Advertisement

Edge position detection and depth estimation from gravity data with application to mineral exploration

  • Ali Elmas
Original Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

A method is applied to residual gravity data taken from the Ortaklar mine, Turkey to delineate the edge position and to estimate the depth of a buried ore body. The horizontal gradient magnitude (HGM) and tilt angle map (TAM) techniques are applied to the first vertical derivative (FVD) of the residual gravity data. The maxima contours of the HGM data and the zero contours of the TAM correspond to the edges of the ore body. The half distance between ± 45° (± 0.785 rad) TAM contours is used to determine the depths of the body. The obtained results are then compared against the depths retrieved from the Grav2dc inversion program, which inverted two profiles taken across the maximum response of the gravity anomaly map. The depths of the ore body estimated by the two methods are found in good agreement as reveal from drilling information.

Keywords

Mineral exploration Edge position detection First vertical derivative Tilt angle map 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Prof. Dr. Bülent ORUÇ from Kocaeli University due to his contributions and valuable suggestions. I also would like to address my thanks to Rasim Taylan KARA for precious support.

References

  1. Arısoy MÖ, Dikmen Ü (2011) Potensoft: MATLAB-based software for potential field data processing, modelling and mapping. Comput Geosci 37:935–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biswas A (2017) A review on modeling, inversion and interpretation of self-potential in mineral exploration and tracing paleo-shear zones. Ore Geol Rev 91:21–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biswas A, Parija MP, Kumar S (2017) Global nonlinear optimization for the interpretation of source parameters from total gradient of gravity and magnetic anomalies caused by thin dyke. Ann Geophys 60(2):G0218, 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cordell L, Grauch VJS (1985) Mapping basement magnetization zones from aeromagnetic data in the San Juan basin, New Mexico. In: Hinzc WJ (ed) The utility of regional gravity and magnetic anomaly maps. Society Exploration Geophysics, Houston, pp 181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Essa KS, Elhussein M (2016) A new approach for the interpretation of magnetic data by a 2-D dipping dike. J Appl Geophys.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2016.11.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evjen HM (1936) The place of the vertical gradient in gravitational interpretations. Geophysics 1:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gunn PJ (1975) Linear transformations of gravity and magnetic fields. Geophys Prospect 23:300–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Güvenç T (1973) Gaziantep-Kilis bölgesi stratigrafisi: MTA Jeo. Et. Dai. rapor arşivi, Rap. no. 304, 70 s. AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen RO, Pawlowski RS, Wang X (1987) Joint use of analytic signal and amplitude of horizontal gradient maxima for three-dimensional gravity data interpretation. In: 57th annual international management. Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, pp 100–102Google Scholar
  10. Hinze WJ (1990) The role of gravity and magnetic methods in engineering and environmental studies. In: Ward SH (ed) Geotechnical and environmental geophysics, vol I: review and tutorial. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  11. Klingele EE, Marson I, Kahle HG (1991) Automatic interpretation of gravity gradiometric data in two dimensions: downright gradient. Geophys Prospect 39:407–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mehanee S (2014) Accurate and efficient regularized inversion approach for the interpretation of isolated gravity anomalies. Pure Appl Geophys 171(8):1897–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mehanee S (2015) Tracing of paleo-shear zones using self-potential data inversion: case studies from the KTB, Rittsteig, and Grossensees graphite-bearing fault planes. Earth Planets Space 67:14–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mehanee S, Essa K (2015) A 2.5D regularized inversion scheme for the interpretation of residual gravity data by a dipping thin-sheet like target: numerical examples and case studies with an insight on sensitivity and non-uniqueness. Earth Planets Space 67:130.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-015-0283-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller HG, Singh V (1994) Potential field tilt-a new concept for location of potential field sources. J Appl Geophys 32:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oruç B (2010) Edging detection and depth estimation using a tilt angle map from gravity gradient data of the Kozaklı-Central Anatolia Region, Turkey. Pure Appl Geophys 45:85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0211-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oruç B, Keskinsezer A (2008) Structural setting of the northeastern Biga Peninsula (Turkey) from tilt derivatives of gravity gradient tensors and magnitude of horizontal gravity components. Pure Appl Geophys 165:1913–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pei J, Li H, Wang H, Si J, Sun Z, Zhou Z (2014) Magnetic properties of the Wenchuan Earthquake Fault Scientific Drilling Project Hole-1 (WFSD-1), Sichuan Province, China. Earth, Planets Space 66:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saibi H, Nishijima J, Ehara S, Aboud E (2006) Integrated gradient interpretation techniques for 2D and 3D gravity data interpretation. Earth Planets Space 58:815–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Salem A, Williams S, Fairhead JD, Ravat DJ, Smith R (2007) Tilt-depth method: a simple depth estimation method using first-order magnetic derivatives. Lead Edge 26:1502–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tontini FC, Blakely RJ, Stagpoole V, Seebeck H (2018) Semi-automatic determination of dips and depths of geologic contacts from magnetic data with application to the Turi Fault System, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. J Appl Geophys 150:67–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ulu Ü, Genç Ş, Giray S, Metin Y, Çörekçloglu E, Örçen S, Ercan T, Yaşar T ve Karabıyıkoğlu M (1991) Belveren-Araban-Yavuzeli-Nizip-Birecik dolayının jeolojisi, Senozoyik yaşlı ve volkanik kayaçların petrolojisi ve bölgesel yayılımı: MTA Rap. no. 9226, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  23. URL-1 (2018) http://www.ephesus.us/images/map_ephesus2.jpg. Accessed 8 Aug 2018
  24. Verduzco B, Fairhead JD, Green CM, Mackenzie C (2004) New insights into magnetic derivatives for structural mapping. Lead Edge 23:116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yoldemir 0 (1987) Suvarlı-Haydarlı-Narlı Gaziantep arasında kalan alanın jeolojisi, yapısal durumu ve petrol olarakları: TPAO Rap. no. 2257, 60 s. AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhdanov MS (2002) Geophysical inversion theory and regularization problems. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysical EngineeringKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations