Advertisement

Frontiers of Earth Science in China

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 380–387 | Cite as

Improving resolution of gravity data with wavelet analysis and spectral method

  • Qiu Ning 
  • He Zhanxiang 
  • Chang Yanjun Email author
Research Article

Abstract

Gravity data are the results of gravity force field interaction from all the underground sources. The objects of detection are always submerged in the background field, and thus one of the crucial problems for gravity data interpretation is how to improve the resolution of observed information. The wavelet transform operator has recently been introduced into the domain fields both as a filter and as a powerful source analysis tool. This paper studied the effects of improving resolution of gravity data with wavelet analysis and spectral method, and revealed the geometric characteristics of density heterogeneities described by simple shaped sources. First, the basic theory of the multiscale wavelet analysis and its lifting scheme and spectral method were introduced. With the experimental study on forward simulation of anomalies given by the superposition of six objects and measured data in Songliao plain, Northeast China, the shape, size and depth of the buried objects were estimated in the study. Also, the results were compared with those obtained by conventional techniques, which demonstrated that this method greatly improves the resolution of gravity anomalies.

Keywords

gravity anomalies spectral analysis Songliao plain wavelet 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abry P (1997). Ondelettes et turbulence, Multirésolutions, Algorithmes de Décomposition. Paris: Invariance D’échellesGoogle Scholar
  2. Andra K, Chakrabarti C, Acharya T (2002). A VLSI architecture for lifting-based forward and inverse wavelet transform. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 50(4): 966–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audet P, Mareschal J C (2007). Wavelet analysis of the coherence between Bouguer gravity and topography: Application to the elastic thickness anisotropy in the Canadian Shield. Geophysical Journal International, 168(1): 287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharyya B K (1972). Design of spatial filters and their application to high-resolution aeromagnetic data. Geophysics, 37(1): 68–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharyya B K, Leu L K (1977). Spectral analysis of gravity and magnetic anomalies due to rectangular prismatic bodies. Geophysics, 42(1): 41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blakely R J (1988). Curie temperature isotherm analysis and tectonic implications of aeromagnetic data from Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B 10): 11817–11832Google Scholar
  7. Blakely R J (1995). Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Chastenet de Gery J, Naudy H (1957). Sur l’interprétation des anomalies gravimétriques et magnétiquesc. Geophysical Prospecting, 5(4): 421–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connard G, Couch R, Gemperle M (1983). Analysis of aeromagnetic measurements from the Cascade Range in central Orogen. Geophysics, 48(3): 376–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daubechies I, Sweldens W (1998). Factoring wavelet transforms into lifting steps. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Its Applications, 4(3): 247–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fedi M (2007). DEXP: A fast method to determine the depth and the structural index of potential fields sources. Geophysics, 72(1): I1–I11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fedi M, Primiceri R, Quarta T, et al (2004). Joint application of continuous and discrete wavelet transform on gravity data to identify shallow and deep sources. Geophysical Journal International, 156(1): 7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fedi M, Quarta T (1998). Wavelet analysis for the regional-residual and local seperation of the potential field anomalies. Geophysical Prospecting, 46(5): 507–525Google Scholar
  14. Foufoula-Georgiou E, Kumar P (1994). Wavelets in Geophysics. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–43Google Scholar
  15. Grossman A, Morlet J (1984). Decomposition of hardy functions into square integrable wavelets of constant shape. Journal of Mathematical Analysis, 15(4): 723–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holschneider M (1995). Wavelets: An Analysis Tool. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Hsu S K, Coppens D, Shyu C T (1998). Depth to magnetic source using the generalized analytic signal. Geophysics, 63(6): 1947–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiang W, Ortega A (2001). Lifting factorization-based discrete wavelet transform architecture design. IEEE Transaction on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 11(5): 651–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karlsson S, Yu J, Akay M (2000). Time-frequency analysis of myoelectric signals during dynamiccontractions: A comparative study. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 47(2): 228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keating P B (1998). Weighted Euler deconvolution of gravity data. Geophysics, 63(5): 1595–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ku C C, Sharp J A (1983). Werner deconvolution for automated magnetic interpretation and its refinement using Marquardt’s inversed modeling. Geophysics, 48(6): 754–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marson I, Klingele E E (1993). Advantages of using the vertical gradient of gravity for 3-D interpretation. Geophysics, 58(11): 1588–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martelet G, Sailhac P, Moreau F, et al (2001). Characterization of geological boundaries using 1-D wavelet transform on gravity data: Theory and application to the Himalayas. Geophysics, 66(4): 1116–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreau F, Gibert D, Holschneider M, et al (1997). Wavelet analysis of potential fields. Inverse Problems, 13(3): 165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreau F, Gibert D, Holschneider M, et al (1999). Identification of sources of potential fields with the continuous wavelet transform: Basic theory. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104(B3): 5003–5013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nabighian M N (1974). Additional comments on the analytic signal of two-dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross-section. Geophysics, 39(1): 85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nabighian N N (1972). The analytic signal of two-dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross-section. Geophysics, 37(2): 507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ning J S, Wang H H, Luo Z C (2005). Downward comtinuation of gravity signals based on the multiscale edge constraint. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 48(1): 63–68 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  29. Okubo Y, Graf R J, Hansen R O, et al (1985). Curie point depths of the Island of Kyushu and surrounding areas, Japan. Geophysics, 50(3): 481–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parker R L (1972). The rapid calculations of potential anomalies. Geophysical Journal International, 31(4): 447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peters L J (1949). The direct approach to magnetic interpretation and its practical application. Geophysics, 14(3): 290–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ravat D, Pignatelli A, Nicolosi I, et al (2007). A study of spectral methods of estimating the depth to the bottom of magnetic sources from near-surface magnetic anomaly data. Geophysical Journal International, 169(2): 421–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sailhac P, Galdeano A, Gibert D, et al (2000). Identification of sources of potential fields with the continuous wavelet transform: Complex wavelets and application to aeromagnetic profiles in French Guiana. Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(B8): 19455–19475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shuey R T, Schellinger D K, Tripp A C, et al (1977). Curie depth determination from aeromagnetic spectra. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 50: 75–101Google Scholar
  35. Spector A, Grant F S (1970). Statistical models for interpreting aeromagnetic data. Geophysics, 35(2): 293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stavrev P Y (1997). Euler deconvolution using differential similarity transformations of gravity or magnetic anomalies. Geophysical Prospecting, 45(2): 207–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sweldens W (1995). The lifting scheme: A new philosophy in biorthogonal wavelet constructions. In: Laine A F, Unser M, ed. Wavelet Applications in Signal and Image Processing III. Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, San Diego, CA, USA, 68–79Google Scholar
  38. Tanaka A, Okubo Y, Matsubayashi O (1999). Curie point depth based on spectrum analysis of the magnetic anomaly data in East and Southeast Asia. Tectonophysics, 306(3–4): 461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson D T (1982). A new technique for making computerassisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics, 47(1): 31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Werner S (1953). Interpretation of magnetic anomalies of sheet-like bodies. Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning Arsbok, 43(6): 508Google Scholar
  41. Xiong C, Tian J, Liu J (2004). A fast VLSI architecture for two-dimensional discrete wavelet transform based on lifting scheme. Proceedings Seventh International Conference on Solid-State and Integrated Circuits Technology, 1661–1664Google Scholar
  42. Zhou Z, Adeli H (2003). Time-frequency signal analysis of earthquake records using Mexican Hat wavelets. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 18(5): 379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geophysics and GeomaticsChina University of GeosciencesWuhanChina
  2. 2.Geophysical Prospecting BureauChina National Petroleum CorporationZhuozhouChina
  3. 3.Open Laboratory of Engineering GeophysicsMinistry of Land and ResourcesWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations