Euler deconvolution applied to potential field gradients

Exploration Geophysics

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 165-170

  Cooper, Gordon R J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Gravity; Magnetics; Potential fields; Semi automatic interpretation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009382420     PISSN: 08123985     EISSN: 18347533     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1071/EG04165     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Blakely, R.J., 1995, Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications: Cambridge University Press.
2. Cooper, G.R.J., 2002, An improved algorithm for the Euler deconvolution of potential field data: The Leading Edge, 21, 1197–1198.
3. Cooper, G.R.J., and Cowan, D.R., 2003, Applications of fractional calculus to potential field data: Exploration Geophysics, 34, 51–56.
4. Fedi, M., and Florio, G., 2001, Detection of potential fields source boundaries by enhanced horizontal derivative method: Geophysical Prospecting, 49, 40–58.
5. FitzGerald, D., Reid, A.B., and McInerney, P., 2004, New discrimination techniques for Euler deconvolution: Computers and Geosciences, 30, 461–469.
6. Hartman, R.R., Teskey, D.J., and Friedberg, J.L., 1971, A system for rapid digital aeromagnetic interpretation: Geophysics, 36, 891–918.
7. Huang, D., Gubbins, D., Clark, R.A., and Whaler, K.A., 1995, Combined study of Euler’s homogeneity equation for gravity and magnetic field: 57th EAGE Conference and Technical Exhibition, Abstracts.
8. Hsu, S-K, 2002, Imaging magnetic sources using Euler’s equation: Geophysical Prospecting, 50, 15–25.
9. Keating, P., and Pilkington, M., 2004, Euler deconvolution of the analytic signal and its application to magnetic interpretation: Geophysical Prospecting, 52, 165–182.
10. Marson, I., and Klingele, E.E., 1993, Advantages of using the vertical gradient of gravity for 3-D interpretation: Geophysics, 58, 1588–1595.
11. Mushayandebvu, M.F., van Driel, P., Reid, A.B., and Fairhead, J.D., 2001, Magnetic source parameters of two-dimensional structures using extended Euler deconvolution: Geophysics, 66, 814–823.
12. Nabighian, M.N., and Hansen, R.O., 2001, Unification of Euler and Werner deconvolution in three dimensions via the generalised Hilbert transform: Geophysics, 66, 1805–1810.
13. Ravat, D., Kirkham, K., and Hildenbrand, T.G., 2002, A source-depth separation filter: Using the Euler method on the derivatives of total intensity magnetic anomaly data: The Leading Edge, 21, 360–365.
14. Reid, A.B., Allsop, J.M., Granser, H., Millet, A.J., and Somerton, I.W., 1990, Magnetic interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution: Geophysics, 55, 80–91.
15. Salem, A., and Ravat, D., 2003, A combined analytic signal and Euler method (AN-EUL) for the automatic interpretation of magnetic data: Geophysics, 68, 1952–1961.
16. Smith, R. S., Thurston, J. B., Dai, T. F, and McLeod, I. N., 1998, iSPI – the improved source parameter imaging method: Geophysical Prospecting, 46, 141–151.
17. Stavrev, P.Y., 1997, Euler deconvolution using differential similarity transformations of gravity or magnetic anomalies: Geophysical Prospecting, 45, 207–246.
18. Thomson, D.T., 1982, EULDPTH: A new technique for making computer-assisted depth estimates from magnetic data: Geophysics, 47, 31–37.
19. Zhang, C., Mushayandebvu, M.F., van Driel, P., Reid, A.B., Fairhead, J.D., and Odegard, M.E., 2000, Euler deconvolution of gravity tensor gradient data: Geophysics, 65, 512–520.