CSIRO PUBLISHING

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/eg Exploration Geophysics, 2009, 40, 265–276

Interpretation of magnetic anomalies using some simple

characteristic positions over tabular bodies

M. Subrahmanyam1,2 T. K. S. Prakasa Rao1

1
Department of Geophysics, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam-530003, India.
2
Corresponding author. Email: smangalampalli@rediffmail.com

Abstract. The quantitative interpretation of magnetic anomalies aims at finding out the location, depth, dip, size, and
susceptibility contrast of causative geological sources. In this paper an easy method of interpreting magnetic anomalies over
simple geometric shapes of dyke, sheet and vertical step has been proposed by using the easily recognisable characteristic
positions on the magnetic anomaly profiles. The method does not require prior knowledge of origin and datum. For
determining the source parameters, mathematical expressions and graphical procedure are given.

Key words: characteristic positions, depth, dyke, origin, sheet, step.

Introduction
The quantitative interpretation of magnetic anomalies aims at
finding out the location, depth, dip, size, and susceptibility
contrast of causative geological sources. Heiland (1940),
Jakosky (1940), Nettleton (1940, 1976), Grant and West
(1965), Breiner (1973), Telford et al. (1976) etc., gave several
examples of idealized models such as thin and thick dykes,
horizontal cylinder, vertical and sloping faults etc., that are
used to approximate simple geological structures. The
character of many magnetic anomalies will indicate the form
and attitude of the disturbing mass. The changes of anomaly
pattern with size, shape etc., of the body have been dealt with
exhaustively in the literature (Cook, 1959; Gay, 1963, 1965;
Reford, 1964; Nettleton, 1976; Telford et al., 1976, etc.).
In recent years, methods using gradients of the field have
become popular due to the fact that the gradient anomalies
produce more accurate results because of their high resolution
and less ambiguity in the choice of base level and base slope
(Paterson and Reeves, 1985). Methods for analysing magnetic
gradients are proposed by Hood (1965), Hood and McClure
(1965), Rao et al. (1977), Green (1980) and Barongo (1985).
The Hilbert transform has been found to be useful for
transforming magnetic anomalies from one component to the
other (Shuey, 1972; Bhattacharyya and Leu, 1975; Green, 1979;
Atchuta Rao and Ram Babu, 1980) to calculate the vertical
gradient from the horizontal gradient (Nabighian, 1972, 1985)
and to estimate the parameters of the source (Nabighian, 1972;
Green and Stanley, 1975; Rao, 1988, etc.).
With the availability of digital computers, suitable algorithms
for automatic interpretation have been evolved by Hall (1968),
Bott (1967, 1973), Hartman et al. (1971), McGrath and Hood
(1970, 1973), Rao et al. (1973), Reeves (1981), Ku and Sharp
(1983) etc., for calculating model parameters from magnetic
anomalies. A variety of approaches and methods have been
introduced in the art of quantitative interpretation of magnetic
anomalies. Each method of interpretation has its own advantages
and disadvantages. There is more emphasis now on the use of
computers, but rapid manual interpretation techniques are also
of help to the geophysicist. Although fast and reliable manual
methods are available in the literature, most of them depend on a
prior knowledge of the origin and the datum level. In this paper an
interpretation method based on a study of new properties of
magnetic anomaly profiles over single and simple geometric
bodies has been developed. These properties are related to
characteristic positions on the anomaly curve. An attempt has
been made to identify common properties useful for an
independent location of the origin on the profile. The origin is
located by the method of circles. The application of such
properties in interpretation is expected to overcome the
limitations associated with the need for a prior knowledge of
origin and datum level. In this paper the interpretational models
dyke, sheet, and vertical step have been considered. The
interpretation method has been developed from the analysis of
the mathematical equations over the bodies. Mathematical
expressions for the general case (DF) of a magnetic anomaly
are considered in the paper. From this general expression, total,
vertical and horizontal field magnetic anomaly expressions can
be derived.
As suggested by Åm (1972), the characteristic estimators are
chosen in such a manner that they are based on points, (a) which
can be identified readily, (b) extending not too far out on the sides
of the anomaly curve, and (c) which are obtained rapidly without
involving too many calculations. The classical method for
analysing any curve is to find the positions and values of the
maxima and minima and points of inflection.
Several characteristic points (or positions) have been
considered for interpretation by the authors. For these
positions, no reference to the baseline or regional background
is needed. The actual baseline value can be estimated during the
course of interpretation. In the following sections, properties of
the magnetic anomaly curves over dyke, sheet and vertical fault,
and their application in quantitative interpretation, are discussed
in detail. When this method is applied to overlapping anomalies
there may be a small amount of error in the determination of
datum and origin. The method is tested for datum and origin on a
synthetic example of overlapping anomalies and is given in
detail in the appendix. The method has been applied to real
field data over each body. While digitizing the real field
anomalies a small interval is taken so that the redrawn
anomaly curve exactly matches the original published curve.

 ASEG 2009 10.1071/EG09005 0812-3985/09/030265

266 Exploration Geophysics M. Subrahmanyam and T. K. S. P. Rao

Magnetic expressions for the models Magnetic north

A general expression of the form DF = Al + Bm is applicable to
the models considered. In this simple expression, DF represents
T cos IT
the anomaly, l and m are the geometric functions, while A and B
are the coefficients of amplitude. l and m have odd and even
symmetry with respect to a central axis. The effective inclination J cos i +x
le
angle(yF) in the plane of the principal profile is equal to the ofi
Pr
angle between the magnetization inclination and the plane of the
body. The notation used throughout the paper and the actual
values of the amplitude coefficient (see Appendix) CF and yF for AT
a
a particular component of the field are given in the appendix
for all the models considered. Following is a summary of the
general expressions for the magnetic anomaly due to the three
models.

Dyke
The general expression for the magnetic anomaly due to a long
–x
tabular body (Figure 1) is given by
DF ¼ CF ðm cos
F þ l sin
F Þ ð1Þ

(Modified equation of Gay, 1963).

m and l are the symmetric and antisymmetric components
of equation (1) and CF is the amplitude coefficient. yF is the O P
magnetization angle. The mathematical expressions and the
x
notation for the symbols are explained in the appendix.
Gay (1963) showed that the formula given in equation (1)
applies to the anomalies of total, vertical and horizontal h
components of the field and also to any orientation of the
2w
body, of the magnetic vector and the direction of the sensor
element of the magnetometer. A typical magnetic anomaly curve δ
over a dyke is shown in Figure 2. ψ
Among the important properties of the magnetic anomaly
γ
expression (1), Powell (1967) and Koulomzine et al. (1970)
discussed the following:
(i) maximum (DFM) and minimum (DFm) anomaly values are
related to the anomaly value at x = 0 (DF(o)) as Jb
DFM þ DFm ¼ DFðoÞ ð2Þ
(ii) knowledge of the position where x = 0 is essential for Tc
separating the field curve into symmetric, S(x), and
antisymmetric, A(x), components using the following relations:
Fig. 1. Geometry of the dyke model. Top diagram shows plan view and
bottom diagram shows vertical cross-section in the plane of the profile.
SðxÞ ¼ 1=2½DFðxÞ þ DFðxÞ ð3Þ

AðxÞ ¼ 1=2½DFðxÞ  DFðxÞ ð4Þ It follows therefore that DF(a) and DF(b) form a pair of conjugate
anomalies and a and b the corresponding conjugate abscissa.
Substituting equation (1) in equations (3) and (4) it can be Powell (1967) and Koulomzine et al. (1970) showed that for a
seen that conjugate pair
SðxÞ ¼ CF cos
F ðmÞ: ð5Þ ab ¼ ðw2 þ h2 Þ: ð10Þ
AðxÞ ¼ CF sin
F ðlÞ: ð6Þ Accordingly a and b must be on opposite sides of x = 0.
(iii) consider two points A and B at distances a and b on the If x1, x10 ; x2, x20 ; x3, x30 etc., are pairs of conjugate abscissa
DF curve as shown in Figure 2 such that similar to a and b, then by virtue of equations (2), (9) and (10),
they satisfy the following relations:
DFðaÞ ¼ DFM  d F1 ð7Þ
ab ¼ x1 x1 0 ¼ x2 x2 0 ¼ x3 x3 0 ¼ ðw2 þ h2 Þ ð11Þ
and
DFðbÞ ¼ DFM þ d F1 ð8Þ
Method of circles
Adding these two and making use of equation (2), it can be
Consider the conjugate pair A and B in Figure 2. Let the
shown that
corresponding positions on the abscissa be M and N. Let YOC
DFðaÞ þ DFðbÞ ¼ DFM þ DFm ¼ DFðoÞ ð9Þ be a vertical line passing through the centre of the dyke’s top
Interpretation of magnetic anomalies Exploration Geophysics 267

surface. Join MC and NC. The two right angle triangles MOC equations DF(x) and DF(x) are the anomaly values on either side
and CON are governed by the relation of DF(o) at distance x. The symmetric and antisymmetric
functions given in equations (5) and (6) are then analysed as
MO OC follows.
¼ :
OC ON
Analysis of symmetric function
Since MO = a and ON = b and since a and b are a conjugate
The symmetric component of the standard expression (1) is
pair, it can be seen from equation (10) that
given in equation (5) as
MO  ON ¼ ab ¼ ðOCÞ2 ¼ ðw2 þ h2 Þ: SðxÞ ¼ CF cos
F ðmÞ
where
This relation is satisfied only when MC and CN subtend a
right angle at C. Consequently OC is equal to (w2 + h2)1/2. If xþw xw
m ¼ tan1  tan1
for any pair of conjugate points, when the corresponding h h
positions on the abscissa are joined to C, two right angle Consider a pair of points R and S on the well defined part as
triangles are formed and for all such pairs C is the common shown in Figure 3 such that
right angle point as shown by Rao (1987). As the number of
conjugate points that can be chosen on a field curve is unlimited, 2½SðoÞ  SðrÞ ¼ ½SðoÞ  SðsÞ ð12Þ
the positions C and O can be refined further by considering a
large number of such pairs. Following is a practical procedure r and s are horizontal distances of R and S from the origin.
for locating the origin: Accordingly the above relation may be rewritten as
On the abscissa measure the separation between any pair of
2ðm0  mr Þ ¼ ðm0  ms Þ: ð13Þ
conjugate positions and using this distance as diameter, draw a
circle. Repeat the procedure and draw another circle for another In the present case
pair of conjugate points as shown in Figure 2. These two circles
intersect at two points C and C0 . Any number of pairs of conjugate 2wh 2wh
m0 ¼ tan1 ; mr ¼ tan1
points may be considered as many circles drawn. All of them h2  w2 r 2 þ h 2  w2
would intersect at the two positions C and C0 . A vertical line 2wh
through C0 and C crosses the abscissa at x = 0 and also meets the and ms ¼ tan1
s2 þ h2  w2
anomaly curve where the amplitude is DF(o). The base line will be
above the minimum of the curve exactly as much as DF(o) is A useful expression results, when these three are substituted
below the maximum. in equation (13) as
The symmetric and antisymmetric components of the field
curve may be separated using equations (3) and (4). In these ðw2 þ h2 Þ2 ðs2  2r2 Þ þ 2ðw2  h2 Þr4 ¼ r4 s2 : ð14Þ

y
ΔFM y
ΔFM

F1
B
F2

S(o) ΔF(x)

R S(r)
r
l max
S S(s)
s
ΔF A(x)
S1/2
u
n
C′ S(k)

M a N x xm xM
O O x
F2
A
2 [S(o)–S(r)] = [S(o)–S(s)]
F1 C
C lû = lv
l max = S1/2 = (w2+h2)1/2 for Dyke
ΔFm ΔFm = (Hh)1/2 for Step

Fig. 2. Magnetic profile over tabular body showing conjugate points. Origin Fig. 3. Characteristic positions and distances on the symmetric and
is located by the property of right angles and circles. antisymmetric parts of the anomaly profile of a dyke.
268 Exploration Geophysics M. Subrahmanyam and T. K. S. P. Rao

Since (w2 + h2) is already known, equation (14) can be rearranged with respect to x and equating to zero. In the present case, the
as resulting equation is


s2 ðw2 þ h2 Þ2 s2 x2 þ 2xh cot
F  ðw2 þ h2 Þ ¼ 0: ð23Þ
ðw2  h2 Þ ¼   r 2
: ð15Þ
2 r4 2
If xM and xm are the roots, then
From the values of (w2 + h2) and (w2 – h2) determine w and h. It
xM xm ¼ ðw2 þ h2 Þ: ð24Þ
should be emphasised here that any number of (r, s) pairs can be
chosen on the symmetric curve. Accuracy of w and h estimation Equations (2), (9) and (24) confirm that xM and xm are a pair of
may be improved by considering a large number of (r, s) pairs conjugate abscissa and hence xM and xm also subtend a right
especially with mr and ms disposed on either side ofm1/2. angle at c.
Powell (1967) used r and s values corresponding to 1/2 s(o) If the maximum and minimum are well defined, yF may be
and 1/4 s(o) while Koulomzine et al. (1970) used those evaluated from the following relation.
corresponding to 1/2 s(o) and 3/4 S(o). The proposed method
has a definite advantage over those of Powell and Koulomzine xM þ xm ¼ 2h cot
F : ð25Þ
et al., because a large number of pairs can be considered instead of
However, if xm is obscure, this relation becomes useless. Still
just one pair. Moreover, the (r, s) pair are so chosen that no
equation (23) can be used by rewriting it as
references is made to the base line as is understood from equation
(12). The base line is thus taken care of. ðw2 þ h2 Þ  x2M
Returning to equation (15), it may be shown that for a Cot
F ¼ : ð26Þ
2h xM
particular (r, s) pair, when s2 = 2r2, the equation reduces to
The value of yF thus determined lies in the range 0 to 90 degrees
s2 although it varies from 0 to 360 degrees. The actual value may be
w2  h2 ¼ ¼ r2 : ð16Þ
2 found by examining the field curve and following the criteria
Although this result appears simple, in practice, it may not be given in Table A1 in the Appendix.
possible always to come up with such a pair.
Determination of amplitude coefficient, CF
Analysis of antisymmetric function
At x = 0, equation (1) reduces to
Analysis of the antisymmetric component of the field curve is w
useful for checking the values obtained from the symmetric jDFjx ¼ 0 ¼ 2 CF cos
F tan1 :
h
component. The expression for the antisymmetric component
is given in the appendix as Here, jDFjx ¼ 0 , yF, w and h are known and hence CF may be
determined.
CF ðx þ wÞ2 þ h2 The method is tested on a synthetic example (Figure 4). The
AðxÞ ¼ sin
F In
2 ðx  wÞ2 þ h2 results tallied well with the assumed values. The method is
applied to real field anomaly (Figure 7) in the Marcona
If u and v are two values of x such that A(x) has the same value district, Peru and the results are shown in Table 1.
as shown in Figure 3, then
AðuÞ ¼ AðvÞ ð17Þ Thin sheet

or The procedure discussed for dyke is also applicable to a thin sheet.

The sheet model is shown in Figure 5. The general expression
ðu þ wÞ2 þ h2 ðv þ wÞ2 þ h2 for the magnetic anomaly due to an arbitrarily magnetized sheet is
ln ¼ ln ð18Þ given by Gay (1963)
ðu  wÞ2 þ h2 ðv  wÞ2 þ h2
 
On simplification, this reduces to x sin
F þ h cos
F
DFðxÞ ¼ CF : ð27Þ
x2 þ h2
ðv  uÞðw2 þ h2  uvÞ ¼ 0: ð19Þ
The notation for the symbols is explained in the appendix.
This equation has the following roots: Stanley (1977) showed that the horizontal derivatives of the
u¼v ð20Þ magnetic anomaly expression due to a geological contact have
exactly the same geometric function as that of the magnetic
and anomaly expression due to a thin sheet.
Consider two points A and B whose distances are a and b from
uv ¼ w2 þ h2 : ð21Þ the origin respectively as shown in Figure 2. Following the
The antisymmetric component is maximum at u = v and hence relations (7) and (8), we have
the corresponding result is
DFðaÞ þ DFðbÞ ¼ DFM þ DFm ¼ DFðoÞ:
u 2 ¼ v 2 ¼ w2 þ h 2 : ð22Þ
DF(a) and DF(b) constitute a conjugate pair of anomalies and a
For all other values of A(x) when u „ v, equation (21) is and b the corresponding conjugate abscissa. Thus, it can be seen
applicable. that the product of a and b is –h2. Any number of such conjugate
pairs may be considered following the relations (7), (8) and (9).
Determination of index parameter (yF) If x1, x10 ; x2, x20 ; x3, x30 etc., are pairs of conjugate abscissa
Roots for the maximum and the minimum on the magnetic similar to a and b, then, by virtue of equations (2), (9) and (10)
anomaly curve may be found by differentiating expression (1) they satisfy the following relation
Interpretation of magnetic anomalies Exploration Geophysics 269

1.6
Results of symmetric curve
Assumed Interpreted ΔFM
1.2 h 5.0 m 5.05 m
w 6.0 m 5.959 m
F 70° 67.6°

Magnetic anomalies in nT
0.8 CF 1.0 nT 1.12 nT
S(o) B

0.4 r S(r) A
S(x)
s
S(s)
0
xm xA O xM xB

)
–0.4

(x
ΔF
ΔFm

x)
–0.8

Δ(
C

–1.2
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Metres

Fig. 4. Synthetic example. Assumed and interpreted values of the dyke are shown.

Table 1. Interpreted results of vertical magnetic anomaly profile in the Marcona district Peru. (taken from Gay, 1963, figure 11). The profile is
interpreted with the dyke model (Figure 7).

Method Half width (w) Depth to top Magnetisation Origin Datum shift Size parameter
in metres (h) in metres angle (yF) in metres in nT (CF)
in degrees
Present method 231.4 107.2 –48.65 640 350 638.67
Parker Gay (1963) 186.0 124.0 –50.0 – – –
Koulomzine et al. (1970) 206.0 126.7 –50.1 – – –

Magnetic north
O P
+x O P
T cos IT

x
x
file
Pro Depth = h
Depth = h
AT r
r
O
= dip
Bo

= dip
Str

dy

K = susceptibility
ike

contrast
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5. The convention used in the case of contact and sheet models. (a) plan view, (b) contact, (c) sheet.

ab ¼ x1 x1 0 ¼ x2 x2 0 ¼ x3 x3 0 ¼ . . . . . . ¼ h2 : ð28Þ Determination of yF

Following the right angle property, each pair of conjugate Differentiating expression (27) with respect to x and setting the
positions subtends 90 at the apex of the sheet. If circles are expression equal to zero, we get the expressions for the roots of
drawn with the separation between positions of each maximum and minimum anomaly positions as
conjugate pair as measured on the abscissa as diameter, all of xM ¼ hðcot
F  cosec
F Þ ð30Þ
them would intersect at two positions c and c0 . The line joining
cc0 intersects the anomaly curve at DF(o). The position xm ¼ hðcot
F þ cosec
F Þ ð31Þ
corresponding to DF(o) is the origin. From the right angle
property, xM  xm ¼ þ2 h cosec
F : ð32Þ

OC2 ¼ ab ¼ xM xm ¼ h2 : ð29Þ Since h and the horizontal separation (xM – xm) between
maximum and minimum amplitude are known,
F may be
Thus, origin and depth to the apex of the sheet are determined. obtained using equation (32). yF thus obtained is in the range
270 Exploration Geophysics M. Subrahmanyam and T. K. S. P. Rao

0 to 90 degrees, though it may vary between 0 and 360 degrees. This relation may be rewritten as
The exact quadrant of yF may be obtained following the criteria
given in Table A1 in the appendix. 2ðlo  lr Þ ¼ ðlo  ls Þ ð37Þ
The method is applied to a field anomaly (Figure 8) in In the present case
Pima copper mines, Arizona, USA, and the results are shown
in Table 2. 1 h2 1 r2 þ h2 1 s2 þ h2
lo ¼ ln 2 ; lr ¼ ln 2 ; ls ¼ ln 2 :
2 H 2 r þ H2 2 s þ H2
Vertical step
Substituting these values in equation (37) and simplifying, we
The same procedure discussed for the dyke is also applicable to have
the vertical step. The model of inclined step is shown in Figure 6.
When d = 90 the model corresponds to vertical step. r4 s2  s2 h2 H2 þ r4 ðh2 þ H2 Þ þ 2r2 H2 h2 ¼ 0: ð38Þ
The general expression for the magnetic anomaly due to a
vertical step is given by Since Hh is known, equation (38) may be rewritten as
    2  H2 h2 ðs2  2r2 Þ  r4 s2
x X 1 x þ h2 ðh2 þ H2 Þ ¼ ð39Þ
DFðxÞ ¼ CF sin
F tan1  tan1  cos
F ln 2 r4
h H 2 x þ H2
Since –Hh is known as the product of the conjugate pair,
ð33Þ
(h2 + H2) may be computed using expression (39). From
The notation for the above expression is given in the Appendix. known values of (h2 + H2) and Hh, (H2 – h2) may be
In the case of the vertical step, the product of the abscissa of a determined. Depth to the top and depth to the bottom may
conjugate pair is equal to –Hh. then be determined from (H2 + h2) and (H2 – h2).
When once the origin is located from the method of Any number of (r, s) pairs can be considered to improve the
circles, the symmetric and antisymmetric components may accuracy of interpretation.
be resolved following the procedure given for equations (3) For a particular case of s2 = 2r2, equation (39) reduces to
and (4).
The symmetric and antisymmetric components are given by ðh2 þ H2 Þ ¼ s2 : ð40Þ
1 x2 þ h2 Although the result appears simple, in actual practice it may
SðxÞ ¼ CF cos
F ln 2 ð34Þ
2 x þ H2 not be possible always to come up with such a pair.
 
1 x 1 X
AðxÞ ¼ CF sin
F tan  tan : ð35Þ Analysis of antisymmetric function
h H
Since no useful information could be realised from the analysis
of the antisymmetric component, it is not discussed in detail.
Analysis of symmetric function However a significant property is brought out.
The expression for the antisymmetric component is given in
Consider a pair of points R and S as discussed in the dyke section.
equation (35) as
Here, we have h x xi
2½SðoÞ  SðrÞ ¼ ½SðoÞ  SðsÞ ð36Þ AðxÞ ¼ CF sin
F tan1  tan1
h H
where r and s are the horizontal distances of R and S from the If u and v are such that A(x) has the same value, we have
origin.
AðuÞ ¼ AðvÞ ð41Þ
Table 2. Interpreted results of vertical magnetic anomaly profile over or
the Pima Copper mine, Arizona, USA (taken from Gay, 1963). The profile
is interpreted with the sheet model (Figure 8). uðH  hÞ vðH  hÞ
tan1 ¼ tan1 2 : ð42Þ
Method Depth to Magnetisation Origin Datum shift u2 þ Hh v þ Hh
top (h) angle (
F) in metres in nT On simplification, this reduces to
in metres in degrees
uv ¼ Hh: ð43Þ
Present method 87.5 –45.58 300 –80
Parker Gay (1963) 68.7 –50.0 300 – The antisymmetric component attains maximum at u = v for
which the corresponding result is
O P u2 ¼ v2 ¼ Hh: ð44Þ

h
r1 For all other values of A(x), when u „ v, equation (43) is
1 applicable.
a
Determination of index parameter yF
H
r2 Roots for the maximum and the minimum on the magnetic
anomaly curve may be found by differentiating expression
2 (33) with respect to x and equating to zero thus:
x2 þ xðh þ HÞ cot
F  Hh ¼ 0: ð45Þ

Fig. 6. Geometry of the fault model. If xM and xm are the roots, then
Interpretation of magnetic anomalies Exploration Geophysics 271

xM xm ¼ Hh
if maximum and minimum are well defined, yF may be obtained
from the relation
xM þ xm ¼ ðh þ HÞ cot
F :
However, if xm is obscure this relation becomes useless. Still,
equation (45) can be used by rewriting it as
Hh  x2M
Cot
F ¼
xM ðh þ HÞ
The value of yF thus determined lies in the range 0 to 90 degrees,
although it may vary between 0 and 360 degrees. The exact
quadrant of yF may be estimated by a careful study of the field
profile and following the criteria given in Table A1 in the
appendix.
The method is applied to a field anomaly (Figure 9) in the
western margin of the Perth basin, Australia and the results are
shown in Table 3.
Step wise graphical procedure of the method
1. Draw the magnetic anomalies values on a graph sheet.
2. Measure an amount of anomaly (dF1) from maximum/
minimum and mark its position on the anomaly curve
ð46Þ (DFa). Now measure the same amount of anomaly (dF1)
from minimum/maximum and mark its position on the
anomaly curve (DFb). The two positions are known as a
conjugate pair. Maximum and minimum anomaly positions
are also known as a conjugate pair. From these conjugate
ð47Þ
positions (DFa and DFb), draw projections on to the arbitrary
baseline (M and N on x-axis). With the horizontal distance
between these points on the x-axis as diameter draw a circle
(Figure 2).
3. Repeat the procedure by considering another such conjugate
: ð48Þ
pair and draw another circle (Figure 2).
4. These two circles from steps 2 and 3 intersect at two points
(C & C0 in Figure 2). Any number of such conjugate pairs
can be considered and as many circles drawn. All these
circles would intersect at these two positions C and C0 only.
5. The line joining C and C0 is the y-axis and its intersection
point with the x-axis is the origin.
6. Now following the property DFa + DFb = DFM + DFm =
DF(0), the datum level can be fixed. DF(0) is the anomaly
at the origin.
7. From the property that the product of distances of conjugate
points from the origin is equal to –(w2 + h2) in case of dyke,
h2 in case of sheet and –Hh in case of vertical step, determine
(w2 + h2), h2 and –Hh for dyke, sheet and step models
respectively.

Table 3. Interpreted results of total field magnetic anomaly profile in the Western margin of the Perth basin, Australia
(taken from Qureshi and Nalaye, 1978, figure 5). The profile is interpreted with the vertical step model (Figure 9).

Method Depth to Depth to Magnetisation Origin Datum shift

top (h) in bottom (H) angle (yF) in metres in nT
metres in metres in degrees
Present method 6.9 13.0 –318 22.5 2
Qureshi and Nalaye (1978) 6.8 15.5 –330 – –

3000

A′
2500
B′

2000 t
Vertical field magnetic anomalies in nT

C′ en
p on
com
1500 e tric nt
mm ne D′
y po r
tis o m
An cc
1000 ri
et
m s
m
Sy
500 New datum
o
200 400 600 800 1000
0
C Distance in metres
O
–500
B
A

–1000

Fig. 7. Vertical magnetic anomaly profile in the Marcona district, Peru (taken from Gay, 1963,
figure 11). The profile is interpreted with the dyke model. The determination of the origin by the
method of circles, the new datum, symmetric and antisymmetric components are shown in the figure.
AA0 , BB0 and CC0 are conjugate pairs and the distance between A and A0 , B and B0 , C and C0 are the
diameters for the circles. DD0 is the intersecting line of the circles. O is the origin. The interpreted results
along with that of Gay are given in Table 1.
272 Exploration Geophysics M. Subrahmanyam and T. K. S. P. Rao

8. Since datum and origin are known, the magnetic anomaly 9. Mark two positions (S(r) & S(s)) on the symmetric
curve may be separated into symmetric and antisymmetric component of the anomaly curve such that 2[S(0) –
components by the following formulae: S(r)] = [S(0) – S(s)] where S(0) is the anomaly at the origin.
10. Measure the horizontal distances, r and s to S(r) and S(s)
Symmetric component ðSðxÞÞ ¼ 1=2½DFðxÞ þ DFðxÞ positions respectively from the origin. Now determine
(w2 – h2) in case of dyke, (h2 + H2) in case of vertical step
Antisymmetric component ðAðxÞÞ ¼ 1=2½DFðxÞ  DFðxÞ: from the following expressions.

600

500
Vertical field magnetic anomaly in nT

400 A′

300 B′
C′
200 D′

100 C
B
O Distance in metres
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
A New datum
–100

–200 D

Fig. 8. Vertical Magnetic anomaly profile over the Pima Copper mine, Arizona, USA (taken from
Gay, 1963). The profile is interpreted with the sheet model. The determination of the origin by the
method of circles, the new datum are shown in the figure. AA0 , BB0 and CC0 are conjugate pairs
and the distance between A and A0 , B and B0 , C and C0 are the diameters for the circles. DD0 is the
intersecting line of the circles. O is the origin. The interpreted results along with that of Parker Gay
are given in Table 2.

140

120
A′
Sy
mm

100
etr

r
B′
ic
Total field magnetic anomaly in nT

co
mp

80
on
en

s C′
t

60
C
Antisymmetric component
D′
40
B
20
A
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 New datum
0
O Distance in metres

–20

–40
D

Fig. 9. Total field magnetic anomaly on the western margin of the Perth Basin in Australia
(taken from Qureshi and Nalaye, 1978, figure 5). The profile is interpreted with the vertical
fault model. The determination of the origin by the method of circles, the new datum, symmetric
and antisymmetric components are shown in the figure. AA0 , BB0 and CC0 are conjugate pairs and
the distance between A and A0 , B and B0 , C and C0 are the diameters for the circles. DD0 is the
intersecting line of the circles. O is the origin. The interpreted results along with that of Qureshi
and Nalaye are given in Table 3.
Interpretation of magnetic anomalies Exploration Geophysics 273


s2 ðw2 þ h2 Þ2 s2 Discussion
ðw2  h2 Þ ¼   r 2
2 r4 2 The properties considered are such that the characteristic
distances can be easily measured on the anomaly curve and
H h ðs  2r Þ  r s
2 2 2 2 4 2
ðh2 þ H2 Þ ¼ are convenient for a rapid and accurate determination of depth,
r4 origin etc.
Determination of the origin of a magnetic anomaly curve over
11. In the case of a dyke, since (w2+ h2) and (w2h2) are known
a dyke critically depends on the maximum and the minimum
w (half-width) and h (depth to top) can be determined. In
values of the magnetic anomaly. These can be assigned accurate
the case of a vertical step, since (h2 + H2) and Hh are
values only if the neutral datum of the magnetic field is known.
known h (depth to top) and H (depth to bottom) may be
With particular reference to these two properties of the dyke
determined.
anomaly, Powell (1967) and Koulomzine et al. (1970) showed
12. Using the following expressions the magnetization angle
that the conjugate points can provide an effective answer to a
may be determined.
precise location of origin and neutral datum. Rao (1987) showed
that the positions of a conjugate point pair located on some
For dyke: xMax þ xmin ¼ 2h cot
F or arbitrarily chosen baseline subtend a right angle at a point
cot
F ¼ ððw þ h Þ  x2Max Þ=2h xMax
2 2
below the chosen base line at a depth equal to (w2 + h2)1/2.
This point corresponds to the origin of the anomaly curve.
For sheet: xMax  xmin ¼ 2h cosec
F Any number of conjugate point pairs can be located on the
curve and the origin so located improved. It has been
demonstrated in this paper that circles, each with the
For vertical step: xMax þ xmin ¼ ðh þ HÞ cot
F or corresponding conjugate point pair forming the ends of a
cot
F ¼ ðHh  x2Max Þ=xMax ðh þ HÞ diameter, intersect at two points above and below the base

800

700

600 A′
500 B′ A′
400 B′
Magnetic anomaly in nT

C′
300 C′

200 D′
D′
100
Distance in metres
0
O O
50 C 650 700 750 800 850 900
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
–100
D C B
–200 D
B A
–300
A
–400

–500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
0
Distance in metres
10
20
30
Depth in metres

40
50 Body-1 Body-2

60
70
80
90
100

Fig. 10. Synthetic Magnetic Anomalies calculated over two bodies separated by 200 metres. The graphical
determination of the origin is shown in the top figure. The corresponding models are shown in the bottom
figure. The datum shifts are –20 nT and –55 nT for body 1 and body 2 respectively. The magnetic and body
parameters used are given in the text.
274 Exploration Geophysics
line. A line joining these two points crosses the base line at x = 0
and this line also intersects the anomaly curve where the
amplitude is DF(o). Once the origin is located, establishment
of a background or datum level becomes easy. The datum can be
drawn at a distance above the anomaly minimum equal to the
vertical distance between the maximum and DF(o). In other
words, the baseline will be above the minimum of the curve
exactly as much as DF(o) below the maximum.
Determination of width and depth of the dyke are
accomplished by analysing the symmetric component of the
anomaly curve. Characteristic distances in the form of pairs
are considered on the well defined part of this component.
Any number of such pairs can be used.
In conclusion it may be pointed out that the methods
proposed for the interpretation of magnetic anomalies due to
dyke, sheet and vertical fault are independent of a prior
knowledge about the base line and origin. The methods
constitute direct and fast interpretation.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to the reviewers for their critical analysis of
the work particularly to Dr Amanda Buckingham for patiently correcting
and suggesting some points.
References
Åm, K., 1972, The arbitrarily magnetized dike; Interpretation by
characteristics: Geoexploration, 10, 63–90. doi: 10.1016/0016-7142
(72)90014-2
Atchuta Rao, D., and Ram Babu, H. V., 1980, Properties of the relation
figure between the vertical and the horizontal cylindrical ore body:
Current Science, 49, 584–585.
Barongo, J. D., 1985, Method for depth estimation on magnetic vertical
gradient anomalies: Geophysics, 50, 963–968. doi: 10.1190/1.1441974
Bhattacharyya, B. K., and Leu, L. K., 1975, Spectral analysis of gravity and
magnetic anomalies due to two-dimensional structures: Geophysics, 40,
993–1013. doi: 10.1190/1.1440593
Bott, M. H. P., 1967, Solution of the linear inverse problem in magnetic
interpretation with application to oceanic magnetic anomalies:
Geophysical Journal of Royal Astronomical Society, 13, 313–323.
Bott, M. H. P., 1973, Inverse method in interpretation of magnetic and
gravity anomalies. In: Methods in computational physics. B. A. Bott
(Ed.), Vol. 13, pp. 133–162. Academic Press.
Breiner, S., 1973, Application manual for portable magnetometers.
Geometrics.
Cook, K. L., 1959, Quantitative interpretation of vertical magnetic anomalies
over veins: Geophysics, 15, 667–686. doi: 10.1190/1.1437631
Gay, P. S. Jr, 1963, Standard curves for interpretation of magnetic anomalies
over long tabular bodies: Geophysics, 28, 161–200.
Gay, S. P., 1965, Standard curves for the interpretation of magnetic
anomalies over long horizontal cylinders: Geophysics, 30, 818–828.
doi: 10.1190/1.1439656
Grant, F. S. and West, G. F., 1965, Interpretation theory in applied geophysics:
McGraw Hill Book.
Green, R., 1979, The harmonic method of inverting a magnetic profile over
a contact: Geoexploration, 17, 261–268. doi: 10.1016/0016-7142(79)
90021-8
Green, R., 1980, Field processing of magnetic data: Geophysical
Prospecting, 28, 384–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1980.tb01233.x
Green, R, and Stanley, J. M., 1975, Application of a Hilbert transform
method to the interpretation of surface-vehicle magnetic data:
Geophysics, 23, 18–27.
Hall, D. H., 1968, A magnetic interpretation method for calculating body
parameters for buried sloping steps and thick sheets: Geoexploration, 6,
187–206. doi: 10.1016/0016-7142(68)90013-6
Hartman, R. H., Tesky, D. J., and Friedberg, J. L., 1971, A system of rapid
digital aeromagnetic interpretation: Geophysics, 36, 891–918.
doi: 10.1190/1.1440223
M. Subrahmanyam and T. K. S. P. Rao
Heiland, C. A., 1940, Geophysical Exploration: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hood, P., 1965, Gradient measurements in aeromagnetic surveying:
Geophysics, 30, 891–902. doi: 10.1190/1.1439666
Hood, P., and McClure, D. J., 1965, Gradient measurements in ground
magnetic prospecting: Geophysics, 30, 403–410. doi: 10.1190/1.1439592
Jakosky, J. J, 1940, Exploration Geophysics: Times-Mirror Press.
Koulomzine, Th., Lamontagne, Y., and Nadeau, A., 1970, New methods
for the direct interpretation of magnetic anomalies caused by inclined
dikes of infinite length: Geophysics, 35, 812–830. doi: 10.1190/
1.1440131
Ku, C. C., and Sharp, J. A., 1983, Werner deconvolution for automated
magnetic interpretation and its refinement using Marquardt’s inverse
modeling: Geophysics, 45, 1634–1639.
McGrath, P. H., and Hood, P. J., 1970, The dipping dike case; A computer
curve-matching method of magnetic interpretation: Geophysics, 35,
831–838. doi: 10.1190/1.1440132
McGrath, P. H., and Hood, P. J., 1973, An automatic least squares multi-
model method of magnetic interpretation: Geophysics, 38, 349–358.
doi: 10.1190/1.1440345
Nabighian, M. N., 1972, The analytical signal of two-dimensional magnetic
bodies with polygonal cross-section; Its properties and use for automated
anomaly interpretation: Geophysics, 37, 507–517. doi: 10.1190/
1.1440276
Nabighian, M. N., 1985, Toward a three-dimensional automatic
interpretation of potential field data via generalized Hilbert transforms:
Geophysics, 37, 780–786.
Nettleton, L. L., 1940, Geophysical prospecting for oil: McGraw Hill Books.
Nettleton, L. L., 1976, Gravity and magnetics in oil prospecting: McGraw
Hill Books.
Rao, P. T. K. S., 1987, Dike model in magnetic known properties
and new ideas for quantitative interpretation. Published in
A. E. G. Souvenir of 13th Annual Convention, 12–14 November 1987.
Rao, P. T. K. S., 1988, Interpretation of magnetic gradient anomalies using
characteristic positions of equi-angular separation. Geological contact
and vein: Geoexploration, 25, 199–209. doi: 10.1016/0016-7142(88)
90015-4
Paterson, N. R., and Reeves, C. V., 1985, Application of gravity and magnetic
surveys. The state-of-the-art in 1985: Geophysics, 50, 2558–2594.
doi: 10.1190/1.1441884
Powell, D. W., 1967, Fitting observed profiles to a magnetized dike or fault-
step model: Geophysical Prospecting, 15, 208–220. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2478.1967.tb01784.x
Qureshi, I. R., and Nalaye, A. M., 1978, A method for the direct interpretation
of magnetic anomalies caused by two-dimensional vertical faults:
Geophysics, 43, 179–188. doi: 10.1190/1.1440819
Rao, B. S. R., Prakasa Rao, T. K. S., and Krishna Murthy, A. S., 1977, A note
on magnetized spheres: Geophysical Prospecting, 25, 746–757.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1977.tb01201.x
Rao, B. S. R., Radhakrishna Murthy, I. V., and Visweswara Rao, C., 1973,
Two methods for computer interpretation vertical magnetic anomalies of
spheres and horizontal cylinders: Pure and Applied Geophysics, 102,
67–72. doi: 10.1007/BF00876592
Reeves, C. V., 1981, Optimizing the interpretation of magnetic and gravity
data by computer inversion of numerous collected anomalies – paper
presented at the 51st Annual International Meeting and Expo. Society
Exploration of Geophysics, Los Angles.
Reford, M. S., 1964, Magnetic anomalies over thin sheets: Geophysics, 29,
532–536. doi: 10.1190/1.1439388
Shuey, R. T., 1972, Application of Hilbert transforms to magnetic profiles:
Geophysics, 37, 1043–1045. doi: 10.1190/1.1440313
Stanley, J. M., 1977, Simplified magnetic interpretation of the geological
contact and thin dike: Geophysics, 42, 1236–1240. doi: 10.1190/
1.1440788
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., Sheriff, R. A., and Keys, D. A., 1976, Applied
Geophysics: Cambridge University Press.
Manuscript received 31 January 2009; revised manuscript accepted
18 August 2009.
Interpretation of magnetic anomalies Exploration Geophysics 275

Appendix
Notation followed in the paper
DF — magnetic anomaly. (DT — total component and DV — vertical component anomalies)
CF — Amplitude coefficient.
yF — Index parameter.
T — Total intensity of the earth’s main magnetic field.
K — Susceptibility contrast.
B00 = B0 (1 – cos2 IT sin2 AT)1/2. It is the component of the Earth’s normal flux density, B0, in the plane of the profile.
IT — inclination of the Earth’s magnetic field.
AT — declination of the Earth’s magnetic field from x-axis.
i — inclination of the resultant magnetization.
a — declination of the resultant magnetization from x-axis.
I — resolved direction of the induced component of magnetization in the xz plane.
Y — resolved direction of the resultant (remanence and induction) component of magnetization in the xz plane.
tan I = tan IT/cos AT.
tan Y = tan i/cos a.
a — strike of the body.
X — distance of the point of observation from the origin.
h — depth to the top of dyke, sheet, fault or contact.
H — depth to the bottom of the fault.
2w — width of the dyke.
t — thickness of sheet/thin plate.
d — geological dip.

Dyke
Magnetic expression for the dyke is given by
DF ¼ CF ðm cos
F þ l sin
F Þ
where
xþw xw
m ¼ tan1  tan1
h h
and
1 ðx þ wÞ2 þ h2
l ¼ loge :
2 ðx  wÞ2 þ h2
KB0 sin d
CF ¼ ð1  cos2 i sin2 aÞ1=2 ð1  cos2 IT sin2 AT Þ1=2 for DT remanence
2p
KB0 sin d
¼ ð1  cos2 IT sin2 AT Þ for DT induction
2p
KB0 sin d
¼ ð1  cos2 i sin2 aÞ1=2 for DV
2p
and

F ¼ I þ g  d  90 for DT remanence
¼ 2I  d  90 for DT induction
¼gd for DV:

Thin sheet
Magnetic expression for the sheet is given by
 
x sin
F þ h cos
F
DFðxÞ ¼ CF
x2 þ h2
where
KB0 t
CF ¼ ð1  cos2 i sin2 aÞ1=2 ð1  cos2 IT sin2 AT Þ1=2 for DT ðwhen remanence is dominantÞ
2p
KB0 t
¼ ð1  cos2 IT sin2 AT Þ for DT induction
2p
KB0 t
¼ ð1  cos2 i sin2 aÞ1=2 for DV
2p
and
276 Exploration Geophysics M. Subrahmanyam and T. K. S. P. Rao

yF ¼ I þ g  d  90 for DT ðwhen remanence is dominantÞ

¼ 2I  d  90 for DT induction
¼ g  d for DV:

Vertical step
Magnetic expression for the vertical step is given by
   
x X 1 x2 þ h2
DFðxÞ ¼ CF sin
F tan1  tan1  cos
F loge 2
h H 2 x þ H2
where
KB0 cos d
CF ¼ ð1  cos2 i sin2 aÞ1=2 ð1  cos2 IT sin2 AT Þ1=2 for DT remanence
2p
KB0 cos d
¼ ð1  cos2 IT sin2 AT Þ for DT induction
2p
KB0 cos d
¼ ð1  cos2 i sin2 aÞ1=2 for DV
2p
and
yF ¼ I þ g  d  90 for DT remanence
¼ 2I  d  90 for DT induction
¼gd for DV:

Table A1. Characteristic properties of the anomaly curve to fix the correct, quadrant of uF (uF is as obtained
from the method).

Anomaly shape Value of yF

Major positive anomaly towards positive x-axis yF = y or (y – 360)
Major positive anomaly towards negative x-axis yF = –y or –(y + 360)
Major negative anomaly towards positive x-axis yF = y – 180
Major negative anomaly towards negative x-axis yF = –(y + 180)

Interpretation of overlapping anomalies by this method

The method discussed in the present paper has been developed for interpreting the magnetic anomalies over single and simple tabular
geometries. When the interpretation method is applied over a magnetic profile of overlapping anomalies (anomalies over two or more
than two bodies), there may be a small amount of error in the determination of origin and datum. To show the effect of the interpretation
technique, Synthetic anomalies over two (2.5 dimensional) bodies separated by 200 m were considered. On applying the geometric
procedure for determining the origin and datum over the two bodies, the error percentage was found to be small. For computing the error
percentage in datum, the peak to peak amplitude was used. The synthetic profile over two bodies and the interpretation is shown in
Figure 10. The interpreted results along with actual values and per cent errors are given in the Table A2.

Table A2. Geomagnetic Field Parameters: Intensity = 42 000, Inclination = 608, Declination = 08, The profile bearing = 08, reference height = 0.
For both the bodies strike length = 100 m.

Body Actual Interpreted Error in Peak to peak Datum Error in Susceptibility
 Remanent Remanent
No. origin
(m) origin
(m) origin
(%) amplitude
 shift
(nT) datum
(%) (CGS units) intensity
 inclination
(nT) (nT) (degrees)
1 250 240 4 1075 –20 1.8 0.0012 100.0 40
2 565 565 0 810 –55 6.8 0.001 100.0 60

http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/eg