See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277677370

Enhancement of the total horizontal gradient of magnetic anomalies using

the tilt angle

Article  in  Geophysics · April 2013

DOI: 10.1190/geo2011-0441.1

CITATIONS READS

132 2,276

4 authors:

Francisco José Fonseca Ferreira Jeferson de Souza

Universidade Federal do Paraná Universidade Federal do Paraná
220 PUBLICATIONS   902 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   473 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alessandra de Barros e Silva Bongiolo Luís Gustavo de Castro

Universidade Federal do Paraná Universidade Federal do Paraná
28 PUBLICATIONS   211 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   214 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mathematical and computational methods for potential field data View project

Assessing sedimentologic, stratigraphic and tectonic controls on the distribution and quality of clastic reservoirs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francisco José Fonseca Ferreira on 10 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 78, NO. 3 (MAY-JUNE 2013); P. J33–J41, 11 FIGS.
10.1190/GEO2011-0441.1
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Enhancement of the total horizontal gradient of
magnetic anomalies using the tilt angle
Francisco J. F. Ferreira1, Jeferson de Souza1, Alessandra de B. e S. Bongiolo1, and
Luís G. de Castro1
ABSTRACT
Magnetic anomaly maps reflect the spatial distribution of
magnetic sources, which may be located at different depths
and have significantly different physical and geometrical prop-
erties, complicating the identification of the corresponding
geologic structures. Filtering techniques are frequently used
to balance anomalies from shallow and deep sources, and to en-
hance certain features of interest, such as the edges of the cau-
sative bodies. Most methods used for enhancing magnetic data
are based on vertical or horizontal derivatives of the magnetic
anomalies or combinations of them, and the edges or centers of
the sources are identified by maxima, minima, or null values in
the transformed data. Normalized derivatives methods are used
to equalize signals from sources buried at different depths. We
INTRODUCTION
Magnetic maps are frequently used to delineate faults and
geologic contacts. These maps have signals with large amplitude
variation that originate from sources with different geometries,
located at different depths and with different magnetization proper-
ties. Additionally, the shape of magnetic anomalies depends on the
direction of the induced and remanent magnetization, making the
interpretation of magnetic anomalies from original data a difficult
task. Enhancement techniques are a category of potential field
methods frequently used to overcome this difficulty and to facilitate
qualitative geologic interpretations of the anomalies in terms of its
causative sources. This approach is based on the transformation of
the data into a simpler form, to facilitate the distinction between
different sources and highlight features of interest, such as edges
and centers of causative bodies.
Manuscript received by the Editor 1 November 2011; revised manuscript received 14 November 2012; published online 12 April 2013.
1
Federal University of Paraná, Department of Geology, Laboratory for Research in Applied Geophysics, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. E-mail: francisco.ferreira@
ufpr.br; jdesouza@ufpr.br; ale_barros@yahoo.com; lgcastro7@gmail.com.
© 2013 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
J33
present an edge detector method for the enhancement of
magnetic anomalies, which is based on the tilt angle of the total
horizontal gradient. The notable features of this method are that
it produces amplitude maxima over the source edges and that it
equalizes signals from shallow and deep sources. The method is
applied to synthetic and real data. The effectiveness of the meth-
od is evaluated by comparing it with other edge detection meth-
ods that have been previously reported in the literature and that
make use of derivatives. The results show that our method is less
sensitive to variations in the depth of the sources and that it in-
dicates the position of the edges of causative bodies in a more
accurate fashion, when compared with previous methods, even
for anomalies due to multiple interfering sources. These results
demonstrate that the proposed method is a useful tool for the
qualitative interpretation of magnetic data.
Among the most commonly used methods of enhancing mag-
netic anomalies are reduction-to-the-pole (RTP), pseudogravity,
analytic signal amplitude (ASA), and total horizontal gradient
(THDR) (see Blakely [1996], p. 311–358). In recent years, there
has been a rapid development of methods seeking to balance smaller
and larger amplitudes of magnetic anomalies by normalizing deriv-
atives of the field. For instance, the tilt angle (TDR) (Miller and
Singh, 1994), the Theta map (Wijns et al., 2005), the horizontal tilt
angle (TDX) (Cooper and Cowan, 2006) and the balanced analytic
signal (Cooper, 2009).
The tilt angle method (Miller and Singh, 1994) normalizes the
vertical derivative (VDR) by the total horizontal derivative. Verduz-
co et al. (2004) present a variant of the tilt angle method where
they computed its total horizontal derivative. The method, referred
to as total horizontal gradient of the tilt angle (TDR_THDR), is
given by
 J34 Ferreira et al.

 2  2  01∕2
∂TDR ∂TDR jTDRj ¼ θ ¼ π∕2 − TDX: (8)
TDR THDR ¼ þ ; (1)
∂x ∂x

where The methods described above have been critically evaluated in

many studies (e.g., Fairhead and Williams, 2006; Li, 2006a, 2006b).
 
VDR Cooper (2009) suggests balancing the derivatives of potential-
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

TDR ¼ tan−1 ; (2) field data (or filters based on them) by the use of its orthogonal
THDR
Hilbert transforms. The balanced total horizontal derivative
(THDRB) is given by
M is the magnetic anomaly,
THDR
∂M THDRB ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ;
VDR ¼ ; (3) k þ ððH x ðTHDRÞÞ þ ðH y ðTHDRÞÞ2 þ THDR2 Þ
2
∂z
(9)
and
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi where Hx and Hy are the Hilbert transforms of the total horizontal
 2  2ffi
∂M ∂M derivative in the x- and y-directions, respectively, the constant k
THDR ¼ þ . (4) controls the amount of amplitude balancing applied, and THDR
∂x ∂y
is given by equation 4.
Wijns et al. (2005) propose the Theta map as an effective In this study, we present an edge detection method that is based
method for edge detection of causative bodies. In equation 5, where on the enhancement of the THDR of magnetic anomalies using the
Theta (θ) is defined, the total horizontal derivative is normalized by TDR. It is referred to as the tilt angle of the horizontal gradient
the ASA jAj (TAHG) method. This method has already been applied to real mag-
netic data in Ferreira et al. (2011).
 
THDR
θ ¼ cos−1 (5) METHOD
ASA
The TAHG method studied in this paper evaluates the TDR of the
with THDR. The TAHG is obtained by taking the arctangent of the VDR
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2  2
of the THDR, divided by the modulus of the THDR
∂M ∂M ∂M 0 1
ASA ¼ þ þ : (6)
∂x ∂y ∂z
B C
B ∂THDR C
B ∂z C
Cooper and Cowan (2006) introduce a modified version of the tilt TAHG ¼ tan−1 Bs
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
   ffi C: (10)
B 2 2C
angle, the TDX, normalizing the total horizontal derivative by the @ ∂THDR
þ ∂THDR A
absolute value of the VDR ∂x ∂y

 
THDR
TDX ¼ tan−1 : (7) Due to the characteristics of the arctangent, the TAHG transform
jVDRj range is from −π∕2 to þπ∕2. The main attributes of this method are
to provide maximal amplitudes on the source edges and equalize
We stress that, as pointed out by Fairhead and Williams (2006), signals from shallow and deep sources.
the Theta map and TDX methods are equivalent and related to the Fedi and Florio (2001) have previously introduced the enhanced
TDR method by a simple expression horizontal derivative (EHD) method, which is based on the total
horizontal derivative of a sum of VDRs of increasing order.
Although the peaks in EHD values are located over the source
edges, the amplitudes vary as a function of the depth to the source.

Figure 1. Synthetic 3D model used to evaluate the methods studied
in this work. The model consists of three prisms with dimensions of
3000 × 500 × 1000 m, located at depths of 100 m (P1), 200 m (P2),
and 300 m (P3), and separated by distances of 2000 m.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLES
In this section, the TAHG method is applied to 3D synthetic mod-
els to evaluate its effectiveness. We have generated a model com-
posed of three prisms located at different depths, to assess the ability
of the method to balance signals with large amplitude variations
and, at the same time, to produce anomaly peaks positioned
over the body edges. The prisms have the same size (length ¼
3000 m; width ¼ 500 m; thickness ¼ 1000 m) with their tops lo-
cated at depths z1 ¼ 100 m (P1), z2 ¼ 200 m (P2), and z3 ¼ 300 m
(P3), as indicated in Figure 1. The bodies are in the geomagnetic
field of Curitiba (Southern Brazil): inducing field intensity
B ¼ 22789 nT, direction ðD; IÞ ¼ ð−18.5°; −35.0°Þ, and magnetic
 Tilt angle of the total horizontal gradient
susceptibility κ ¼ 0.0276 SI, resulting in an induced magnetization
Ji ¼ 0.5 A∕m. Figure 2a shows the magnetic anomalies of the
bodies with induced magnetization only. Figure 2b shows the same
synthetic model in Figure 2a with remanent magnetization added.
The intensity of the remanent magnetization is Jr ¼ 0.2 A∕m and
its direction is ðDr ; I r Þ ¼ ðþ10°; þ20°Þ. Figure 2c and 2d shows the
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
J35
TAHG transform applied to the data of Figure 2a and 2b, respec-
tively. Though the map of Figure 2c permits a rough identification
of the sources, the method does not work well if the anomalies are
not reduced to the pole, especially in the presence of remanent mag-
netization, as depicted in Figure 2d. The discrepancy between the
maximal values in the filtered anomalies and the real edges must be
Figure 2. Magnetic anomaly maps of the
synthetic model shown in Figure 1. (a) TMI at
Curitiba (Southern Brazil): inducing field direc-
tion ðD; IÞ ¼ ð−18.5°; −35.0°Þ, inducing field in-
tensity B ¼ 22789 nT, and magnetic susceptibility
k ¼ 0.0276 SI. (b) TMI in (a) with remanent
magnetization added: remanent magnetization in-
tensity J r ¼ 0.2 A∕m, remanent field direction
ðDr ; I r Þ ¼ ðþ10°; þ20°Þ. (c) TAHG of the data
in (a). d) TAHG of the data in (b).
Figure 3. (a) RTP map of the data in Figure 2a.
(b) THDR of the data in (a). (c) ASA of the data
in (a). (d) TDR of the data in (a).
 J36 Ferreira et al.

related to the strong dependence of the TDR on the orientation of
the magnetic field (Verduzco et al., 2004).
We will now compare the results obtained by the TAHG with
those obtained using the methods discussed above. Hereafter, all
the transforms were applied on the data reduced to the pole using
the Phillips’s algorithm (Phillips, 2007) (Figure 3a). We have
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
chosen to use RTP data instead of using the synthetic anomalies
calculated at the magnetic pole to evaluate the methods under a
more realistic context.
The THDR, introduced by Cordell and Grauch (1985), is pre-
sented in Figure 3b. The signal is represented by maximum values
at the body’s edges (with minimum values at the central part) and

Figure 4. (a) TDR_THDR of the data in Figure 3a.

(b) TDX of the data in Figure 3a. (c) THDRB of
the data in Figure 3a, with k ¼ 1. (d) TAHG of the
data in Figure 3a.

Figure 5. Magnetic transforms maps of the

anomalies in Figure 3a corrupted with Gaussian
noise of 0.1 nT. (a) THDR. (b) THDRB, with
k ¼ 1. (c) TDR_THDR. (d) TAHG.
 Tilt angle of the total horizontal gradient J37

the strength of the transformed signal is gradually attenuated neated by maximal values in the anomalies. It is worth mentioning
with depth. that, for deeper sources, the peaks are shifted out from the edges,
The data filtered using the ASA method (Nabighian, 1972, 1974; making the bodies seem bigger than they are.
Roest et al., 1992) is presented in Figure 3c. In the same way as the
THDR method, the filtered signal decreases amplitude as depth
increases. The anomalies, however, are well-centered. The ASA
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

method is often considered a method that is not affected by

magnetic inclination, but this has been contested by Li (2006a).
The TDR map introduced by Miller and Singh (1994) is shown in
Figure 3d. This method equalizes the signal amplitudes, but the
peak of the transformed data are positioned directly over body’s
center. Therefore, the method is not an edge detector, as pointed
out by Cooper and Cowan (2008). In the last decade, the TDR meth-
od has been further studied by Verduzco et al. (2004), Salem et al.
(2007), Lahti and Karinen (2010), Salem et al. (2010), and Fairhead
et al. (2011), among other authors.
The map of Figure 4a depicts the transformed anomaly values for
the TDR_THDR method (Verduzco et al., 2004). The edges of the
source bodies are clearly delineated by a sharp peak. However, the
amplitude of the transformed signal decreases as the sources depths
increase.
Figure 4b shows the map generated using the TDX transform
(Cooper and Cowan, 2006). In this method, the sources are deli- Figure 7. Location of the study area used in this work.

Figure 6. Magnetic maps of three superimposed

prisms buried at different depths (P1 ¼ 100 m;
P2 ¼ 200 m; P3 ¼ 300 m) but with its centers lo-
cated at the same horizontal position. The two dee-
pest prisms make angles of þ45° and −45° with
respect to the shallowest prism, respectively.
(a) RTP-TMI map. (b) TDR_THDR map.
(c) TDX map. (d) TAHG map. Black circles indi-
cate the presence of artifacts (Figure 6b and 6c).
 J38 Ferreira et al.
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 8. Tectonic map of the Ribeira belt (Heilbron et al., 2010)
showing the study area (black square). Legend: SFC — São Fran-
cisco Craton; AD — Andrelândia domain; JFD — Juiz de Fora
domain.
Figure 9. (a) RTP map of the magnetic anomalies
shown in Figure 7. (b) THDR of the data in (a).
(c) ASA of the data in (a). (d) TDR of the data
in (a).
The THDRB map (Cooper, 2009) shown in Figure 4c signifi-
cantly improves edge detection in comparison with the original
THDR (Figure 3b). This map was generated using k ¼ 1 in equa-
tion 9. For larger values of k, the relative amplitude of the THDR
will be unchanged. When k is zero, the bodies are delineated by
equally valued maxima even for deeper sources. However, in that
case, anomalies that are not related to magnetic sources can be in-
troduced in the filtered data. On the other hand, the TAHG map
(Figure 4d) shows an improved resolution, as expected for methods
that use second-order derivatives.
Likewise, the TAHG method (Figure 4d) produces results similar
to the TDX transform method (Figure 4b), but the TAHG anomalies
are less dependent on the depth of the sources and its maximum
values are positioned close to the edges, even for deeper sources.
In Figure 5, we compare four filters based on horizontal gradi-
ents, using synthetic data corrupted by Gaussian noise with standard
deviation of 0.1 nT. Figure 5a and 5b shows the THDR and THDRB
maps, respectively. The THDRB has an improved performance in
the presence of noise, compared with the TDR_THDR (Figure 5c)
and TAHG (Figure 5d), which make use of second-order deriva-
tives. Comparing Figure 5c and 5d, it is apparent that the TAHG
method is less sensitive to noise than the TDR_THDR method.
 Tilt angle of the total horizontal gradient J39

Another interesting feature of the TAHG method is revealed
when we analyze transformed anomalies from superimposed
sources. This feature plays an important role in geologic interpreta-
tion of geophysical data. The RTP magnetic anomaly due to three
prisms buried at different depths but with their centers located at the
same horizontal position is shown in Figure 6a. The size and the
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
To minimize artifacts in the grid, a directional cosine filter was ap-
plied along the direction of magnetic declination (−19.4°) on the
RTP anomalies (Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais,
2005). Later, the data were upward continued to 1000 m to reduce
the noise and aid delineation of deep structures.
The RTP magnetic map of the study area is presented in Figure 9a.

depths of the prisms are the same as the model shown in Figure 1.
The two deepest prisms are rotated by angles of 45° (to the left and
to the right, respectively) around their centers of mass, with respect
to the shallowest nonrotated prism. The transformed anomalies gen-
erated by the methods TDR_THDR, TDX, and TAHG are shown in
Figure 6b, 6c and 6d, respectively. It can be seen that the anomalies
related to the deeper prisms appear as an ellipse-shaped pattern that
may obscure the real structure and confuse the interpreter (see the
black circles in Figure 6b and 6c). On the other hand, the trans-
formed anomaly correspondent to the same source in the TAHG
method is located over the edges of the bodies, at least in the region
far from the body’s center (Figure 6d).
Though we have not tested the method for gravity data, the results
obtained for RTP magnetic anomalies can be
applied to gravity anomalies, because point mass
and magnetic monopoles have identical mathema-
tical representations.
Note the presence of a strong northeast–southwest trend to the
magnetic structures. As in the previous section, we compared
the TAHG filter with the following enhancement methods: total
horizontal derivative (Figure 9b), ASA (Figure 9c), tilt angle
(Figure 9d), THDR of the tilt angle (Figure 10a), TDX (Figure 10b),
and balanced total horizontal derivative (Figure 10c). The anomalies
generated by these methods enhance the main magnetic structures.
However, the anomalies in the TAHG map (Figure 10d) are repre-
sented by sharp continuous peaks, making the magnetic structures
more visible. Moreover, the peaks present a good correlation with
the Euler deconvolution (Thompson, 1982) contact model solutions
(SI ¼ 0) (Figure 10d).

FIELD EXAMPLE
In this section, we use the TAHG method as
part of a study of aeromagnetic data from the
State of Rio de Janeiro, southeastern Brazil
(Figure 7). The aeromagnetic data were acquired
by Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais
(the Geological Survey of Brazil) in 1979, along
north–south flight lines spaced at 1000 m, with a
mean terrain clearance of 150 m. The tie lines
had 10 km spacing. The study area is located
in the northeast of the State of Rio de Janeiro,
covering an area about 55.5 km by 55.5 km.
The area is in the central portion of the Ribeira
belt, a Neoproterozoic belt consisting of four tec-
tonostratigraphic terranes (Heilbron et al., 2010).
From northwest to southeast, these terranes in-
clude (Figure 8): (a) the reworked margin of
the São Francisco Craton (SFC), termed the
Occidental Terrane; (b) the Paraíba do Sul
Terrane that is thrust over the Occidental Terrane;
(c) the Oriental (Serra do Mar) Terrane that in-
cludes a Neoproterozoic magmatic arc; and
(d) The Cabo Frio Terrane that was accreted later.
The terranes are limited by northeast–southwest
thrust faults or by dextral transpressive shear
zones. The suture between the Occidental and
Oriental Terranes is a northwest-dipping shear
zone that can be traced continuously for at least
200 km, from the coast of São Paulo state to Rio
de Janeiro state (Heilbron et al., 2010).
The magnetic data (grid cell size of 250 m)
were microleveled and reduced to the pole using Figure 10. (a) TDR_THDR of the data in Figure 9a. (b) TDX of the data in Figure 9a.
(c) THDRB of the data in Figure 9a, with k ¼ 1. (d) TAHG of the data in Figure 9a and
a magnetic inclination of −27.5° and a declina- Euler deconvolution solutions (white points, SI ¼ 0). Black circles indicate the presence
tion of −19.4°, which corresponds to the mag- of artifacts (Figure 10a and 10b) arising probably due to the superposition of sources
netic field at the time of the airborne survey. (see Figure 6b and 6c).
 J40 Ferreira et al.
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 11. (a) Magnetic lineaments (black lines) interpreted from TAHG map of the
Figure 10d and Euler deconvolution solutions (colored circles, SI ¼ 0). (b) Magnetic
lineaments map (black lines) and geologic structures from Heilbron (2011): fault or
shear zone (red); fault (blue) and dike (green).
As we have already mentioned, the TDR_THDR, and TDX
methods may introduce ellipse-shaped artifacts when the anomaly
originates from a superimposition of signal from multiple sources,
located at similar horizontal positions but with different depths.
Occurrences of this can be seen in Figure 10a and 10b (see the black
circles). In contrast, the correspondent anomalies can be clearly
interpreted as continuous, linear structures in the TAHG map
(Figure 10d).
We have compared the magnetic structures interpreted from the
TAHG map (Figure 11a) with the geologic structures of Figure 11b
(Heilbron, 2011). The interpretation of the TAHG map is consistent
with the Euler deconvolution solutions shown in Figure 11a, as well
as the geologic interpretation, shown in Figure 11b.
Looking at the structures enclosed by a dashed ellipse in
Figure 11a and 11b, the Euler deconvolution map (Figure 11a)
shows a good correlation with the magnetic interpretation. How-
ever, such structures are not identified by geologic mapping alone
(Figure 11b) and its existence can only be inferred through geophy-
sical mapping. This result illustrates the usefulness of enhancement
methods for the interpretation of potential field data. The TAHG
method (Figure 10d) equalizes the signals from shallow and deep
sources, making good use of the information contained in potential
field data, for qualitative interpretation. It appears to minimize the
introduction of artifacts when the anomalies are originated from
interfering sources.
CONCLUSION
We have presented an edge-detection method for the enhance-
ment of magnetic anomalies. The edges are identified by positive
sharp peaks in the filtered anomalies with minimal addition of spur-
ious peaks during the filtering process. The method has been de-
monstrated with synthetic and real data. For synthetic data, the
method generates transformed anomalies that are centered over
the edges of causative bodies and approximately independent of
the depth of the sources. The method is less susceptible to noise
when compared to a selected second-order derivative-based method
and provides improved details for superimposed sources. For an ex-
ample of field data, the interpretation maps generated by the method
are consistent with the geologic interpretation
and Euler deconvolution solutions. The filter
can be particularly helpful for qualitative inter-
pretation in areas with interfering anomalies such
as these that occur when linear magnetic bodies
cross geologic structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Assistant Editor Jose Car-
cione, Associate Editor Richard Lane, and three
anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments that greatly improved the original
manuscript. We are grateful to Carlos Alberto
Mendonça (Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil),
Fernando Guspí (Universidad Nacional de Ro-
sario, Argentina), and Oderson A. de Souza Filho
(CPRM, Brazil) for discussions, Michael J. Frie-
del (USGS), Murilo Marroquim (VISLA), and
Johnny D. Santos for reading part of the manu-
script, and Gordon R. J. Cooper (University of
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg) for providing the code to gener-
ate the balanced images. We also thank Petróleo Brasileiro S. A.
(Petrobras) for supporting this research and Companhia de Pesquisa
de Recursos Minerais (CPRM, Geological Survey of Brazil) for per-
mission to use the geologic and geophysical data. Francisco J. F.
Ferreira and Jeferson de Souza were supported in this research
by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológi-
co (CNPq), under contracts 305810/2010-3 and 159783/2010-0,
respectively.
REFERENCES
Blakely, R. J., 1996, Potential theory in gravity and magnetic applications:
Cambridge University Press.
Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais and Paterson, Grant & Wat-
son Limited, 2005, Brazil airborne magnetic mapping project, companhia
de pesquisa de recursos minerais: (CPRM, Geological Survey of Brazil)
and Paterson, Grant & Watson Limited (PGW).
Cooper, G. R. J., 2009, Balancing images of potential-field data:
Geophysics, 74, no. 3, L17–L20, doi: 10.1190/1.3096615.
Cooper, G. R. J., and D. R. Cowan, 2006, Enhancing potential field data
using filters based on the local phase: Computers & Geosciences, 32,
no. 10, 1585–1591, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2006.02.016.
Cooper, G. R. J., and D. R. Cowan, 2008, Edge enhancement of potential-
field data using normalized statistics: Geophysics, 73, no. 3, H1–H4, doi:
10.1190/1.2837309.
Cordell, L., and V. J. S. Grauch, 1985, Mapping basement magnetization
zones from aeromagnetic data in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico, in
W. J. Hinze, ed., The utility of regional gravity and magnetic anomalies
maps: SEG, 181–197.
Fairhead, J. D., A. Salem, L. Cascone, M. Hammil, S. Masterton, and E.
Samson, 2011, New developments of the magnetic tilt-depth method
to improve structural mapping of sedimentary basins: Geophysical Pro-
specting, 59, 1072–1086, doi: 10.1111/gpr.2011.59.issue-6.
Fairhead, J. D., and S. Williams, 2006, Evaluating normalized magnetic de-
rivatives for structural mapping: 76th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstracts, 845–848.
Fedi, M., and G. Florio, 2001, Detection of potential fields sources bound-
aries by enhanced horizontal derivative method: Geophysical Prospecting,
49, 40–58, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00235.x.
Ferreira, F. J. F., L. G. de Castro, A. B. S. Bongiolo, J. de Souza, and
M. A. T. Romeiro, 2011, Enhancement of the total horizontal gradient of
magnetic anomalies using tilt derivatives: Part II — Application to real data:
81st Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 887–891.
Heilbron, M., 2011, Explanatory note to the geologic map of the Santo
Antonio de Pádua sheet (1,100.000 scale): CPRM, Geological Survey
of Brazil, Geobank (http://geobank.sa.cprm.gov.br).
Heilbron, M., B. P. Duarte, C. M. Valeriano, A. Simonetti, N. Machado, and
J. R. Nogueira, 2010, Evolution of reworked Paleoproterozoic basement
rocks within the Ribeira belt (Neoproterozoic), SE-Brazil, based on U-Pb
 Tilt angle of the total horizontal gradient
geochronology: Implications for paleogeographic reconstructions of the
São Francisco-Congo paleocontinent: Precambrian Research, 178,
136–148, doi: 10.1016/j.precamres.2010.02.002.
Lahti, I., and T. Karinen, 2010, Tilt derivative multiscale edges of magnetic
data: The Leading Edge, 29, 24–29, doi: 10.1190/1.3284049.
Li, X., 2006a, Understanding 3D analytic signal amplitude: Geophysics, 71,
no. 2, L13–L16, doi: 10.1190/1.2184367.
Li, X., 2006b, On “Theta map: Edge detection in magnetic map” (C. Wijns,
Downloaded 03/24/14 to 200.17.206.18. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
C. Perez, and P. Kowalczyk, 2005, Geophysics, 70, L39–L43): Discussion
and reply: Geophysics, 71, no. 3, X11–X12, doi: 10.1190/1.2194525.
Miller, H. G., and V. Singh, 1994, Potential field tilt — A new concept for
location of potential field sources: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 32,
no. 2–3, 213–217, doi: 10.1016/0926-9851(94)90022-1.
Nabighian, M. N., 1972, The analytic 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., 1974, Additional comments on the analytic signal of two-
dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross-section: Geophysics,
39, 85–92, doi: 10.1190/1.1440416.
View publication stats
J41
Phillips, J. D., 2007, Geosoft eXecutables (GX’s) developed by the U.S.
Geological Survey, Version 2.0, with notes on GX development from
FORTRAN code: (Open-File Report 2007–1355), p. 111.
Roest, W. R., J. Verhoef, and M. Pilkington, 1992, Magnetic interpretation
using the 3-D analytic signal: Geophysics, 57, 116–125, doi: 10.1190/1
.1443174.
Salem, A., S. Williams, J. D. Fairhead, D. Ravat, and R. Smith, 2007, Tilt-
depth method: A simple depth estimation method using first-order magnetic
derivatives: The Leading Edge, 26, 1502–1505, doi: 10.1190/1.2821934.
Salem, A., S. Williams, E. Samson, D. Fairhead, D. Ravat, and R. J. Blakely,
2010, Sedimentary basins reconnaissance using the magnetic tilt-depth
method: Exploration Geophysics, 41, 198–209.
Thompson, D. T., 1982, EULDPH: A new technique for making computer-
assisted depth estimates from magnetic data: Geophysics, 47, 31–37, doi:
10.1190/1.1441278.
Verduzco, B., J. D. Fairhead, C. M. Green, and C. Mackenzie, 2004, New
insights into magnetic derivatives for structural mapping: The Leading
Edge, 23, 116–119, doi: 10.1190/1.1651454.
Wijns, C., C. Perez, and P. Kowalczyk, 2005, Theta map: Edge detection in
magnetic data: Geophysics, 70, no. 4, L39–L43, doi: 10.1190/1.1988184.