (2003), 3D Euler deconvolution: Theoretical basis for automatically selecting good solutions, Geophys. 68, 1962-1968.
13. STAVREV, P.Y. (1997), Euler deconvolution using differential similarity transformations of gravity or magnetic anomalies, Geophys. Prosp. 45, 207-246.
14. SUBRAHMANYAM, V., GOPALA RAO, D., RAMANA, M.V., KRISHNA, K.S., MURTY, G.P.S., and GANGADHARA RAO, M. (1995), Structure and tectonics of the southwestern continental margins of India, Tectonophys. 249, 267-282.
15. WERNER, S. (1953), Interpretation of magnetic anomalies at sheet-like bodies, Sver. Geol. Undersok., ser. C. C. Arsbok., no 06.
16. WILLIAMS, S., FAIRHEAD, J.D., and FLANAGAN, G. (2003), Grid-based Euler deconvolution: Completing the circle with '2D constrained Euler', SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 22 576-579.
17. THOMPSON, D.T. (1982), EULDPH: A new technique for making computer-assisted depth estimates from magnetic data, Geophys. 47 31-37.