You are on page 1of 11

GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 62, NO. 4 (JULY-AUGUST 1997); P. 11321142, 7 FIGS.

3-D magnetic imaging using conjugate gradients

Mark Pilkington
the data. However, this approach can be overly restrictive in
that it allows only a limited portion of parameter space admissible as possible solutions.
A pragmatic approach is to overparameterize the model and
solve for many more parameters than data. This way of formulating the problem mimics reality more closely since we are
trying to estimate a continuous function from a finite set of observations. A simple way of doing this is to divide the subsurface
into a regular array of blocks. Assuming this parameterization
is sufficiently fine to represent even the most complex of structures, reasonable qualities of the possible solutions that we
require can then be specified. For example, smoothness can be
imposed through damping or regularizing the inversion (Braile
et al., 1974; Bear et al., 1995). Based on physical arguments,
bounds can be placed on the variation of properties within the
blocks (Safon et al., 1977; Fisher and Howard, 1980; Mareschal,
1985). We may even wish to freeze some of the block values if
our a priori geological information is particularly strong (Braile
et al., 1975). Alternatively, the quality of compactness of the solution (possibly along a given axis) can be incorporated into the
inversion through the minimization of some norm of the model
(Green, 1975; Last and Kubik, 1983; Guillen and Menechetti,
1984; Barbosa and Silva, 1994). If required, the model norm
may also be modified to preferentially weight solutions as a
function of depth (Li and Oldenburg, 1993; 1996). Finally, a
priori information in the form of parameter covariances derived either from rock property measurements and geological
mapping (van de Meulebrouck et al., 1984) or previous inversions (Lee and Biehler, 1991) can be exploited when inverting
the data.
In the following, we restrict the inversion to the case of least
prior knowledge, that is, we assume no geological information, physical or structural, is available. We therefore solve the
3-D magnetic inversion problem using a block parameterization and a model norm that only includes terms to control the
smoothness of the solution in three orthogonal directions and
provide a weighting of the solution as a function of depth. The
effects of model parameterization are kept to a minimum by
solving for many more unknowns than data. Since 3-D problems commonly involve large numbers of parameters, we solve

ABSTRACT

A 3-D inversion approach is outlined that determines


a distribution of susceptibility that produces a given magnetic anomaly. The subsurface model consists of a 3-D
array of rectangular blocks, each with a constant susceptibility. The inversion incorporates a model norm that
allows smoothing and depth-weighting of the solution.
Since the number of parameters can be many thousands,
even for small problems, the linear system of equations is
inverted using a preconditioned conjugate gradient approach. This reduces memory requirements and avoids
large matrix multiplications. The method is used to determine the 3-D susceptibility distribution responsible for
the Temagami magnetic anomaly in southern Ontario,
Canada.

INTRODUCTION

Unconstrained interpretations of potential-field data can be


of little practical use because of the ambiguity present between
the observations and the constructed solutions. Such nonuniqueness in potential-field problems arises from two sources.
The first is the inherent ambiguity caused by the physics of the
problem that permits an infinity of solutions to produce a given
potential-field anomaly. The second results from using a finite
number of data that are contaminated by error and which may
not contain sufficient information for a unique solution to the
problem. Strategies that deal with this nonuniqueness strive to
add enough a priori information to restrict the resulting solutions to a region of parameter space that is considered geologically reasonable. The definition of reasonable establishes
the approach to incorporating such prior information or data
in the interpretation. For example, when the geological structures modeled are known to have a simple form, the interpreted
model can be limited to elementary geometrical shapes with
few parameters (usually much less than the number of data).
Specifying the type of solution geometry in this fashion is a
practical way of ensuring that results can be found that satisfy

Manuscript received by the Editor January 29, 1996; revised manuscript received September 12, 1996.

Geological Survey of Canada, 1 Observatory Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0Y3

c 1997 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.


1132

3-D Magnetic Imaging

the necessary matrix equations in an efficient manner using a


conjugate gradient method.
METHOD

Dividing the subsurface into a rectangular array of equidimensional blocks leads to a linear relationship between the
physical property of each block and the resulting potential field.
The forward problem relating the susceptibility (or magnetization) m to the magnetic field data f can therefore be written
in matrix form as

f = Gm,

(1)

where the elements of G, gi j , represent the effect of unit susceptibility in block j atdata location i. Determining the field
caused by each magnetized layer in the block model can be
achieved in a computationally efficient manner by using fast
Fourier transforms (e.g., Blakely, 1995, 285). If Jn (r) is the magnetization within the nth layer and z n is the distance from the
observation level to its top, then the Fourier transform of the
field caused by L layers is

B(k) = 2C(k)

L
X

[exp(|k|z n )

n=1

exp(|k|[z n + d])]F[Jn (r)],

(2)

where d is the layer thickness and C(k) is given by

C(k) = j Kt K/|k|2 .

(3)

Here, j and t are the direction cosines of the magnetization and


the Earths magnetic field, k is the wave vector, and F denotes
Fourier transformation. K is constructed from the wave vector
k, whose components in the (x, y, z) coordinate system are
(k x , k y , 0), by K = (ik x , ik y , |k|).
Assuming Gaussian a priori probability density functions for
the data and model with covariance matrices D and P, respec
tively, the maximum likely solution of equation(1) requires
the
minimization of the functional (Tarantola, 1987)

(f Gm)t D1 (f Gm) + (m m0 )t P1 (m m0 ), (4)

which consists of a weighted data misfit and model norm term.


D commonly takes the form 2 I, where 2 is the estimated data

model (usually set to 0). D


error
variance, and m0 is the a priori

and P scale the parameters and data errors to unit variance. As

P decreases
(we obtain better prior information), more weight
placed on the model norm term in equation (4), and the sois
lution is influenced less by the observations. Clearly, the results
are only meaningful to the degree that P conforms to reality.
so the simplest case
Unfortunately, P is difficult to estimate and

2
of P = I is often used (implying uncorrelated parameters).
we can abandon the statistical interpretation of

Alternatively,
P and construct it such that minimizing mt P1 m in equation (4)
For example, P

produces
desirable qualities in the solution.

may be chosen so that the first derivative or curvature of m can


be minimized. Solving for the solution with maximum smoothness is particularly useful for fully underdetermined problems
where an infinite number of models can fit the data to some
prescribed degree of accuracy. The smoothest solution then
contains only those features required by the data and hence

1133

provides a lower bound on model complexity (Constable et


al., 1987). The solution to equation (4) is

1
m = Gt D1 G + P1 Gt f,

(5)

which requires the inversion of a matrix of dimensions equal


to the number of parameters M. Equation (5) can also be written as

m = PGt (G PGt + D)1 f,


(6)

which only involves an inverse equal to the number of data N ,


where N in our case is much less than M.
Substituting the simple form for the relation between susceptibility m and magnetic field, f [equation (2)] into equation (6)
was used in Cribb (1976) to derive an expression for the generalized inverse in the interpretation of gravity and magnetic field
data in the form of a layered block model. He used the simple
case of D = 0 and P = I. In this way, the susceptibility distri
for ineachlayer is expressed in terms of Fourier
bution solved
transforms and no matrix inversions are needed. However, as
Shuey and Wannamaker (1978) pointed out, the resulting solutions are of little practical value because the zero wavenumber component is undefined in the generalized inverse. The
density or susceptibility computed in each successively deeper
layer is equivalent to an upward continuation of the layer distribution at shallower depths. Apart from having most of the
solution concentrated near the surface, the generalized inverse
also leads to negative values which are physically unrealistic.
Pedersen (1991) derived similar expressions for the magnetization distribution in a layered model and noted that, for the
data set examined, solutions became smoother and larger in
amplitude with increasing depth. He also discussed weighting
the layers differently but did not outline ways of determining
the weighting factors.
Li and Oldenburg (1993; 1996) introduced a weighting term
into the model norm in equation (4) to balance the effects
of the exponential depth term in the forward problem [equation (2)]. By counteracting this decay in the computed solution, Li and Oldenburg attempted to give equal weight to all
blocks in the model, regardless of their depth. If this is not
done, more weight is given to the blocks close to the surface
and the final susceptibilities are distributed similarly. For a 3-D
geometry, Li and Oldenburg (1996) showed that a weighting
of the form 1/z 3 (where z is the average block depth) gave acceptable results, i.e., solutions were not overly concentrated at
the surface and synthetic models were recovered at the appropriate depths. The exponent in z results from the equivalence
in behavior between a block-like source and a simple dipole.
This kind of weighting function can be included easily in the
frequency domain expressions of Cribb (1978) and Pedersen
(1991) for the inversion of magnetic data in terms of layered
models. Equation (1) can be written

f = [E T1 E| |E Tn E| ]m,

(7)

where E and E are the matrix equivalents of Fourier and in

verse Fourier
transformation and

Tn = diag{2C(ki )[exp(|ki |z n ) exp(|ki |[z n + d])]},

i = 1, N . (8)
Each submatrix in equation (7) corresponds to one layer within
the model. Substituting this into equation (6) and setting D = 0

1134

Pilkington

and P = z 3 I [ P1 = z 3 I in equation (4)], the susceptibility is

given by

PL 3 2
E z 13 T1 E
n=1 E z n Tn E

..

m=
f,
.
PL 3 2
3
E z L TL E
n=1 E z n Tn E

(9)

so that m can be calculated entirely in the frequency domain


and the
problem of large matrix inversion is avoided. Figures 1
and 2 show a comparison between the weighted [equation (9)]
and unweighted [Pedersen, 1991, equation (23)] solutions from
the frequency-domain inversion algorithms. Incorporating the
depth weighting leads to a substantial improvement over the
unweighted casethe solution is not restricted to shallow

a)

b)

FIG. 1. Susceptibility derived from inversion of synthetic model data shown in Figure 3 using the unweighted generalized inverse
[equivalent to equation (9) with z set to unity]. (a) Depth slices through the calculated model. Numbers on each slice indicate depth
from surface in arbitrary units. (b) Cross-sections through a calculated model. Numbers on each section indicate the y-coordinate
in Figure 1a. Contour interval is 0.01 cgs.

3-D Magnetic Imaging

depths and has a lateral extent comparable to that of the real


solution (Figure 3). However, the resulting distribution is too
smooth and not compact enough to reproduce the synthetic
input model. An unacceptable feature of the solution is the
large area of negative susceptibility that surround the recovered body (denoted by the highest values). This area results

1135

because of the zero wavenumber ambiguity and the lack of positivity constraints on the computed susceptibility. The negative
magnetic field values caused by the dip of the source body are
simply converted to negative susceptibilities by equation (9).
Consequently, the recovery of accurate dips in the computed
models is dependent on ensuring that the susceptibilities

a)

b)

FIG. 2. Susceptibility derived from inversion of synthetic model data shown in Figure 3 using the depth-weighted generalized inverse
of equation (9). (a) Depth slices. (b) Cross-sections. Contour interval is 0.01 cgs.

1136

Pilkington

remain positive. This is most easily done by solving for the


logarithm of the susceptibilities although more complicated
transformations can be used (Li and Oldenburg, 1996).
Returning to the solution as given in equation (5), it can be
derived from solving the augmented system

"

#
"
#
D1/2 G
D1/2 f
1/2 [m] =
0
P

(10)

or, equivalently,

Am = b.

(11)

Equation (10) shows explicitly how the a priori information


specified by P can be regarded as extra data. These data are
added to theproblem to provide enough auxiliary constraints
on model m to guarantee the existence of a unique solution
(Jackson, 1979).

a)

b)

FIG. 3. Synthetic model placed in a grid of 16 16 8 equidimensional blocks. Number of data N is 256. Susceptibility contrast is
1 cgs. (a) Depth slices. (b) Cross-sections. Contour interval is 0.01 cgs.

3-D Magnetic Imaging

Model norm
The objective function of equation (4) allows for some latitude in the choice of qualities that we desire in the solution.
Seeking smooth solutions is advantageous in that the computed
susceptibility distribution should not reflect the type of parameterization and method of solution used. The resulting model
will only have a level of complexity that is required by the data.
Smoothing also improves the numerical stability of the inversion by preventing unlimited growth of a single parameter that
could lead to divergence. Smoothness constraints can be incorporated into the objective function as follows. Ignoring the
data misfit, the model norm to be minimized is given by the
roughness measure

k xmk + k ymk + kzmk ,


2

(12)

which becomes in matrix terms,

mt Dtx Dx m + mt Dty D y m + mt Dtz Dz m




1137

that occurs when is 12 bt A1 b and m = A1 b (Golub and


is equivalent
Van Loan, 1983). Hence the minimization of
to solving equation (1). In contrast to the method of steepest
descent, which relies on only gradient vectors, the CGA generates a succession of search directions pk such that each estimate
mk+1 minimizes over the whole vector space of directions already taken. Consequently, after M iterations, the algorithm
must converge since there are no more orthogonal directions
in parameter space that can be taken. In practice, the presence
of round-off errors and computational considerations requires
limiting the number of iterations to M.
The basic algorithm for rectangular A is (e.g., VanDecar and

Snieder, 1994):

for k = 0; m0 = 0 and r0 = At (b Am0 );

while r0 6= 0,
k = k + 1,

(13)

or mt P1 m, where P1/2 = [Dx | D y | Dz ]t and the D subma approximations

to taking
trices represent the
finite-difference
model derivatives in each of the three orthogonal directions.
For example, the ith row of D y is {0i1 , 1, 0MX , 1, 0 Mi1M X }
vectors denote their length and
where subscripts on the zero
MX is the number of model blocks in the x-direction. Depth
weighting is then achieved by including the weighting matrix
W into the model norm as

P1/2 = [WDx | WD y | WDz ]t .

(14)

3/2

W has the form [ |Z j | ], j = 1, L with each Z diagonal

containing the appropriate

and
layer depth.
So the forward problem of equation (10) now becomes a
system of dimensions (N + 3M) M. Fortunately, the ease of
premultiplication by the WD matrices, with only two multi
plications per row, does not significantly
increase computation
time when compared to multiplication involving the N M
matrix D1/2 G which is full.
(5), (6), and (10) suggest a number of different

Equations
ways for obtaining solutions. Computing the singular value decomposition (SVD) of the parenthesized quantities in equations (5) and (6) is a numerically stable way of solving these
systems of equations (Golub and Van Loan, 1983) and is a
standard tool for small geophysical inverse problems. When
N M, equation (6) is more efficiently solved than equation (5), although for large enough M, the matrix-matrix multiplications can consume more time than that needed for SVD
computations. Furthermore, as M increases, the storage requirements for the appropriate matrices quickly become prohibitive. For these reasons, an iterative solution of the augmented system of equation (10) is an attractive alternative. In
particular, the conjugate gradient algorithm combines the advantages of only matrix-vector products and minimal storage
requirements.
Conjugate gradients
The conjugate gradient algorithm (CGA) is an iterative
method for solving linear or linearized systems of equations
that converge faster than the related steepest descent method.
The algorithm minimizes the function (m) = 12 mt Am mt b

end.

if k = 1,
p1 = r0
else
k = rtk1 rk1 /rtk2 rk2 ,
pk = rk1 + k pk1 ,
end
qk = Apk ,

k = rtk1 rk1 /qtk qk ,


mk = mk1 + k pk ,
rk = rk1 k At qk ,

(15)

Matrix A only appears twice, as a matrix-vector product. In

fact, A need
not be computed explicitly since only the result

of A or At acting on a vector is required. All other computa aresimple vector multiplications and additions. Storage
tions
requirements of the CGA are particularly spare since all vector quantities are computed recursively. These low computational requirements have led to the popularity of the CGA
for solving large-scale inverse problems, particularly those
in seismic tomography where the sparseness of A can also

be exploited (Nolet, 1985; 1993; Scales, 1987; VanDecar


and
Snieder, 1994). Recently, the CGA has found application in
electromagnetics (EM) (Ellis and Oldenburg, 1993), resistivity
(Zhang et al., 1995), magnetotelluric (MT) inverse problems
(Mackie and Madden, 1993), and magnetic susceptibility mapping (Nakatsuka, 1995).
When M is large, the number of iterations should, for practical reasons, be kept as small as possible. This may present
a difficulty since the rate of convergence of equation (15) is
controlled by the condition number of A, which for magnetic

problems using a block-type parameterization


is notoriously
large (e.g., Dittmer and Szymanski, 1995). Nolet (1993) and
VanDecar and Snieder (1994) also point out that including
smoothness constraints in P can inhibit the CGAs conver number of iterations, the congence. To avoid an excessive
ditioning of the system in equation (11) can be improved
(VanDecar and Snieder, 1994) by transforming the normal
equations At Am = At b and solving the system

SAt Am = SAt b,

(16)

1138

Pilkington

where S is an approximation to the inverse of At A, i.e., SAt A


improved

com
I. The conditioning of equation (16) is much

pared to equation (11) since the eigenvalues of the product


SAt A are much closer to unity. The preconditioned CGA is


then:

TEMAGAMI ANOMALY

for k = 0; m0 = 0 and r0 = At (b Am0 );

while r0 6= 0,
zk = Sr,

k = k + 1,

end,

if k = 1,
p1 = z0
else
k = rtk1 zk1 /rtk2 zk2 ,
pk = zk1 + k pk1
end
qk = Apk ,

k = rtk1 zk1 /qtk qk ,


mk = mk1 + k pk ,
rk = rk1 k At qk ,

(17)

where S is the preconditioning operator and zk are the modified


search directions.
The best choice for S is (At A)1 which would provide the

oneiteration.
least-squares solution in
However, this matrix is
not available for the numerical reasons already discussed. A
simpler operator can be derived from examining the structure
of At A. For example, a common choice for S is diag{1/a t a j },
t A. From equa the a t a are the diagonal elements of A
where
j

for G from
t
t 1
1
tion (10) A A = G D G + P , so substituting

equation (7), taking the case of D = I and using simple depth


weighting through P = z 3 I (for a3-Dgeometry) yields

diag{(Gt D1 G + P)1 } =

1

diag z i3 E I + Ti2 z i3 E ,

with this many parameters (2048), less than 100 iterations


within the CGA are necessary to reach a satisfactory solution.
Figure 5 shows that the major character of the dipping model
body has been recovered by the inversion.

The Temagami magnetic anomaly (Figure 6) is located within


the Cobalt Embayment area of the Southern Province, Ontario,
Canada. Overlying weakly magnetic, 2.52.2 Ga-old Huronian
Supergroup rocks tend to mask the magnetic response of the
basement although anomalous effects caused by iron formation
and west-northwesteast-southeasttrending mafic dykes are
apparent. The Huronian rocks consist of an upper section of
three sedimentary cycles overlying the volcanic Elliot Lake
Group. Their thickness is estimated to be <5 km in this region
(Card et al., 1984).
With an areal extent of 50 15 km, the Temagami anomaly
reaches a magnitude of 10 000 nT making it one of the largest
anomalies in North America. The relative positions of the positive and negative portions of the anomaly do not indicate a
source magnetization much different than the present day field.
The anomaly consists of three parts. In the east, short wavelength linear northeast-southwesttrending highs coincide with
outcropping Archean iron formation. The central section has
the greatest amplitude and an east-west strike. The western portion appears smoother in character than the eastern sections
with values <2500 nT and an east-northeastwest-southwest
trend. The transition from central to western sections of the
anomaly coincides with some of the mafic dykes in the area
(more easily seen on derivative maps).
Reflection seismic data acquired along north-south lines
over portions of the Temagami anomaly have imaged a 20-km
wide early Huronian rift basin bounded by north- and southerly
dipping faults (Milkereit and Wu, 1996). Prominent subhorizontal reflectors exist at depths of 36 km, coincident with the

i = 1, L , (18)

with Ti defined in equation (8) and z i being the depth to the


Tests with equation (18) show that the exponential
ith layer.
term within the Ti tends to overweight the deeper parts of the
solution leading to susceptibility distributions that are concentrated toward the bottom layers of the model. Removing the Ti

term from equation (18) leads to a simpler and more reliable


preconditioner that has proven to be successful on synthetic
and real data. Figure 4 shows the improvement in convergence
for a typical 3-D magnetic inversion problem using a preconditioner with the simple form S = z 3 I. Using preconditioning, the
to the 102 level requires
reduction in residual error,rtk rk /M,
<50 iterations compared to 100 for the nonpreconditioned case
using equation (15).
Synthetic data
Synthetic data from the model of Figure 3 were inverted using the preconditioned CGA to solve equation (10). The preconditioning matrix used was S = z 3 I. For a typical problem

FIG. 4. Residual error history for a typical 3-D magnetic inversion where M, the number of parameters is 256. Solid line
represents the case of no preconditioning using equation (15).
Dashed line shows the preconditioned case (S = z 3 I) using

equation (17).

3-D Magnetic Imaging

maximum of the anomaly, and may represent lower Huronian


volcanics of the Elliot Lake Group. However, modeling suggests that the limited depth extent of this unit precludes it as the
source of the observed anomalies (Milkereit and Wu, 1996).
The origin is more likely located within the basement. Card
et al. (1984) modeled two profiles crossing the western and
eastern portions of the anomaly. In the west, they determined
a source body of width <15 km, depth extent 5 to 20 km, and

1139

susceptibility contrast 0.019 cgs. For the eastern profile, they


modeled the iron formation extending to a depth of 2.5 km and
an underlying larger body (related to the highest-amplitude
central portion of the anomaly) of width <5 km, depth extent
318 km and susceptibility 0.058 cgs.
The observed data of Figure 6 was modeled using the preconditioned CGA to solve equation (10). The preconditioning
matrix used was S = z 3 I, and data were sampled every 2 km

a)

b)

FIG. 5. Results of inversion of synthetic model data shown in Figure 3 using the conjugate gradient solution of equation (10).
(a) Depth slices. (b) Cross-sections. Contour interval 0.01 cgs.

1140

resulting in a model subsurface of dimensions 32 32 16


blocks. Assuming only induced magnetization, the appropriate values of inclination 74 , declination 10 , and magnitude
58 250 nT were used. Figure 7 shows the results of the inversion with positions of the cross-sections indicated in Figure 6.
Since the calculated susceptibility distribution is smooth, direct comparison with the results of 2-D modeling with discrete
bodies is tenuous. For example, the maximum susceptibilities
in the western and central parts of the body are 0.05 and
0.08 cgs, respectively, much larger than those from Card et al.
(1984). However, the relative shapes of the distribution shown
in Figure 7 provide insight into the 3-D character of the source
of the Temagami anomaly. The depth slices (Figure 7a) show a
slight widening of the body with depth and an accompanying
shift in the position of highest susceptibility from the center
to the west. The westward deepening of the source depth is
also clear in the cross-sections of Figures 7b and 7c. This corresponds to the depth increase found from profile modeling
in Card et al. (1984). The iron formation at the eastern end
of the anomaly can be seen as a small increased susceptibility region cropping out in the Y = 4434 section (Figure 7b).
North-south cross-sections (Figure 7c) indicate dips of <10 for
both the shallow and deep parts of the body. These estimated
dips are, however, valid only if any remanent magnetization
is in the inducing field direction. The possibility of a significant remanent component to the Temagami anomaly has been
raised in Milkereit and Wu (1996) who have constrained the
source body density by converting susceptibilities into equivalent volume percentages of magnetite. This approach leads to
predicted gravity anomalies twice as large as those observed.
If remanence is present, it would reduce the volume of magnetite required, and hence, density levels, or the source bodys
gravity effect is reduced by overlying low density formations.

Pilkington

As yet, rock property information for the relevant formations


is insufficient to resolve this question.
CONCLUSIONS

Solving the 3-D magnetic inversion problem using a preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm has been shown to be
one way of keeping computations to a manageable level. Other
approaches such as using subspace approximations to the full
parameter space also offer advantages (Li and Oldenburg,
1993; 1996). Subspace methods reduce the dimensionality of
the problem by specifying a number (Q) of arbitrary vectors
(where Q M, the number of parameters) chosen to approximately span the whole parameter space. This results in the
inversion of matrices of size Q Q. However, some considerable effort must be expended in choosing the number and type
of vectors to be used in the inversion. On the other hand, the
major unknown in the CGA is the type of preconditioning to
use. A simple preconditioner based on the parameter depths
has been outlined above that allowed accelerated convergence
and has worked well on real data examples.
Using a model norm that allows only smoothing and depthweighting of the solution is not an overly restrictive approach to
determining acceptable models. Smoothing prevents the calculation of overly complex models, and depth weighting is crucial
in determining meaningful susceptibility distributions.
The 3-D susceptibility distribution responsible for the
Temagami anomaly shows a northerly, steeply dipping composite source consisting of a more magnetic region at depths
of 4 km corresponding to the central and highest amplitude
part of the anomaly and a deeper, less magnetic region occurring to the west. These results, which are in agreement with the
2-D profile modeling of Card et al. (1984), however, provide a
full 3-D susceptibility solution.

FIG. 6. Residual magnetic field intensity over the Lake Temagami region, Ontario. Axes distances are in kilometers. Arrowheads
along axes denote positions of the cross-sections shown in Figure 7b and 7c.

3-D Magnetic Imaging

1141

a)

b)

FIG. 7. Results of conjugate gradient inversion of Lake Temagami data. Root-mean-square error between observed and calculated
data is 10.7 nT. (a) Depth slices. Z denotes depth to the center of each slice. (b) West-east cross-sections. Numbers on each
slice indicate y-coordinate in km (cf. Figure 6). (c) North-south cross-sections through calculated model. Numbers indicate the
x-coordinate in km. Contour interval is 0.002 cgs.

1142

Pilkington

c)

FIG. 7. (Continued.)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Pierre Keating and Walter Roest for helpful comments and suggestions. This is Geological Survey of Canada
contribution 38495.
REFERENCES
Barbosa, V. C. F., and Silva, J. B. C., 1994, Generalized compact gravity
inversion: Geophysics, 59, 5768.
Bear, G. W., Al-Shukri, H. J., and Rudman, A. J., 1995, Linear inversion of gravity data for 3-D density distributions: Geophysics, 60,
13541364.
Blakely, R. J., 1995, Potential theory in gravity and magnetic applications: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Braile, L. W., Keller, G. R., and Peeples, W. J., 1974, Inversion of gravity
data for two-dimensional density distributions: J. Geophys. Res., 79,
20172021.
Card, K. D., Gupta, V. K., McGrath, P. H., and Grant, F. S., 1984, The
Sudbury structure: Its regional geological and geophysical setting,
in Pye, E. G., Naldrett, A. J., and Giblin, P. E., Eds., The geology and
ore deposits of the Sudbury structure: Ontario Geol. Sur., Spec. Vol.
1, 2543.
Constable, S. C., Parker, R. L., and Constable, C. G., 1987, Occams
inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from
electromagnetic sounding data: Geophysics, 52, 289300.
Cribb, J., 1976, Application of the generalized linear inverse to the
inversion of static potential data: Geophysics, 41, 13651369.
Dittmer, J. K., and Szymanski, J. E., 1995, The stochastic inversion of
magnetics and resistivity data using the simulated annealing algorithm: Geophys. Prosp., 43, 397416.
Ellis, R. G., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1993, The pole-pole 3-D dc resistivity inverse problem: Conjugate gradient approach: Geophys. J.
Internat., 119, 187194.
Fisher, N. J., and Howard, L. E., 1980, Gravity interpretation with the
aid of quadratic programming: Geophysics, 45, 403419.
Golub, G. H., and Van Loan, C. F., 1983, Matrix computations: John
Hopkins Univ. Press.
Green, W. R., 1975, Inversion of gravity profiles by use of a BackusGilbert approach: Geophysics, 40, 763772.
Guillen, A., and Menichetti, V., 1984, Gravity and magnetic inversion
with minimization of a specific functional: Geophysics, 49, 1354
1360.
Jackson, D. D., 1979, The use of a priori data to resolve non-uniqueness

in linear inversion: Geophys. J. Roy. Astr. Soc., 57, 137158.


Last, B. J., and Kubik, K., 1983, Compact gravity inversion: Geophysics,
48, 713721.
Lee, T.-C., and Biehler, S., 1991, Inversion modeling of gravity with
prismatic mass bodies: Geophysics, 56, 13651376.
Li, Y., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1993, 3-D inversion of magnetic data:
63rd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
400402.
1996, 3-D inversion of magnetic data: Geophysics, 61, 394408.
Mackie, R. L., and Madden, T. R., 1993, Conjugate direction relaxation
solutions for 3-D magnetotelluric modeling: Geophysics, 58, 1052
1057.
Mareschal, J. C., 1985, Inversion of potential field data in the Fourier
domain: Geophysics, 50, 685691.
Milkereit, B., and Wu, J., 1996, Seismic image of an early Proterozoic
rift basin: Tectonophysics, 264, 89100.
Nakatsuka, T., 1995, Minimum norm inversion of magnetic anomalies
with application to aeromagnetic data in the Tanna area, central
Japan: J. Geomag. Geoelec., 47, 295311.
1985, Solving or resolving inadequate and noisy tomographic
systems: J. Comput. Physics, 61, 463482.
Nolet, G., 1993, Solving large linearized tomographic problems, in Iyer,
H. M., and Hirahara, K., Eds., Seismic tomography: Theory and
practice: Chapman and Hall.
Pedersen, L. B., 1991, Relations between potential fields and some
equivalent sources: Geophysics, 56, 961971.
Safon, C., Vasseur, G., and Cuer, M., 1977, Some applications of linear
programming to the inverse gravity problem: Geophysics, 42, 1215
1229.
Scales, J. A., 1987, Tomographic inversion via the conjugate gradient
method: Geophysics, 52, 179185.
Shuey, R. T., and Wannamaker, P. E., 1978, Discussion of Application
of the generalized linear inverse to the inversion of static potential
data, by Cribb, J.: Geophysics, 43, 194196.
Tarantola, A., 1987, Inverse problem theory. Methods for data fitting
and model parameter estimation: Elsevier Science Publ. Co., Inc.
VanDecar, J. C., and Snieder, R., 1994, Obtaining smooth solutions to
large linear inverse problems: Geophysics, 59, 818829.
van de Meulebrouck, J., Bayer, R., and Burg, J.-P., 1984, Density and
magnetic tomography of the upper continental crust: Application to
a thrust area of the french Massif Central: Ann. Geophys., 2, 579
592.
Zhang, J., Mackie, R. L., and Madden, T. R., 1995, 3-D resistivity forward modeling and inversion using conjugate gradients: Geophysics,
60, 13131325.