Analysis of Dipolar Magnetic Anomalies: February 2017

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313220456
Analysis of dipolar magnetic anomalies
Technical Report · February 2017
CITATIONS READS
0 44
1 author:
Bruce W. Bevan
Geosight
107 PUBLICATIONS 393 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce W. Bevan on 09 February 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Analysis of dipolar magnetic anomalies
by: Bruce W. Bevan (Geosight)

9 February 2017
Summary
Dipolar magnetic anomalies are common in some magnetic maps. These are simple
anomalies that often have a strong and circular high that is paired with a weak magnetic low.
These anomalies can be analyzed to provide an estimate of the depth and mass of the
hidden or buried objects that cause the anomalies.
Several procedures for this analysis are described here. A good estimate of depth can
be made by measuring the diameter of an anomaly. More accurate results may be
determined with a computer program that calculates the field of an ideal magnetic dipole and
keeps changing its position until the calculated pattern matches the measurements. Two
programs (MagPick and Potent) for this analysis are illustrated here.
A very different interpretation can be done with a program that examines each
measurement in a magnetic map for the magnitude of the field and how rapidly it changes
with position. With this basic information, the possible location of nearby dipoles can be
calculated; if several calculations yield the same location, that location is probably correct.
This analysis will be illustrated with Euler deconvolution.
The direction of magnetization within an object may also be interpreted; this provides a
small amount of additional information about the object. Another topic is the calculation of
total gradient (the amplitude of the analytic signal); this simplifies a magnetic map and may
aid its analysis.
An archaeological survey provides illustrations of these procedures.
Introduction
Dipolar magnetic anomalies are found most frequently at historic sites, where iron
artifacts have been lost and buried. However, these simplest of anomalies are also apparent
at archaeological sites of any age, where they may be caused by a refilled pit, a fire hearth,
or a magnetic stone. While a magnetic map may reveal these objects as small and circular
patterns, an analysis or interpretation of those patterns is required for estimating the location,
depth, and perhaps the mass of the objects that are underground.
Location can be approximated by the peak of the anomaly, but depth is not
immediately apparent. Depth is valuable for it can suggest age (shallow objects may be
modern); it will also reveal the amount of excavation that is needed to expose the object.
While it is seldom possible to make an accurate estimate of the mass or volume of a buried
object, any estimate is better than none.
This report is written primarily for individuals who do archaeological surveys. It has
three levels of detail. The figures (and their captions) at the end of this report allow a quick
introduction to the topics; you can start with Figure 1. The main text that follows gives a more
Page 1
History
complete discussion, and this is intended for the person who wishes to understand or
distinguish the different types of analysis, perhaps without doing them now. The greatest
detail is provided in an appendix that is keyed to each figure; this information is for the person
who plans to try the more technical analyses.
The procedures generally become more complicated and accurate later in this report.
Blue text marks hyperlinks to the figures.
History
An excellent collection of dipolar anomalies is found in a magnetic map that was
measured at a 19th century fort in the USA; this map will be analyzed with several different
procedures. The following paragraphs describe this archaeological site and the geophysical
surveys. If you would prefer to skip to the analysis, go to the next section, titled "Dipolar
anomalies".
Figure 1 is a drawing of Fort Morton. It is not visible at the ground surface, for this fort
was completely leveled when it was no longer needed; this allowed the field to be farmed
again. However, underground traces of this fort were detected by several different
geophysical instruments. See Figure 2 for the linear patterns that were revealed; these are
primarily shallow trenches that are a few meters wide.
The location of these trenches is clarified in Figure 3, which is an enlargement of part
of Figure 1. Soil can be excellent for absorbing the impact of cannon balls and mortar shells
that have been shot by an enemy. During the battle around this fort, soldiers excavated soil
and piled it on ridges toward the enemy and also piled it on top of wooden shelters, such as
the one in Figure 4.
The bottoms of almost all of these military excavations were readily detected with a
ground-penetrating radar; see the lower side of Figure 4. This was an unusually good
location for a radar survey. This is because the soil changes gradually from quite sandy to
mostly clay at a depth of about 0.5 m. Refilled excavations that were dug to a greater depth
create an abrupt change in the soil that is easily detected.
While the radar survey was excellent for mapping the refilled trenches, the radar
detected nothing of the mounds and ridges of soil that were once here; this soil was scraped
back into the original holes. However, the conductivity and resistivity surveys appear to have
detected some patches of clayey subsoil that were left at the surface from the former fort.
A magnetic survey was done at the fort, but this did not delineate the now-buried
trenches; however, the magnetic map of Figure 7 provides good examples for the analysis of
dipolar anomalies.
Dipolar anomalies
Three definitions:
A magnetic anomaly is an area in a map where the magnetic field is different from
Page 2
Dipolar anomalies
normal. If the field is usually 50,000 nT, but it has increased to 50,010 nT in a small area, the
amplitude of the anomaly is 10 nT.
A dipolar anomaly is effectively caused by a magnetic dipole, which is an idealized,
mathematical, and infinitesimally small magnetic object. However, real and interesting
objects cause anomalies that are identical.
A magnetic model is a simplification of a magnetic object; the magnetic map of a
compact object is reliably approximated with the simple model of a magnetic dipole. Even an
elongated object, such as the needle of a magnetic compass, has a field that is almost
exactly a dipole; a dipole is also a very good approximation of the magnetic field of the entire
Earth. These approximations become more accurate with increasing distance from the
magnetic needle or the center of the Earth.
Six parameters describe a magnetic dipole. Three of these are its location, which may
be called X, Y, and Z, where X and Y are the plan location and Z is the depth. The next three
parameters specify the magnetization of the dipole: Its magnitude, and also its direction with
a pair of angles: Inclination (below the horizontal) and declination (east of grid north).
Dipolar anomalies have a rather circular magnetic high, along with a weaker and
arc-shaped low that is adjacent; see Figure 5 for two examples. While spherical objects
cause these simple patterns, this anomaly is always found where the maximum length of an
object is less than its total depth (total depth is the depth underground added to the height of
the magnetic measurements). For example, an iron pipe that is 1 m long and buried at a
depth of 0.5 m or greater will give a dipolar magnetic anomaly if the height of the magnetic
sensor is 0.5 m.
Not all circular anomalies are caused by objects that are small relative to their depths.
A broad and shallow filled pit or basin is one example; a vertical pipe or well provides another
example. These features create patterns that are similar to dipolar anomalies, and careful
analysis may be needed to distinguish them. These features have bipolar anomalies, a more
general term which means that they have a magnetic high and low that are adjacent to each
other. All magnetic objects create bipolar anomalies; sometimes the magnetic lows are so
weak that they are hidden by other anomalies, but they must always be there.
While it may be obvious that a magnetic object should cause a high above it, the
source of the adjacent low is not as clear. The magnetic low is caused by the looping of the
magnetic field around the object; remember the demonstration of a bar magnet below a sheet
of paper that was sprinkled with iron filings. The looping of the magnetic field causes an
addition to the Earth's field over the object, but a subtraction from that field nearby. While the
magnetic lows are usually weak, they extend over a very broad area, compared to the
magnetic high. If one calculates the average magnetic field in a high-resolution magnetic
map, this is the field of the Earth itself. In other words, the average value of the magnetic
anomalies in a map should be about zero. Since magnetic highs may be most apparent, it
may seem that this average should be greater than zero, but it is not.
Page 3
Magnetic surveys
The calculated maps in Figure 5 show what is called the anomalous field: The large
value assumed for the Earth's field (53,200 nT) has been subtracted at each point. This
simplifies the maps by allowing the numbers there to be small. It is simpler and more
understandable to say an anomaly high of 175 nT, than a magnetic field of 53,375 nT.
However, one may plot either the full number (53,375) or the anomaly value (175), for both
maps will show the same patterns.
Many publications describe dipolar anomalies and their analysis in great detail. Within
that last 20 years, a large amount of work has been done on the detection of Unexploded
Ordnance (UXO) with magnetic surveys; the bombs and explosive-containing shells are
almost always apparent as dipolar anomalies.
Magnetic surveys
A magnetic survey that has been done for reconnaissance or mapping has different
requirements than a survey that is to be analyzed. If one wishes only to locate magnetic
features, a coarse spacing between measurements is a valuable economy; however, if the
anomalies are to be analyzed for estimates of the depth of features, a smaller spacing may
be better. This spacing should perhaps be even smaller for an analysis of the mass (or
volume) of the feature or for the direction of its total magnetization. Figure 6 illustrates the
effect of a measurement spacing that may be too large. It is better to analyze a map with
too-wide a spacing between its measurements than not to analyze it at all.
Since magnetic anomalies are found in all sizes, it is not easy to specify a single and
best spacing for the measurements; however, the size of the anomalies of important features
will frequently be known, and these can guide the selection of measurement spacing. While
a measurement spacing of about 0.5 m is common for many archaeological surveys, this
standard may be too coarse for a good analysis of anomalies that are narrower than 1 m.
It may be better to use a total-field magnetometer than a gradiometer; this is because
there is relatively little software for the analysis of gradiometer data; some help is given later
in this report. The survey grid can be oriented in any direction, and it is likely that a normal
sensor height (0.2 - 0.6 m) will be satisfactory.
The readings of a magnetic map can be affected by abrupt topography and also
features that are at the surface. These should be located and identified before an
interpretation is begun.
Dipolar analysis
The analysis of a dipolar anomaly can suggest some or all of the following information:
1: The location of the center of the object that causes the anomaly. This is both its
position on a plan map and also its depth. However, it is generally difficult to estimate the
diameter of the object; therefore the depth to its upper surface can be uncertain. An estimate
of the horizontal location of the object may be more accurate than depth.
Page 4
Half-width interpretation
2: The amount of magnetic material in the object. This amount may be a purely
geophysical parameter, or it may be the mass or volume of the object. These latter values
are more understandable, but they will also be more uncertain.
3: The direction of magnetization in the object. This direction may be that of the
Earth's natural magnetic field, or it may have quite a different direction. The directions can
differ markedly from one object to another, but they might also cluster towards a single
direction. These directions may assist in distinguishing iron from steel artifacts, or igneous
boulders from refilled pits.
The first step in an analysis is the identification of dipolar anomalies. The magnetic
maps here are drawn with contour lines; this aids their interpretation, for a high lateral
gradient between a magnetic high and a low suggests that the pair of anomalies is associated
with a single object, and the pair may be a dipolar anomaly. This high gradient is identified by
the close spacing between contour lines.
The identification of dipolar pairs of anomalies is not always easy or certain. The
magnetic low is often north of the high, but not always. The predominant anomaly is usually
a magnetic high, but it can also be a low. There will be examples here of both easy and
difficult associations between highs and lows.
The magnetic map in Figure 7 has a wide variety of anomalies. Many are magnetic
highs (red), and some of these have adjacent lows (blue) on the northerly side of the highs.
One anomaly, near the southeastern corner of the map (at E400 N-255), is a strong low
without an apparent high.
The first step in a rough interpretation can be an estimate of the central location of the
feature that causes a dipolar anomaly. Figure 6, like Figure 5, gives some guidance: The
center is a short distance from the magnetic high toward the low. While it is not directly
below the magnetic high, that peak is usually very close to the object. If a magnetic anomaly
has only a low, or predominantly a low, the object will be located near the minimum of the low
readings. If the magnitudes of a high and low are about equal, the object could be about
midway between them. If greater accuracy is needed, follow the later steps in this report.
The total depth of a feature can be estimated by determining the width of an anomaly
relative to its amplitude. This procedure is called the half-width rule and Figure 8 shows an
example. Measure the peak anomaly (which is easy) and then the surrounding or
background level; this is more difficult, but select a nearby area where the contour lines are
widely spaced. Calculate the anomaly amplitude at halfway between this high and the
background, and then measure the width of the anomaly at that level. This width is a fairly
good estimate of the total depth to the middle of the feature; remember to subtract the sensor
height to get the actual depth underground.
These measurements of amplitude and width may be made on a contour map directly,
Page 5
or on profiles, which are lines that have been extracted from the map. The line for measuring
the half width should generally be along the direction between the magnetic high and low; it is
also best that this line cross the narrowest width of the anomaly while passing near the peak.
Figure 9 has a half-width interpretation of the magnetic map in Figure 7. This map
also includes the results of an additional estimate of the mass of each buried object. This
analysis is more uncertain than that of depth, but it is still a valuable part of the interpretation,
and it may be done without anything more than a calculator. However, it will be necessary to
introduce a technical parameter with an interesting name.
The quantity of magnetic material in an object can be defined as a parameter called
magnetic moment, this parameter is particularly good for the compact objects that are
discussed here. Magnetic moment has the unit of ampere-meter-squared, Am2. This
may seem odd for a magnetic quantity, since there is no "nT" in it; however, remember that
electrical currents create magnetic fields, and this is how the unit got its "A".
As an example, a steel object with a mass of 1 kg has a magnetic moment of about
0.3 Am2. At a distance of 1 m below a magnetometer, this object will create a magnetic
anomaly of about 60 nT.
The first step in the analysis of mass is a calculation of the magnetic moment that has
created a magnetic anomaly. The two numerical values that are needed have already been
determined: These are the peak amplitude and the half width of the anomaly; where the half
width is the same value as the total depth (in meters). The magnetic moment can then be
estimated from the equation:
moment = (peak anomaly) * (total depth cubed) / 200
As an example, the moment of the steel object that is described above could be calculated
from the anomaly and the half-width (or depth) as:
moment = (60 nT) * (1 cubed) / 200 = 0.3 Am2
which is the value that was assumed.
Later in this report, more accurate methods for estimating magnetic moment will be
discussed, but this simple equation will be adequate for a start. As this equation suggests,
the value for magnetic moment will be less accurate than the estimate of depth. This is
because the cube of distance determines the moment; a small error in distance will give a
large error in the moment.
The finding of moment is an important step in an interpretation, but it can be better to
convert this to something more recognizable, such as the volume or mass of the object. This
conversion is possible if one can guess what might be underground, and if one knows how
magnetic that material might be.
This identification may be impossible to make; however, it is fair for one to guess
something, and note this for the record. At the bombproof site, it is a good assumption that
the objects are iron or steel, for rocks in the area are not magnetic, and the armies shot a lot
of iron and steel at their opponents.
Page 6
Total gradient
Magnetic moment can be converted to mass by knowing the relative magnetic

moment; this parameter quantifies the magnetism of an object per unit of mass. The relative
magnetic moments of some objects are suggested below:
modern steel 0.3 Am2/kg
old iron 0.03 Am2/kg
fired earth 0.003 Am2/kg
brick fragments 0.0003 Am2/kg
Therefore a very small quantity of steel can cause the same anomaly as a very large (1000
times larger) mass that is composed of fragments of brick or pottery.
The analysis in Figure 9 assumed a relative magnetic moment of 0.28 Am2/kg.
Additional (and approximate) magnetic moments for a few objects and features are
listed below for comparison:
A brick 0.003 Am2
A nail 0.005 Am2
A block of iron-containing slag 1 Am2
A kiln for firing pottery 100 Am2
The magnetic moments of your artifacts can be determined by applying the equation above to
your measurements of the magnetic anomalies over those samples when they are rotated
below a magnetometer.
Total gradient
The high and low anomalies in a magnetic map can cause confusion, for there are
about twice the number of anomalies as there are objects underground. A nice simplification
is possible with a calculation of the total gradient of a magnetic map. With this process, the
highs and lows in Figure 10 are converted to only highs in Figure 11. The calculation of the
total gradient will shortly be part of many programs for magnetic analysis, and even now it is
not necessary to understand much about the details of the calculation. However, the
procedure is not particularly easy to do, although the steps are described in the notes for
these figures.
The phrase "total gradient" is commonly applied in geophysical literature now, but it
was formerly called the "amplitude of the analytic signal". This phrase was borrowed from the
field of signal processing, while the words "total gradient" describe more accurately or clearly
that the magnitude (vector sum) of the perpendicular components of the gradient has been
calculated. This is equivalent to saying that the gradient of the magnetic field has been
determined in the direction of its maximum value.
While it may be possible to measure directly the total gradient of the magnetic field, it
is also possible to calculate this value from a map of the total magnetic field. A gradiometer
does not measure total gradient for two reasons; the sensors are spaced too widely, and the
orientation of the sensor pair is probably wrong so that negative gradients are included.
Page 7
MagPick analysis
The patterns in a map of total gradient are not centered exactly over their sources (see
Figure 11); the patterns also change with the direction of the magnetic field. However, these
total-gradient anomalies are so nearly centered over anomaly sources that they are a
valuable aid to interpretation.
The calculated map in Figure 10 is a plot of the total magnetic field. The locations of
the dipoles are marked with filled green circles. The magnetic moment of the objects is listed
at the top of the figure in column M, in Am2, along with the direction of magnetization
(Inclination and Declination, in degrees from the horizontal and from grid north). The
elevations (negative depths) are listed as Z in the final column; these depths are the distance
below the calculation surface. The map in Figure 11 shows how the depths of the objects
can be estimated with the half-width rule.
Anomalies 1 and 2 (at the lower left side of Figure 10) illustrate a difficult problem of
interpretation. It appears that this high and low could be a dipolar pair, since the high and low
are so close together. However, Figure 11 reveals that these two anomalies are actually
caused by two separate objects. This is one benefit of a total-gradient map.
While anomaly 2 is seen only as a low in Figure 10, anomaly 6 has a low that is
stronger than its high; both anomalies have inclination angles that are negative, and this
orientation causes strong lows in a magnetic map. This type of pattern is almost always an
indicator of a magnetic object that has been moved since it acquired its strong remnant
magnetization.
In Figure 12, the magnetic map of the bombproof area in Figure 7 has been converted
into total gradient; the contour lines have not been drawn at high amplitudes. An advantage
of this total gradient view is apparent at the magnetic low that was noted in Figure 7 near
E400 N-255; in Figure 12, this is now a more understandable high. A disadvantage of this
presentation is the fact that important, but deep, features in the magnetic map are almost lost
in the map of total gradient. Compare the anomalies of the powder magazines. A map of
total gradient is no longer capable of yielding information about the direction of magnetization
within the underground bodies.
MagPick analysis
MagPick is a computer program for the analysis of dipolar magnetic anomalies. The
operation of this program will be described in greater detail than usual here, for this is a very
practical program for interpretation.
This program is available for no cost at: https://sourceforge.net/projects/magpick/
A recent version of this program is dated 11/08/2016 and it is numbered as version 3.25
(since this version number remains the same for several dates, the date is the best indicator
of the most recent version).
This MagPick program was written by Mikhail Tchernychev; I thank him for donating
this program to geophysicists. His initial versions of the program were written while he was in
Page 8
MagPick analysis
Germany and working on the analysis of marine magnetic surveys. He continued improving
the program while he worked for Geometrics in the USA; that version of the program is
easiest to locate by searching for "MagPick Geometrics". The most recent version of the
program is found at SourceForge, for Mikhail Tchernychev has continued to improve the
program since he left Geometrics.
The MagPick program has the following advantages: It is free. The program is fast
and easy to operate, and it gives accurate results. It can allow one to prepare excellent
magnetic maps, with good annotations; these maps may be displayed on Google Earth.
Basic types of processing for magnetic data are possible, such as reduction to the pole and
upward continuation. Magnetic grids from the Surfer program by Golden Software can be
analyzed.
The program has disadvantages: Some parts of the program do not work or they work
poorly; however, the necessary parts work well enough. The manual for the program has
many differences from what the display of the program shows. While the manual has
detailed descriptions of many operations, important descriptions are not complete. The
program is for total-field magnetic data; some corrections can allow analysis of maps from a
gradiometer, but at a lower accuracy. The survey is assumed to be have been made on a
horizontal surface if a grid of data was input.
Since the MagPick program was first written for the study of marine magnetic surveys,
many parts of the program emphasize the mapping and analysis of surveys that were done
with lines of traverse that deviate from straight and which do not have a uniform spacing.
Only a rather small part of the manual describes the analysis of gridded magnetic data; this
part of the program is much simpler.
A summary of the steps for analyzing all of the dipoles in a magnetic map:
Prepare a map of all of the measurements (similar to Figure 7)
1 Zoom in to a single anomaly or cluster of anomalies (Figure 13)
2 Draw a line between the high and low pair of each anomaly (Figure 14)
3 Start the solution of the dipole parameters (Figure 15)
4 Examine the dipole parameters that were determined (Figure 16)
5 Delete the zoomed map
6 Return to the full map
Repeat this cycle, starting at step 1, for all interesting anomalies
End with a map showing the picked lines for all analyzed dipoles (Figure 18)
Prepare the final calculated map of all dipoles by setting iterations = 1
Display the calculation of all dipoles from calc.grd
Display the residual map of (measurements - calculations) from diff.grd
Plot copies of maps with Picture Export, Geotiff
The magnetic anomalies in Figure 13 provide a nice example of easy and difficult
analyses. Since these anomalies are so close together, they overlap a moderate or large
Page 9
MagPick analysis
amount; this complicates their analysis, but a good result can be found if all of the anomalies
are interpreted together, rather than separately. The lack of a magnetic low for the high near
E389 S204 may be caused by an object that has a magnetization whose inclination angle is
nearly vertical. The broad arrow in the figure points toward magnetic north.
Further detail about the operation of the MagPick program follows: After the program
has started, select the data to be plotted with File, Open Grid File. Probably any ASCII grid
from Surfer can be read, and older binary grids can also be entered. Then the size or scale
of the magnetic map on the display can be adjusted with Options, Size. Set the Zoom-Out to
100, and change the "X-Size, Cell" until the size is right.
Tutorial 23.1, starting on page 182 of the MagPick manual has a good description of
how the colors and contours of a map may be set. Page 166 of the manual shows how text
and symbols can be added to the map.
The next step is the analysis of the anomalies in the magnetic map. It is best to
analyze one or a few anomalies at a time. Start the selection with a Right-click on the map
and then click on Zoom. Move the cursor (now a magnifying glass) to one corner of a
rectangle to be studied; click and hold the left button on the mouse and move to the diagonal
corner of the rectangle, where the button is released.
A new and enlarged window is then displayed; Figure 13 shows a few anomalies that
can be analyzed as a group. From the pulldown menu, select Edit, and then Simple Pick,
and the cursor changes to a + symbol. Click near the middle of a magnetic high, and then
the nearby paired low (the order of selection makes no difference). Figure 14 has three
dipolar pairs marked by three lines. Note that two are quite clear, but the associated low of
the central strong anomaly is uncertain.
The analysis of these three anomalies starts by selecting Inverse from the pulldown
menu, and then Run; the inversion settings are now entered, as shown in Figure 15. Shortly
after clicking on "Start iterations..." the findings of the analysis are presented, as in Figure 16.
The parameters of the interpreted dipoles can be displayed with: Inverse, Worksheet,
Dipoles, and then the coordinates XYZ will be shown in a Dipole sheet. These values here
have the correct units of feet. The lower window was created to show further parameters in
the Dipole Sheet, by opening the file in a spreadsheet (Excel) and looking at the right side of
the data, which lists the magnetization and its direction for the dipole.
The final result of the analysis of these few anomalies is plotted in Figure 17. The
dipolar picks for the entire magnetic map are drawn in Figure 18, but the other results of that
detailed analysis are not shown here.
While the MagPick program allows the interpretation of only total-field magnetic maps,
it is also possible to analyze maps that have been measured with gradiometers by applying a
correction to the findings of MagPick, as shown in Figure 19. In order to estimate this
correction, magnetic maps were calculated for a total-field magnetometer and also two
gradiometers. These maps were analyzed with MagPick, and the interpreted depths and
Page 10
Euler deconvolution
moments for the gradiometers were smaller than the correct values. The multiplication
factors in Figure 19 can give a fair correction for gradient maps. These corrections can also
be applied to the interpretations that have been made with other procedures. Where features
are deeper underground, the corrections for the two gradiometers will approach each other.
Euler deconvolution
Euler deconvolution provides a very different method for interpreting the locations and
depths of magnetic bodies. While the name is complicated, the principle can be understood;
see Figure 20. The result of a deconvolution is plotted in Figure 21.
There are probably over a dozen procedures that are similar to Euler deconvolution,
but there is no commonly-accepted name for this type of analysis. Many of these procedures
use the word "deconvolution", but this is not quite correct. They are sometimes called
"semi-automatic", but MagPick is also semi-automatic. While the words "filtering" or "parallel
processing" suggest something of the analysis, the phrase "pattern recognition" is also close
to what is done with Euler deconvolution.
For this analysis, a magnetic map is examined around each measurement point. The
width of this examination is called the window size; a fixed and constant width for this square
window is selected so that it might encompass as much of any individual anomaly as
possible, but never include more than one anomaly at a time. This requires a compromise.
Figure 20 indicates that the depth of a body might be determined from the magnetic field and
its vertical gradient or difference at one point; with Euler deconvolution, one may additionally
estimate the east and north location of the object by adding the magnitudes of the horizontal
fields and gradients to the calculation.
Euler was a Swiss mathematician who lived in the 1700s; he is famous for several
equations, and one of them can be applied to this geophysical problem. If the magnetic field,
along with its direction and gradients, are known at one point, the possible location of an
object can be calculated if it is also known how rapidly the magnetic field decreases with
distance from that object. With a compact object, the field decreases most rapidly; if the
object is elongated like a rod, the magnetic field decreases more slowly with greater distance.
Euler deconvolution assumes that this decrease or decay is known; for magnetic dipoles, this
value is three (it is the source of the cubic exponent in several equations here).
Euler's equation was applied to the magnetic map of the bombproof, Figure 7. There
are about 10,000 measurement points in that map; windows were examined at most of these
points, and those windows had a width that was about 10% of the width of the magnetic map.
Because of the huge number of analyses that are made, many possible locations for
magnetic objects were determined; most of these were rejected as unreasonable: They were
too deep, too shallow, had too large a calculated error in depth, or were too far from the
middle of the window (where accuracy is best).
Even with all of that elimination, a large number of possible locations for objects
Page 11
Potent analysis
remain; see Figure 21. Fortunately, these are clustered, and one can select a central
location in each cluster as the most reasonable. Many procedures have been developed for
reducing the number of solutions that are provided by Euler deconvolution, but a simple
visual observation of clustering can be all that is needed. The averaging of Figure 22 may
sometimes aid one to see areas where the depths of objects are similar or different.
The plus symbols above the top of Figure 21 have a size that indicates a depth of 1 ft
(0.3 m). Objects were detected within the depth range of 0.5 and 2.5 ft (0.15 to 0.75 m). The
three light blue letters N show where no features have been indicated by Euler deconvolution
for any setting of its analysis parameters, even though the map suggests there is a feature at
each of these locations. The two light blue letters D locate anomalies that were detected by
other settings of the parameters for deconvolution. The major setting for Euler deconvolution
is the size of the window for analysis; the colors in Figure 21 indicate three different widths.
Note that some anomalies are detected only or primarily at a single width for the window;
small-area anomalies are best detected with small windows.
The procedure for an interpretation with Euler deconvolution is detailed with the notes
for Figure 21.
Potent analysis
For the last decade or more, one or two variations on Euler convolution have been
developed each year. These procedures are very clever; I congratulate and admire those
who have developed them. There are a large number of publications on this topic.
There is another procedure for the analysis of dipolar anomalies that is older than
these deconvolution techniques, and there has been little publication recently of any
modifications or improvements; the technique is well-developed. This procedure generates
the best magnetic models for the anomalies in a magnetic map; it may be called a
model-based analysis. It is sometimes called an inversion of the magnetic map; Euler
deconvolution probably should not be called an inversion.
As stated earlier, dipolar magnetic anomaly is defined by six numbers, which may be
abbreviated with the letters XYZMID; these values quantify the magnetic model of a dipole.
Three numbers (XYZ) indicate its location and three more (MID) indicate its magnetization (in
magnitude and direction). The correct or best values for these six numbers can be
determined by automatically changing them until the calculation of the magnetic field is
similar to the measurements of an anomaly. This procedure is not usually a random search
for the best parameters; instead, the search usually proceeds from one fair set of values to a
better one.
This procedure has resulted in the interpretation shown in Figure 23 of the magnetic
map in Figure 7. Four of the parameters are listed next to each circular symbol, and that
symbol marks the XY (East and North) location of each dipolar model. The analyses were
done with a computer program of mine that iterated the six parameters of one or more
Page 12
Potent analysis
dipoles until the error between the measurements and the calculations was minimized; the
background field was another parameter that was calculated. The area for analysis was
selected by enclosing it with a rectangular window.
Earlier in this report, Figure 9 showed the findings of a simple analysis that applied the
half-width rule. While one would expect that this simple interpretation would give parameters
that were less accurate, and therefore different, from this computerized analysis, Figure 24
shows that the depths that have been determined with both methods are similar.
With a model-based analysis, it is usually necessary to start with approximate values
for the six parameters. If one is analyzing anomalies that overlap, it may be important to
select these initial values with care. For example, the direction of magnetization determines
the magnetic high and low that are to be paired. If the high of one anomaly is paired with the
low of a different anomaly, the interpretation will be in error. A little experience allows one to
set these initial values.
A computer program can then intelligently change the values so that the match
between measurements and calculations continues to improve. Euler deconvolution does not
require any initial approximation; in particular, none is needed for each individual anomaly.
Therefore, the Euler method can be faster if there are a large number of anomalies for
analysis. Euler deconvolution is rather automatic, while a model-based analysis requires
careful thinking by the user.
However, there are advantages to this model-based analysis. First, all of the
parameters of the source are determined with one process; none of the variations of Euler
deconvolution appear to allow this. Second, the model-based analysis allows a valuable
confirmation of the quality of the solution: This confirmation is supplied by a map that shows
the difference between the measured map and the calculated map (Figure 29 is an example).
If this residual map is not blank, the patterns that remain are anomalies that have not been
analyzed completely.
The MagPick program that has been described above is one example of this
model-based analysis; another program, called Potent, will be described here. This computer
program is not free, but anyone can test it before deciding if they wish to buy it.
Information about the Potent program can be found at: www.geoss.com.au
The program is called Potent from the phrase "potential field"; potential fields are studied for
the analysis of gravity and magnetic surveys, and similar software can be applied to both
investigations. This program has a significant benefit in allowing the analysis of maps that
have been measured with a magnetic gradiometer, for it allows real gradients to be
calculated and analyzed. Real gradients may be measured with a sensor spacing of perhaps
0.5 - 1 m; theoretical gradients are calculated for an infinitesimal spacing between the
sensors. While other programs can work with gradients, these are theoretical or infinitesimal
gradients which cannot be measured.
There are several other excellent programs that will also allow the analysis of magnetic
Page 13
Potent analysis
dipoles (and other anomalies) by creating geophysical models whose calculated fields match
the measurements:
Oasis montaj, from Geosoft
Emigma, from PetRos Eikon
ModelVision, from Tensor Research
GeoModeller, from Intrepid Geophysics
Discover PA, from Pitney Bowes
The Potent program will be illustrated here because I am familiar with it; the other
programs are similar. All are heavy-duty geophysical programs, and all require a good
amount of study before they can be operated correctly.
The first step in an analysis is the preparation of the magnetic map; Figure 25 shows
the familiar patterns of the bombproof survey. These anomalies may be analyzed with an
approach that is similar to that with MagPick: One or a few anomalies are analyzed at a time
until all have been studied. Remember that this is different from Euler deconvolution, where
effectively all anomalies are studied at once.
With the Potent program, one can select polygonal areas for analysis; some examples
are illustrated in Figure 26. By including only the anomalies of interest, the analysis will not
be affected by unwanted patterns; this careful selection of the areas for analysis is not
possible with MagPick, for the areas of analysis there must be rectangles. The magnetic
models are created from all of the measurements in the area for analysis; if some of these
measurements are anomalies from nearby objects, the parameters that are determined can
have errors.
While the Potent program can create magnetic models with many shapes (such as
ellipsoids or rectangular boxes), the models selected for this analysis are all spheres, for
these bodies create dipolar anomalies. All of the spheres were set to a fixed diameter of 0.2
ft (6 cm). Since the diameters or sizes of these features cannot be determined, they were all
set to the same small value in order to simplify the calculation of magnetic moments.
The best-fitting dipolar models that were calculated by the Potent program are plotted
in Figure 27; their location, depth, and magnetic moment are revealed. The calculation of the
magnetic anomaly of all of the models is plotted in Figure 28; the MagPick program allows a
similar plot. Those calculations can then be subtracted from the original measurements in
order to create the residual map of Figure 29. This map should be blank, but it shows that
the models were not perfect. This map can indicate where further work is needed. The
remaining anomalies are, of course, much weaker than in the original map of Figure 7.
The solution with the minimum error between the measurements and calculations may
not be the best one, for some of the parameters that were determined may be obviously
wrong (for example, a body might be above the ground surface). With Potent, it is easy to fix
any parameters so that they will not change.
The analysis with Potent yields depths that are generally similar to those from the
Page 14
Magnetization directions
MagPick program; differences between the programs in their estimates of location and depth
can be reviewed in Figure 30.
Magnetization directions
The directions of magnetization of some of the dipolar anomalies in the bombproof
area were estimated, and these directions were compared to another area nearby. The
findings are plotted in Figure 31. The plots of direction at the bottom are quite different for
the two areas; this might be revealing something interesting and valuable.
In the area of the bombproof (A, red square), the directions of magnetization could
cluster near the direction of the Earth's field for two reasons: (1): The objects may have only
induced magnetization (This might be found with earthen contrasts, or where there are many
small objects such as a concentration of potsherds). (2): The objects may have been fired,
and their remnant magnetization has changed from random directions to that of the Earth's
field. While the cause is not known, the second reason appears to be more likely; the
burning of the wooden structures within the bombproof and the powder magazines may have
allowed them to be destroyed most easily, and this burning might have remagnetized iron
artifacts.
The map of directions for the area of the main fortification trench (at B, blue rectangle)
is a good example of rather random directions, although there is a concentration in the lower
hemisphere (positive inclination angle). These circular maps are plots of the inclination and
declination of magnetization; the inclination is horizontal at the edge of the circle and vertical
at the middle point.
Modeling programs like MagPick and Potent can create estimates of the total
magnetization within the objects that are analyzed. This total magnetization is the vectorial
sum of induced and remnant magnetization; induced magnetization is in the direction of the
Earth's field, while remnant magnetization may be in any direction. It is generally difficult to
estimate the direction of remnant magnetization of a buried object. However, if the ratio of
remnant to induced magnetization may be guessed, then the remnant magnetization can be
determined. This ratio of remnant to induced magnetization is called the Q ratio. For fired
earth and ceramic, a typical value appears to be about 10; for soils, it may be about one
(more measurements are needed on soils to check this).
If the total magnetization of an object is in a direction that is different from the Earth's
field, the object probably has remnant magnetization (however, anisotropy of magnetic
susceptibility could complicate this).
It is easiest to see these differences of dipole directions with plots like these. While
the accuracy of individual angles is probably low, a group of angles may suggest a clustering
that has important information. The accuracy of these angles can be poor because they are
dependent on the magnetic low, which may be faint enough that the anomalies of nearby
features have warped or altered its pattern.
Page 15
Concluding discussion
Other types of clusters of directions may be good to note also. These directions may
all be close to the horizon (shallow angles). This might be expected with some steel artifacts;
many of these artifacts are either flat or elongated; they will have a tendency to be buried
horizontally. This may cause the directions of magnetization to be shallow.
The directions of magnetization may be both shallow and also clustered toward
magnetic north. If the artifacts above were iron, rather than steel, this pattern could result.
Iron is likely to have a remnant magnetization that is weak compared to its induced
magnetization, while steel usually has a strong remnant magnetization.
These directions of magnetization are suggested by two aspects of the anomalies:
First, the relative magnitude (or ratio) of the high and low is affected by the inclination angle
of magnetization, while the angle from the magnetic high to the low is affected by the
declination angle of magnetization. Therefore, a simple inspection of the dipolar amplitudes
and orientations of anomalies may provide additional information about the buried features.
Concluding discussion
Magnetic anomalies may be classified easily by their amplitudes; this is a valuable
procedure for an evaluation at one archaeological site. For a comparison between sites or
for publication to colleagues, it is better to interpret the depth and magnetic moments of the
features that cause the anomalies. With this interpretation, a confusion that results from
differences in sensor height or the type of magnetometer is eliminated.
Simple graphical procedures allow analyses of dipolar anomalies that may be accurate
enough. Computer programs will be more accurate, but they might not be worth the time and
effort needed for mastering their operation. However, anyone who is serious about
interpretation will apply one of these programs.
Techniques such as Euler deconvolution are popular, particularly for the analysis of a
huge number of anomalies. I prefer a model-based analysis, for this allows a comparison
between the measured magnetic map and the calculated map. It may not be necessary to
analyze every magnetic anomaly in a map; if two anomalies are clearly similar in their size
and shape, perhaps only one needs to be analyzed.
The illustrations here have shown that analysis is far from perfect; if this seems
unfortunate, how accurate are depths if no interpretation is done?. In order of decreasing
reliability, the findings might be ranked as follows: Location, depth, mass, volume, direction
of magnetization.
In areas where the anomalies of objects overlap, the accuracy of interpretation will be
lower. These errors appear to be larger for Euler deconvolution than for a model-based
analysis.
Features that are broad, rather than compact, may appear to have a dipolar anomaly;
however, the depth from this analysis will be too great. For all dipolar analyses, it might be
best to suggest that depths are more likely to be too great than too shallow. Also, remember
Page 16
Notes on the figures
that depths are to the middle of features and not to their tops.
It is best not to use a gradiometer if features may be deep (perhaps more than 1 m); if
you cannot detect an anomaly, you cannot interpret it.
If the magnetic survey and interpretation have been for your own study, it is fine to
specify magnetic quantity as Am2. If the survey is for someone else, you may need to
convert those moments into estimates of mass or volume. In either case, if excavation
follows the survey, those findings will be a valuable guide to the accuracy of the
interpretation. Measurements of the magnetic susceptibility or magnetic moment of some
features and artifacts would be a good aid for future interpretations.
It may be important to distinguish features of fired earth from objects such as magnetic
boulders or iron artifacts. The orientation of the magnetization within the feature might allow
this distinction, for the magnetization of fired features should be close to the Earth’s current
field, while the direction for stones or iron artifacts may be quite different. Additional
distinction between fired earth and metal may be possible by doing a survey with an
electromagnetic induction (conductivity) meter.
If the purpose of a magnetic map is an illustration of the locations of anomalies, a gray
scale map is excellent, for subtle changes in gray density can reveal faint anomalies very
well. However, it is difficult to see lateral gradients in a gray scale map; a contour map is
best for magnetic analysis.

Additional information about the figures is given here.
Figure 1: The drawing shows ridges and piles of earth. Cannons were located where there
are V-shaped patterns along the wall of the fort; these ten embrasures are mostly on the
western side of the fort. This is a copy of an historical drawing that was prepared during the
Civil War. The National Park Service has now approximated the shape and location of Fort
Morton with a band of gravel and several cannons; these are visible on Google Earth at
N37.2181° W77.3705°.
There is no topographical evidence of the fort; in fact, before the geophysical survey, it
appeared possible that nothing of the fort remained underground. The area of the fort is now
a rather flat and grassy surface, although trees have grown over the southeastern end of the
fort. The line outside the backwards D locates fraise; the equivalent of modern barbed wire.
This map has dimensions of 600 by 500 feet (feet is abbreviated ft); this is about 180
by 150 m. At the time of this survey (in 1991), archaeological surveys usually applied the
same distance units as those of the historical population; this allowed the dimensions listed in
old documents to be compared easily to early maps. However, these dimensions of feet will
not be familiar to many, and so metric equivalents will often be listed here, (in parentheses).
Masses and magnetic values will be stated only in SI units.
This is Figure A26 from a 656-page report that was prepared about a geophysical
Page 17
survey that was done on the Petersburg battlefield in the state of Virginia. The three volumes
of that report are available for no cost at ResearchGate, Academia.Edu, and also at tDAR, as
files:
GeophysA.pdf, Titled: "Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology
Volume A: Archaeological questions and answers"
GeophysB.pdf, titled: "Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology
Volume B: Introduction to geophysical exploration", and
GeophysC.pdf, titled: "Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology
Volume C: Detailed survey procedures"
Volume B of this report is also available at:
http://www/cr.nps.gov/mwac/publications/pdf/spec1.pdf.
A summary of the finding of the geophysical survey was presented at a CAA
(Computer Applications in Archaeology) conference in 2009; that summary is available as a
file titled "Tracing buried earthworks at Petersburg"; it is on the web at:
http://archive.caaconference.org/2009/PapersProceedings.cfm.html.
There is a higher resolution version of that conference article at ResearchGate as file
FtMorton.pdf, titled as above.
When the original geophysical report was prepared in 1995, no photographs had been
confirmed as showing Fort Morton at the time of the Civil War. Within the last few years,
Julia Steele (Chief of Resource Management, Petersburg National Battlefield) and her
colleagues have located and identified several photos that do illustrate the fort as it appeared
just after the end of the battle; these photos can be seen at:
http://www.petersburgproject.org/the-siege-landscape.html
Figure 2: This is modified from Figure A37 in GeophysA.pdf. This 100-ft (30.5-m) square is
called the bombproof area. The trench at R was detected as a high resistivity anomaly.
Many of the small symbols mark metallic objects that were detected by the magnetic and
conductivity surveys, but neither survey was successful in defining the trench locations. A
seismic refraction survey readily detected the trenches because the soil that fills the trenches
has a lower velocity for the seismic wave than the surrounding soil that is naturally compact;
see Figure A54 of GeophysA.pdf.
These geophysical surveys were done over the period of 1991 through 1993 at the
Peterburg National Battlefield of the National Park Service; the area of survey is on the
southeastern side of the city of Petersburg, Virginia. The relief of the ground surface in the
area of this survey is too small to be apparent.
No archaeological excavations have been made in this bombproof grid to check on the
geophysical findings. However, some excavations were made by David Orr (National Park
Service) near the northwestern side of the fort, and these confirmed that Fort Morton was
there.
Page 18
Figure 3: This is a modification of Figure A36 in GeophysA.pdf. This map, like that in Figure
2, is a tracing of an historical map of Fort Morton that was prepared by the northern army
during the battle at Petersburg. This historical map has been registered with the geophysical
survey by applying the findings of the radar survey.
The historical map locates additional bombproof shelters at the lower right corner of
this map. However, those shelters were apparently not detected by the geophysical survey
that was done here. This could have happened if those excavations were quite shallow, or if
they were open for only a short period. Many of the other trenches were open to the rain and
the walking of soldiers for almost a year, leaving adequate time for mud and artifacts to
accumulate on their bottom surfaces.
Figure 4: This is Figure B149 from GeophysB.pdf. The detailed pattern in the middle of the
top of the drawing indicates gabions, which are like baskets that are filled with soil. The radar
survey was done on 8 August 1992 with an antenna having a predominant frequency of 315
MHz (a model 3012 from Geophysical Survey Systems). Tick marks at the top of the profile
are at intervals of 5 ft (1.5 m). The depth scale assumes that the velocity of the radar pulse
was 0.094 m/ns. As with most radar profiles, there is a large compression (about ten-fold) of
the horizontal scale relative to the vertical scale. The symbols below the radar profile mark
different classes of radar echoes; the adjacent numbers list the estimated depths of the
features that cause the echoes.
Figure 5: The amplitudes of these anomalies assume that distances are in meters and that
the magnetic moments of the dipoles (green) are 1 Am2. While the amplitudes of these
anomalies would differ with changes in the unit of distance or magnetic moment (they would
be multiplied by a constant), the shape of the anomalies would remain the same. The
magnitude and inclination of the Earth's magnetic field are those for the survey at Petersburg.
Depth is the distance below the surface of the calculation.
It would be incorrect to say that the anomaly from the total-field magnetometer is
stronger than that from the gradiometer; the units are different for the two instruments.
However, the vertical spacing of the sensors for the gradiometer was assumed to be 1 m;
therefore, a gradient of 1 nT/m is the same as a difference of 1 nT.
It is necessary to estimate the parameters of the Earth's magnetic field for a careful
analysis of a magnetic map. These parameters of the Earth's field are its magnitude and its
direction as an inclination (or dip angle), and also as a declination (or horizontal angle).
These values change widely over the Earth, and they also change slowly with time. While
some analysis programs provide these values, they may also be found on the web at:
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag-web/#igrfwmm
These parameters can also be measured at the site where the magnetic map was
surveyed. The magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field will usually be the average or the
Page 19
median of the total-field measurements in the map. The declination is easy to find with a
magnetic compass; since a grid declination is needed, the angle of magnetic north relative to
true north is probably incorrect. It is more difficult to find the angle of inclination of the field; it
may be determined with a vectorial magnetometer or by rotating a soft iron rod around a
magnetometer.
The following references are a selection of the best articles on dipolar anomalies:
Dwain K. Butler, Janet E. Simms, John S. Furey, and Hollis H. Bennett, 2012, "Review
of magnetic modeling for UXO and applications to small items and close distances", Journal
of Engineering and Environmental Geophysics (JEEG), volume 17, pages 53 - 73.
Stephen D. Billings, Leonard R. Pasion, and Douglas W. Oldenburg, 2002,
"Discrimination and identification of UXO by geophysical inversion. Phase II: Inversion of
total-field magnetics", Geophysical Inversion Facility, University of British Columbia, Canada.
John S. Furey and Dwain K. Butler, 2011, "The physical dipole model and polarizability
for magnetostatic object parameter estimation", Journal of Engineering and Environmental
Geophysics (JEEG), volume 16, pages 49 - 60.
V. C. Oliveira Jr., D. P. Sales, V. C. F. Barbosa, and L. Uieda, 2015, "Estimation of the
total magnetization direction of approximately spherical bodies", Nonlinear Processes in
Geophysics, volume 22, pages 215 - 232.
John E. McFee and Yogadhish Das, 1995, "Location and identification of compact
metallic objects by magnetics and electromagnetic induction", Proceedings of the Symposium
on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP).
See the references there for other good papers by these authors.
J. E. Haigh, 1972, "Standard curves for the magnetic anomalies due to spheres",
Bulletin number 119 of the Department of National Development, Bureau of Mineral
Resources, Geology, and Geophysics, Canberra, Australia.
T. K. S. Prakasa Rao and M. Subrahmanyam, 1968, "Characteristic curves for the
inversion of Magnetic Anomalies of spherical ore bodies", Pure and Applied Geophysics,
volume 126, pages 69 - 83.
Figure 6: The black curve is line East 0 in the upper map of Figure 5. Figures A13 through
A15 in GeophysA.pdf compare the interpretations that are possible with measurement
spacings of 0.3, 0.8, and 1.5 m.
The discussion here has assumed that magnetic anomalies are measured at a high
magnetic latitude, that is, the inclination of the Earth's field is steep, such as it is in much of
Europe and North America. Where the inclination is nearly horizontal, near the equator, the
anomalies are quite different, with magnetic lows over objects, rather than highs. These
types of anomalies are not discussed here.
Figure 7: This is modified from Figure B48 in GeophysB.pdf. The total-field magnetic survey
Page 20
was done on 7 August 1992 with a Gem Systems model GSM-19FG Overhauser
magnetometer. Measurements were made at intervals of 1 ft (0.3 m) and 1 s along
south-going traverses, and the spacing between lines of traverse was 1 ft. The height of the
magnetic sensor was 0.75 m (2.5 ft). Temporal correction was done with a separate
magnetometer, whose readings were taken at intervals of 30 s. Contours have not been
drawn outside the range of -50 to 50 nT.
The original magnetic measurements in Figure B48 have been modified here with a
correction for unwanted changes from one line of traverse to the next. This decorrugation
was done with a US Geological Survey (USGS) GX routine (version 2) in the Geosoft Oasis
Montaj viewer (version 7.3); these programs are described later. The USGS GX routine was
"usgs_decor.gx" and the filter lengths were 7 for this processing.
The hat that I was wearing when I did this survey had a ring of iron wire hidden in its
brim; I later found that this wire had a mass of 6 g and it caused a peak magnetic anomaly of
about 0.4 nT. This wire created only a small error for the magnetic analysis, but the original
map (Figure B48) has some irregularities that are almost removed by the process of
decorrugation.
The analyses that were done for the original report on this survey were made with the
original data that did not have that decorrugation; however, the more recent analyses that are
shown in this report were all done with this decorrugated data.
Figure 8: The values that I measured were as follows:

line high low difference half difference added to low South span
E410, black 4.74 0.72 3.52 1.76 2.48 238 - 233.2
E419, green 10.52 3.56 6.96 3.48 7.04 242 - 239.8
While it is easy to measure the peak of the high, it is more difficult to estimate the
background low for an anomaly; this is particularly true for line E419, since an anomaly near
S245 changes the anomaly near S241.
This analysis assumes that the measurements have been made for a total-field
magnetometer; if a gradiometer was used instead, then Figure 19 has some information on
calculating depths.
An excellent description of the half-width rule is given by Sheldon Breiner on pages 30
and 31 of his monograph: "Applications manual for portable magnetometers" which is
available at: ftp://geom.geometrics.com/pub/mag/Literature/AMPM-OPT.PDF
Figure 9: This is Figure A39 in GeophysA.pdf. Straight lines indicate linear anomalies that
were not analyzed. The sensor height has been subtracted from the total depths that were
determined.
With the data in Figure 8, the calculations of mass are as follows:
Page 21
line E410 (S236): (4.74 nT) * [4.8 ft = 1.46 m]3 / [200 * 0.28 Am2/kg] = 1.8 kg
line E419 (S241): (10.52 nT) * [2.2 ft = 0.67 m]3 / [200 * 0.28 Am2/kg] = 0.06 kg
The estimates in Figure 8 and Figure 9 have different depths; those in Figure 9 are 0.2
m greater. However, one must not expect perfection.
The half-width analysis of Figure 9 was done with a computer program. It first located
anomaly peaks and then sorted them by amplitude. Starting at a peak value, the readings
along a line to the north, east, south, and west were listed for a short distance, allowing the
background values to be estimated by eye and then input to the program. The distance from
the peak anomaly to a reading that was midway between that peak and the background was
determined for the four directions; the average of these four distances was estimated to be
half the depth of the object below the magnetic sensor.
While this computer program worked rather well, it is now easier to estimate depth by
other procedures.
These rough approximations of mass have been determined by measuring the
magnetic moments of many objects and artifacts. Some of these parameters can be found in
another publication of mine: "The magnetic properties of archaeological materials", 2002
(second edition), file "magParms.pdf"; you can find this on ResearchGate, or by searching for
the title on the web.
If volume is more understandable than mass, you can convert with the densities that
are approximated below:
material density, kg/m3
iron 6000
iron-containing glass slag 3500
basalt, granite 3000
sand 2400
brick 2000
ceramic 1700
soil 1700
fired earth 1500
Figure 10: As indicated at the top of the map, the parameters of the Earth's magnetic field
were set to be: Magnitude = 53,200 nT; inclination = 66°; declination = 7° west of grid north
(see the arrow above the map).
Figure 11: The actual and estimated depths of the features that cause the anomalies are:
Page 22
depth depth
dipole actual estimated
1 0.3 0.41
2 0.6 0.72
3 0.3 0.42
4 0.3 0.44
5 0.6 0.65
6 0.3 0.52
7 1.2 1.86
8 0.6 0.71
Estimated depths are typically 0.1 m greater than actual depths; the exception is the deepest
dipole (number 7) that has an oval anomaly. The analysis bar for anomaly 7 should have
crossed the anomaly along its narrow width.
The total gradient has been calculated using the Oasis montaj viewer that may be
downloaded at no cost from the Geosoft company (www.geosoft.com) after registering.
Version 7.3 was applied for this analysis, although newer versions are available now. This
Oasis montaj viewer is a large and complex program, but the manual for its operation is quite
complete. The viewer is at:
http://www.geosoft.com/support/downloads/viewers/oasis-montaj-viewer
The calculation of the total gradient is done with software that is easily added to the
Oasis montaj viewer. These additions are called Geosoft Executables, and are similar to
subroutines or plug-ins. A group of these additions are available from the U.S. Geological
Survey along with a report that describes their usage (Open-File Report 2007-1355, by
Jeffrey D. Phillips, "Geosoft eXecutables (GX's) developed by the U.S. Geological Survey,
version 2.0, with notes on GX development from Fortran code"). This report is available at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1355/pdf/of07-1355.pdf
and the GX files are found at:
ftp://ftpext.usgs.gov/pub/cr/co/denver/musette/pub/gx/
where one can select a version that matches that of the Oasis montaj viewer.
I appreciate it that Geosoft allows this free viewer to be the basis for analyses with the
extra software that has been added by the U.S. Geological survey.
After the Oasis montaj program has been installed, the file "USGSgx70_setup.exe"
can be run and it will place the GX routines in the correct folder; newer versions may not
have this setup option. When the viewer program is running, go to menu GX, then Load GX,
and indicate that the file is usgsv.omn; after this, the routines will be found at the USGSv
pulldown menu. Select "Grid Interpretation" then "Total gradient and gradient components".
Page 23
The input file is then specified; this can be a binary or ASCII grid file in the Golden Software
format, or several other grid formats. The output files are then specified. The final five
numerical values may be left at their default values:
Order of initializing polynomials: 0
Number of minimum curvature iterations: 100
Gradient window size: 3
Gradient polynomial order: 2
Percent Expansion: 25.0
Hit the OK button to start the calculations. When finished, the "Output total-gradient
grid file" may be displayed in the viewer, or it may need to be converted to another format
from the binary Geosoft GRD format for plotting with another program.
This is not reduction to the pole, although that process can yield a similar result. For a
reduction to the pole, it is necessary to know the direction of magnetization in each of the
objects, and this can change from one object to another.
Figure 12: The notes for Figure 11 describe the calculation of the total gradient. The USGS
executable called "USGS_TGRAD" was also applied to this bombproof data. White areas
within closely-spaced contour lines indicate that the gradients there are greater than 5 nT/m.
There is an excellent paper that describes total gradient as it applies to dipolar
anomalies: Salem, A., D. Ravat, T. J. Gamey, and K. Ushijima, 2002, "Analytic signal
approach and its applicability in environmental magnetic applications", Journal of Applied
Geophysics, volume 49, pages 231–244. Another good paper is: Xiong Li, 2006,
"Understanding 3D analytic signal amplitude", Geophysics, volume 71, number 2, pages L13
- L16.
Chuck Young has suggested a procedure that can aid the determination of the
half-widths of the anomalies in a total-gradient map: Convert the linear spacing between
contour lines to a logarithmic interval by changing the amplitude to 10 * log (magnetic
anomaly), where the log is to the base ten. The diameter of the anomaly at its half-width
level is then found by selecting the third contour line from the peak. This method is described
in: Charles T. Young, 2004, "improving magnetic anomaly maps by computing the analytic
signal with MatLab", Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and
Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), Environment and Engineering Geophysical Society,
pages 1342 - 1349.
This logarithmic transform has also been suggested in another publication that shows
its capability for allowing both faint and strong anomalies to be clear in a magnetic map: Bill
Morris, Matt Pozza, Joe Boyce, and George Leblanc, 2001, "Enhancement of magnetic data
by logarithmic transformation", The Leading Edge, volume 20, pages 882 - 885.
Figure 13: The MagPick program comes with a detailed (246 pages) manual; a technical
Page 24
description of the program is included in an article: Mikhail Tchernychev and D.D. “Skip”
Snyder, 2007, "Open source magnetic inversion programming framework and its practical
applications", Journal of Applied Geophysics, volume 61, pages 184 - 193. Ian Moffat, at a
South Australian survey firm called Archaeometry, has written a 3-page introduction to some
parts of the program as "Moff’s Guide to Magpick Operation". A few examples of applying
MagPick are included in a 2010 report from Geometrics: "MagMap2000 and MagPick:
Essential data processing procedures and operational review", which is available at:
ftp://geom.geometrics.com/pub/mag/Manuals/magmap-magpick-2010_Final.pdf
Figure 14: This version of the magnetic map shows colors in square blocks; this blocky look
is not seen in Figure 13, which has smoother changes in color. The smoothness in Figure 13
is created by interpolating data between the actual measurements. While smooth maps are
pretty for a publication, it is much faster to analyze the unsmoothed data in Figure 14, even if
it is somewhat blocky.
Figure 15: Detailed information about the operation of the MagPick program follows. Some
of the failings of the program that are noted here may be corrected in future versions.
File \ Open Grid File works easily, but the image is always too small. One needs to go
to Options \ Size and juggle the X-size Cell and Zoom-Out a few times until the map fits the
space available. I do not understand why two settings are needed for scaling the map; note
these settings for future use, for the program may not save them. Window Zoom is
something else; it may set the expansion of a R-Click \ Zoom.
If pick lines are drawn on the map in the wrong locations (for example, at the upper left
side of a map), set Options \ Scale \ Zoom-out to be a value of 100%.
The manual does not mention how to change back to a normal cursor. Edit \ Select
does this.
Images in the map are rather blocky because each grid cell has one color; in Options \
Size, check "autoscale on zoom" and "interpolate in zoom" to get full color range and
smoothed color shift after zooming with R-click \ Zoom.
The IGRF parameters in the program are good for 2005, but wrong for 2015 or later;
therefore the program has not been updated to IGRF12. As an example, calculate the
parameters at lon = -50, lat = +50, elev = 0. 2005 gives same values for both: Be = 52,149.5;
Ie = 69.27; De = -21.27. 2015 gives almost same Ie and De, but Be is quite different:
MagPick = 51,620.4; Geomag = 51,597.9.
A contour line width of 1 is too thin, while a value of 2 is too wide; no fractional value
between is allowable.
The following are good pallet numbers when a map has contour lines: 2, 16, 20=22, or
42. These are lighter colored; contours are lost if the colors are too dark.
Edit \ Auto Pick generates a very large number of high-low pairs, and only a small
Page 25
fraction of these are suitable dipolar anomalies. One can Edit \ Delete All Picks to remove
them.
The manual does not mention how an anomaly that has only a single visible polarity
should be analyzed. Perhaps one should just click on the peak, and then to the side where
the nearest opposite anomaly is found.
Inversion gives the same results independent of the order of marking the pairs of picks
(high and low) for each anomaly.
The area for analysis is in the active window that has the bright band on top. All pick
pairs that are within this window will be analyzed for the dipole parameters. Therefore, if this
active window includes some anomalies that have already been analyzed, they will be
analyzed again, with new dipole numbers and values added to the worksheets. If pick pairs
are inside the active window, but outside the magnetic map (shown by colors and contours in
the zoomed area), those pairs are not analyzed again when Inverse \ Run is selected. If only
one end point of a pick pair is within the rectangle that is selected in the zoomed window, that
pick is not analyzed; both ends of a pick must be within the magnetic map before they are
interpreted.
If a map (or analysis window) has two dipolar anomalies and only the weaker anomaly
has been picked, the stronger anomaly will be analyzed, and not the weaker one.
It is best to pick and analyze one anomaly at a time; zoom in so that the rectangle
encloses most of the anomaly and little else. Then the analysis of that anomaly is very fast.
Do not turn on "Interpolate in Zoom" for this takes much more time for analysis.
If an anomaly is zoomed into (so that a single anomaly is in the window), then the
inversion is done with the data only in that window. If the pick pair is part of the entire map,
prior picks in the map are also inverted, and this generates new points and takes a long time.
Those extra solutions can be deleted with Inverse \ Worksheet \ Dipoles, then Delete after
selecting row by clicking on it.
Analyze picks with Inverse \ Run. This iteration is much slower if an anomaly has
been zoomed in, as compared to the full map (if the zoomed map has been interpolated).
The dipole location is marked with a plus + with a sequential number next to it. One can
remove the plus and number (along with the dipole parameters) with Inverse \ Remove
Results \ Dipoles.
Inversion parameters: Elevation is the depth of magnetic sensor below ground, and is
therefore the negative of its height.
Three files are generated at the end of each inversion: calc.grd, diff.grd, and
positions.dat (this last has all of the parameters of the model dipoles). These files may be
saved under new names, for they will be overwritten during the next analysis.
Calculate the final magnetic field of a map that has a large number of dipoles after all
other displays have been saved; use: Inverse \ Run with a single iteration. After this
calculation, the map will contain twice the former number of + and dipole numbers, and
Page 26
cannot be used further without removing half of those dipoles.

See the parameters from the analysis with Inverse \ Worksheet \ Dipoles Then save
the solution parameters (while the worksheet is open) with File \ Export and save as a *.csv
file with headers defining the columns.
Divide the moments J that are determined by 103 to get Am2 (or consider them to have
the unit of mAm2.
If the grid and other dimensions have units of feet; depths and locations are correct (in
feet) but the moments must be changed. Divide them by 35.3*(103) to get moments in Am2,
where 35.3 = 3.28(3)
One can print to PDF (set size to 100%) okay; however, there is a fault in the text of
the X-axis. Other faults are also seen in other Previews; this printing option is not to be
trusted.
Remove picks with (Edit \ Delete All Picks) and pick lines are gone; remove inversion
data with (Inverse \ Remove Results \ Dipoles) and + and # are gone.
Convert profiles to a grid with: Profiles \ Interpolate Grid \ Splines (This option is better
than the two others)
Edit \ Direction allows plotting of an arrow: Left-click on tail point, then head. Does this
affect "Preferred direction" for anomalies on page 23 of manual? A direction appears to be
needed for Inverse \ Sort worksheet
Operations \ Lift Data is not described in the manual. Operations \ Background
appears to do spatial filtering.
Operations \ Relax Grid smooths the grid file.
File \ Preview does not work (the program "Crashes", but one can continue). I found
that this sometimes works, but not well.
File \ New opens a new window that says "View" and nothing appears to be done with
it; however, if one loads profiles, there is an option here for Grid View (shows a approximate
square with zig-zag lines) and Profile View (shows the separate vertical ? lines of data).
Notes on the MagPick.pdf manual:
p16: Saving projects with Windows 7.
p18: This introduction to viewing maps has many differences from what the software actually
does; the example with the Tutorials at the end may be better.
p19: Wrap color scale.
p21: Remember to press Calculate after the contour range and interval is selected.
p26: Good information on gradient palettes; allows editing of colors.
p27: Dummy grid, for the calculation of a forward model?
p28: Good information on color equalization.
p32: Compare simple picking (high and low in any order), with rectangular picking (draw a
rectangle in area of the high, then another rectangle in the area of the low); rectangular
picking does not appear to be needed; it just seeks the exact extrema and that is not
Page 27
necessary.
p82: Grid operations: remove polynomial trend, smoothing, and similar.
p118: Says that igrf.dat is with MagPick folder, but it is not.
p119: upwards continuation, reduction to the pole, and similar.
p122: Dipole analysis from a gridded map.
p124: Note that the cgs unit for dipole moment is used.
p127: inversion results are in a worksheet; this suggests that a rectangular window is used
for inversion. The *.csv file from MagPick lists 0 for all of the X and Y values of the corners;
therefore the window is not saved.
p128: Inversion \ Run Batch to analyze a group of pick pairs. How is this different from
Inversion \ Run ?
p129: No correction for demagnetization.
p137: Export to Google Earth; good information.
p144: Export to TIF; this is probably the best output.
p151: Good information on GSview.
p166: Add annotations to a map: N arrow, scale, ... One may need to increase the width of
the white margin on the page; see Options \ Size to change margins. One can also save a
copy of these annotations; they can then be put on another map.
p182: Some tutorials are helpful; in particular number 23.1 on "Display grid map" is an
excellent place to start learning about the program.
p195: Tutorial 23.5, "Finding magnetic dipoles", is fairly good.
Figure 16: Note that the magnetization values (J) are intended to be mAm2; since the
distance unit for this survey was feet, the value must be corrected to get a moment in Am2.
The ######## simply indicates a format error in Excel; the values there are actually -47.1
(above) and -2971.
Figure 17: If the magnetic map had its dimensions in meters, the J values in MagPick would
be divided by 1000 to get magnetic moment, in Am2. Since distances on the map, and also
the sensor height, were in feet, the J values should be divided by 35,300 to get the moment
in Am2. This 35,300 is simply 1000 * 3.283, where 1 m = 3.28 ft.
If it is assumed that the objects have a relative magnetic moment of 0.3 Am2/kg, then
the masses can be calculated as follows:
anom Z (ft) J (A/ft) M, Am2 mass, kg
1 1.5 4.91e+3 0.139 0.46
2 0 1.13e+3 0.032 0.11
3 1.4 5.55e+3 0.157 0.52
Page 28
Figure 18: The scale in the figure indicates 20 m, but it is actually 20 ft (In MagPick, this
scale can have units of meters only). No contour lines have been drawn where the
magnitudes of the anomalies are greater than 10 nT.
Here is the procedure for operating MagPick, using the file bombproof.grd, and
analyzing the largest anomaly, which is near E420 S205 (this is the anomaly with black
contour lines in Figure 7):
Note: R = Right, L = Left
File, Open grid file, bombproof.grd; see initial map
Options, Size: Keep cells squared = checked; X-size, cell = 6
Zoom out = 100; Window zoom = 2
autoscale on zoom = interpolate in zoom = no check
Left margin = 80; right margin = 120
Top margin = Bottom margin = 100
Options, Settings: Show x grid = Show y grid = checked and X = Y = 10
Autoscale = Wrap color scale = no check
Data min = -10; Data max = 10
Show color map = Show contours = checked
Map plot options: Simple color map
Change palette: Uniform; Palette # = 25;
Equalize colors = check; Reverse colors = no check
Contour options: Fixed value = checked
Min = -10; Max = 10; Interval = 1, Calculate
Fast drawing = checked
R-click (Right-click) on the map, Add, Add color scale, click near map bottom
L-Click (Left-click) on the scale and adjust its width and location
R-click on the scale, Edit, adjust scale properties
R-click on the map, Add, Add north arrow, click on location
L-click on the arrow, R-click on the arrow, Edit
Simple Arrow direction = Use azimuth; Azimuth = -7
R-click on the map, Add, Add annotation, then double L-click, edit text
for axes, title, and magnetic north
File, Projects, Save As, bombproof; this is the map of Figure 18
without the selections of dipole pairs.
Start interpretation: R-click on the map, zoom,
draw a rectangle around the large anomaly near E420 S205,
and see an enlarged map of this anomaly.
R-click on that enlarged map, Simple pick,
click on high and low (in either order).
Inverse, Run; set Inversion Parameters:
Page 29
Main field inclination = 66, declination = -7,

Azimuth of X axes = 90, Total magnetic field = 53200
Susceptibility = 0, Remnant = 1 (neither is important now)
Elevation = -2.46, Initial depth = 1
Margin space = 0, Number of iterations = 100, Limit to stop = 0
Grid type = GS ASCII, J scale = 1
Do not check misfit = checked
Files: positions.dat, calc.grd, diff.grd, Object type = dipole
Start iterations
Three files are calculated (positions.dat, calc.grd, and diff.grd).
A plus sign locates the dipole in the map,
and the anomaly is numbered as 1, and it is located in Figure 18.
Inverse, Worksheet, Dipoles, and
see the coordinates XYZ in the Dipole sheet.
Close the windows for the Dipole sheet and the zoomed map,
and return to the original map.
Select another anomaly or cluster of anomalies for analysis.
Figure 19: This analysis has assumed the following parameters for the Earth's field:
Magnitude = 53,200 nT ; inclination = 66°. The corrections will change with these
parameters, but they may still be valuable over a wide area.
Both gradiometers are assumed to output differences, rather than gradients; this is not
important when the sensor spacing is 1 m, since the gradient and difference values are then
the same.
Dipole 1 is located at X=1, Y=1, and Z=0.2 m (depth)
Dipole 2 is located at X=-1, Y=-1, and Z=0.4 m (depth)
Dipole 1 has inclination=60°, declination=30°
Dipole 2 has inclination=40°, declination=60°
Dipole 1 has a magnetic moment of 0.1 Am2
Dipole 2 has a magnetic moment of 0.2 Am2
Column "Fit" is the finding from MagPick about the difference between the calculated model
and the measurements; it indicates the analysis error.
Column "J total" lists the magnetic moments calculated by MagPick, in mAm2
Column "correct Z" shows the multiplier to convert calculated to true depths
Column "correct J" shows the multiplier to convert calculated to true moments
Figure 20: This simple equation is correct only if the inclination of the Earth's magnetic field
is vertical. However, it is a valuable approximation at any place where the inclination is
steep, perhaps steeper than 70°. If the object is not compact, but instead is elongated, then
Page 30
the exponent 3 (called the structural index) no longer applies, although a lower number may
be substituted.
The idea for estimating the depth of a feature with this procedure appears to have
originated with Sheldon Breiner and Peter Hood: Sheldon Breiner, 1962, "Magnetic field
derivatives in geophysical interpretation", Master of Science thesis, Stanford University
(available at www.geometrics.com as file M-TR135.pdf); Peter Hood, 1965, "Gradient
measurements in aeromagnetic surveying", Geophysics, volume 30, pages 891 - 902 (see
page 899).
This idea was also applied by John Weymouth (University of Nebraska); see: John W.
Weymouth, 1976, "A magnetic survey of the Walth Bay site (39WW203)", Occasional Studies
in Anthropology number 3, with information at:
https://www.nps.gov/mwac/Publications/abstracts/oc3.html
John summarized his procedure in another report: John W. Weymouth, 2000, "On the relation
between the profile of a magnetic anomaly and the depth of the source", University of
Nebraska, Lincoln.
On page 33 of his Walth Bay report, John develops the equation shown in black in
Figure 20 here; he applied this equation to an estimate of the depth of the feature that caused
an anomaly (see his page 22). This procedure does not appear to have been applied by
John, or anyone else, at a later time. While the pair of readings from a gradiometer would
allow one to estimate depths of the anomalies in a measured area, it is now usual to apply a
similar and related method: The magnetic field is measured at a single elevation and three
perpendicular gradients are calculated from the map of the measurements. With these
gradients, one can estimate depths with Euler deconvolution.
Good information on the ideas and methods of Euler deconvolution is found in the
following publications:
A. B. Reid, J. M. Allsop, H. Granser, A. J. Millet and I. W. Somerton, 1990, "Magnetic
interpretation in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution", Geophysics, volume 55, pages
80 - 91.
D. Ravat, 1996, "Analysis of the Euler method and its applicability in environmental
magnetic investigations", Journal of Engineering and Environmental Geophysics (JEEG),
volume 1, pages 229 - 238.
Armik Yaghoobian, Glenn A. Boustead, and Tim M. Dobush, 1993, "Object delineation
using Euler's Homogeneity equation: Location and depth determination of buried
ferro-metallic bodies, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to
Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), pages 613 - 632.
Felipe F. Melo, Valeria C. F. Barbosa, Leonardo Uieda, Vanderlei C. Oliveira Jr., and
João B. C. Silva, 2013, "Estimating the nature and the horizontal and vertical positions of 3D
magnetic sources using Euler deconvolution", Geophysics, volume 78, pages J87 - J98.
Ruizhong Jia and R. W. Groom, 2004, "On inversion Of gradient magnetic data for
Page 31
detection of multiple buried metallic objectives [objects]", Symposium on the Application of

Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), pages 1772 - 1778.
available at: www.petroseikon.com/resources/technical.php
There are many other procedures for analysis that are similar to Euler deconvolution,
and most have been derived from it. Two excellent publications that compare some of these
procedures are the following:
Xiong Li, 2003, "On the use of different methods for estimating magnetic depth", The
Leading Edge (a magazine of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists), volume 22, pages
1090 - 1099.
Reece van Buren, 2013, "Multi-scale tilt depth estimation", a Master of Science
dissertation at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, available at:
http://mobile.wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/14011
Figure 21: The analysis was done using standard Euler deconvolution. The procedure is
described by Jeffrey Phillips: 2002, "Two-step processing for 3D magnetic source locations
and structural indices using extended Euler or analytic signal methods", SEG Technical
Program Expanded Abstracts, SEG 72nd Annual Meeting, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, pages 727 - 730. However, the two-step process was not needed since a
structural index of three could be assumed.
Note that one can enter gradiometer data into a Euler deconvolution; for compact
objects, the structural index is increased from 3 to 4. However, since the procedure assumes
ideal gradients (infinitesimal sensor spacing), it would be necessary to test the effect of the
larger (0.5 - 1 m) sensor spacings that are common for gradiometers.
The processing was done with the USGS GX routines that have been discussed
above, along with the Oasis montaj viewer. The first step applied the GX usgs_seteuler.gx;
this calculated the gradients that were needed for the following step. Default values were set
for the parameters: order=0, iters=100, win=3, order=2, expans=25. This process created 11
grid files, although not all were applied to the later processing.
The main processing for Euler deconvolution was done with the GX routine
usgs_eulerave. Ben Drenth (US Geological Survey) has added valuable notes to Jeffrey
Phillips' Open-File Report 2007-1355 (described above), and mentions that this procedure is
not sensitive to remnant magnetization of the magnetic features. This procedure does allow
magnetic measurements that were made on an irregular surface, although the grid of sensor
elevations must match the grid of magnetic measurements.
The width of the square window for analysis ranged between 3 ft and 15 ft for this
analysis; this window size should be selected so that the moving window encompasses as
much of each single anomaly as possible, while it never includes more than one anomaly.
The multiple plus symbols locate the centers of these square windows where the analysis has
suggested that there is an object below; a number of squares near each object give good
Page 32
solutions and so are marked here. There are procedures for reducing the number of extra
symbols, but these have not been tried for this example.
The deconvolution settings that were applied here were:
Leave: Input observation surface grid file = blank
Set: Observation surface elevation = 2.46 (ft)
Leave: Input minimum depth surface grid file = blank
Set: Minimum depth surface elevation = 0
Set: Elevation units / horizontal units = 1
Leave: Input magnetic anomaly grid file = bpgc.grd
(This is the bombproof grid converted to Geosoft format)
Leave: grid file names as created
(except delete Hilbert names)
Leave: Minimum structural index = 3 (this is the exponent in Figure 20)
Set: window size = 3, 7, and 15 on separate tests
Leave: Type of depth error to use = Percent
Set: Maximum error in depth = 5
Leave: Maximum horizontal distance = 0
Set: Maximum depth = 3
Set: Output post file
After the processing is finished, a database file is created that lists the parameters of
the many solutions that are created; the parameters of depth and location have been plotted
in Figure 21.
If the analysis creates too few points, increase the parameter "maximum error in
depth" or add Hilbert files; if there are too many solutions, do the opposite.
Figure 22: The depths (actually elevations) were multiplied by -1 in order to simplify the
labels on the contour lines. The data were gridded using Kriging (in Surfer, from Golden
Software) with its default values.
Figure 23: This is Figure C49 in GeophysC.pdf. Not all of the dipolar anomalies were
analyzed with this method. The computer program was one that I wrote, and it is called
MdMagC (Multiple-dipole magnetic analysis, constrained); the direction of magnetization of
each dipole in a group can be constrained to remain the same as that of the other dipoles in
the group. While this constraint was not applied here, it is a valuable method for
approximating complex features with a group of dipoles.
Figure 24: This is simply a combination of Figure 9 and Figure 23 in this report. Figure 30
also compares two analyses of the bombproof area.
Page 33
Figure 25: As noted before, this total-field magnetic survey was made with a sensor height of
0.75 m (2.46 ft) on 7 August 1992 with a measurement spacing of 1 ft (0.3 m) and
measurement traverses to the south.
Figure 26: Only a few of the anomalies that were studied are outlined here, and the colors
are not important. It appears that anomalies that have a very small area (very shallow
objects) may be included in a polygon for analysis, but do not need to be analyzed, and they
do not affect the findings.
The parameters of the Earth's magnetic field that were applied to this analysis were as
above: Be = 53,200 nT; Ie = 66°; Dg = magnetic declination relative to grid north = -7° (mag
N is 7° West of grid North).
Figure 27: Elevations are usually negative (that is, the objects are underground), but a few
small-area anomalies have "depths" that are above the ground surface. These faults are
caused by small errors in the locations of the measurements. Multiply elevations or depths in
this figure by 0.3048 to convert those values to meters.
The Potent program estimates the intensity of magnetization for its magnetic models;
this magnetization is assumed to have the unit of Am (Ampere-meter). Since distances in the
map were in feet, the values from Potent were converted to magnetic moment, in Am2, with
the following method:
J = Intensity of magnetization, A/ft from Potent (with XYZ in feet)
V = volume of sphere in cubic feet = (4/3) * pi * (D/2)3
= 1.333 * 3.1415 * 0.13 = 0.004189 ft3
where D = diameter (in feet) = 0.2 ft
M = V * J = magnetic moment, in Am2
= V * J (Potent) * (0.3048)3
where 0.3048 = multiplier to convert feet to meters
= J (Potent) * 0.00001186
= J (Potent) / 8429
The resulting magnetic moments are plotted in Figure 27.
Figure 28: This map has also be prepared with the Potent program. For the analysis of
some anomalies, it was necessary to fix some parameters; some of the rather simple or
round numbers for the angles of magnetization are caused by this. The parameters of these
dipoles are as follows:
# = dipole number; X = East distance, ft; Y = North distance, ft; M = magnetic moment, Am2,
D = declination of magnetization, degrees; I = inclination of magnetization, degrees
Page 34
# X Y Z M D I
1 421.3 -203.8 -0.6 1.186 -18 31
2 413.6 -217.1 -2 0.104 13 34
3 401.9 -219.7 -1 0.057 -28 71
4 400.6 -215.4 -1.3 0.046 0 80
5 393.3 -216.4 -1 0.049 -50 51
6 402.6 -192.4 -2.2 0.168 -10 42
7 403 -202.1 -2 0.129 -21 62
8 412.2 -191.5 0.1 0.016 20 40
9 405.3 -208.7 -2 0.047 -31 80
10 389.6 -203.5 -1.1 0.095 0 80
11 385.9 -198.6 -1.4 0.178 -45 15
12 394.5 -200.9 0.1 0.029 0 20
13 389 -208 -1 0.03 0 80
14 385.5 -186.1 0.4 0.037 49 174
15 404.8 -180.6 -0.7 0.024 0 60
16 389.1 -221.2 0.2 0.019 6 17
17 380.7 -223.4 0 0.027 -9 4
18 385.5 -218.1 -6.4 0.49 26 145
19 422.8 -222.4 -1.5 0.047 30 60
20 419.2 -239 0 0.049 4 23
21 409.5 -234.8 -2.5 0.074 0 80
22 417 -245 -0.8 0.026 0 80
23 406.5 -244.1 -0.8 0.017 0 80
24 404.4 -239.4 -0.5 0.018 -45 40
25 416.3 -249.9 -0.5 0.009 -45 70
26 394.2 -239.5 -2.6 0.271 -24 62
27 373.2 -248.2 -1.8 0.076 -42 27
Page 35
# X Y Z M D I
28 381.4 -245.8 -0.2 0.028 -9 46
29 387.8 -230.9 0 0.008 56 49
30 376.4 -236.1 -1.6 0.041 -35 46
31 379.4 -239.9 0.2 0.008 -25 25
32 400.2 -254.8 -1.4 0.123 -29 -15
33 406.3 -252.9 -2 0.036 0 -90
34 422.3 -257.7 -2.5 0.237 16 20
35 405.5 -270.4 -1.6 0.147 -21 42
36 399.8 -266.1 -0.3 0.046 14 14
37 409.1 -259.1 -2.7 0.259 -31 100
38 405.2 -261.3 -1.3 0.133 -36 11
39 375.6 -271.4 -3.1 0.332 -11 66
40 393 -265.8 -0.5 0.018 -83 35
41 390 -266.2 -0.1 0.03 -6 152
42 380.9 -256.9 -1.8 0.076 6 29
43 372.5 -260.2 -0.9 0.033 -52 20
44 355 -270.4 0.2 0.009 8 -11
45 366.4 -272.3 0.6 0.005 153 -16
46 331.2 -268.8 -2.3 0.141 37 -3
47 364.3 -253.3 -2.2 0.194 -28 111
48 340.4 -248.9 -3 0.085 -61 103
49 361.2 -244.6 -1 0.043 -1 19
50 360.7 -230.9 -1.9 0.054 -5 166
51 344.8 -233.2 -1.2 0.031 -21 38
52 328.7 -233.6 -1.3 0.071 182 76
53 335.9 -236.8 -0.2 0.012 0 60
54 360.1 -236.5 -4.3 0.17 107 38
Page 36
# X Y Z M D I
55 359.4 -185.2 -0.7 0.04 -14 126
56 362.5 -189.7 -0.3 0.03 4 31
57 343.7 -188.3 -0.8 0.061 1 5
58 337.7 -197.9 -2.5 0.318 -21 209
59 338.7 -200.8 -3.7 0.608 -75 105
60 363.1 -204.1 -4 0.211 -43 140
61 357.8 -196.4 -2.7 0.179 -6 36
62 346.6 -197.3 -6.5 0.933 -66 82
63 338.5 -177.2 -0.1 0.018 -23 -20
In this table, if I > 90, then the angle can be changed to 180 - I, and D to 180 + D.
Figure 29: The largest remainder is at anomaly 1, near East 421, South 204; the broad area
of this residual anomaly suggests that there may be more than one object at this location.
There is also a large residual at anomaly 2 (near E413 S217); there is an error in this model
that has not been corrected. Linear anomalies were not analyzed, and they remain in this
map. Since this was a scalar subtraction, it has some errors, but it is still a good indicator of
the quality of the analysis.
Figure 30: The depths are listed with a greater precision than is indicated by their accuracy.
Some anomalies were analyzed with only one or the other program; no attempt was made at
analyzing exactly the same anomalies with both programs. The elevations from Potent have
been converted to depths for this plot. The depths from MagPick appear to be generally
deeper than the findings from the Potent program.
Figure 31: A basic analysis procedures for these directions is described by: C. C. Schnetzler
and P. T. Taylor, 1984, "Evaluation of an observational method for estimation of remnant
magnetization", Geophysics, volume 49, pages 282 - 290.
Further information about this topic may be found in a publication of mine: 2009,
"Directions of magnetization", a poster presented at the March 2009 Computer Applications in
Archaeology conference. The published version of this work is available at:
http://proceedings.caaconference.org/files/2009/03_Bevan_CAA2009.pdf
The plots of directions are from GeophysC.pdf, Figure C53; the data from the analysis
with the Potent program are not shown here. The plots within the circles show the direction
of magnetization in a Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection. The center of each circle is
Page 37
an inclination of 90°, while the perimeter of the circles is an inclination of 0°. Blue symbols,
only at (B), mean that the inclination is negative.
Page 38
Figure 1: An earthen fort that was built in 1864. A magnetic survey within the red square (30
m on a side) provides an example of the analysis of dipolar anomalies. The ridges or
parapets of the D-shaped fort were constructed from soil, mostly dug from inside the fort;
these ridges were originally over 2 m tall, but the entire fort was leveled about a year after it
was built.
This fort was built by soldiers of the northern army during the American Civil War. The
fortifications of the southern army were about 600 m toward the west. This battlefield is 200
km south of the US capitol city of Washington. Notes (further information about the figure)
Figure 2: Results of several geophysical surveys. The anomalies from different instruments
are located here with colors; this square area is outlined in Figure 1. A ground-penetrating
radar was particularly good for tracing the bottoms of refilled trenches (red color). The letter
T is in the middle of one trench; similar trenches (about 2 m wide) extend over much of this
area. A resistivity survey detected part of one trench, at R. The deepest features were two
powder magazines; these are located near "PM" in the figure, and both were suggested by
the radar survey and also by a deep-exploring conductivity meter, the Geonics model EM31.
Notes
Figure 3: Refilled trenches and other military excavations. The green patterns fill the areas
of excavation that were made in 1864. Almost all of these were revealed by the radar survey;
see the red lines in Figure 2. The two shapes on the left (truncated pyramids of soil) locate
the two powder magazines; explosives for the cannons were stored in these deep shelters.
The trenches that extend east-west on the right are called bombproof trenches; soldiers were
protected from falling mortar shells by sitting on benches below the soil-covered roofs. Notes
Figure 4: A cross-section of the bombproof trenches. The upper drawing is a tracing of an historical diagram of these
trenches; logs support a layer of soil over trenches that have benches on one side. The lower image shows the clarity of
ground-penetrating radar profiles that detected the bottoms of the trenches. This radar profile suggests a fourth trench near
s260, to the right; this trench is not included in the drawing, and it may have been added later. Notes
Magnetic map, total field, contour interval = 10 nT
3
N (magnetic) Earth's field:
Magnitude = 53,200 nT
Inclination = 66 degrees
Declination = 0 degrees
2
North distance, unit

1
low=-21
0 object high=175
depth:
1 unit
-1
-2
-3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East distance, unit
Magnetic map, gradient, contour interval = 10 nT/m

3
N (magnetic) Earth's field:
Inclination = 66 degrees
Declination = 0 degrees
2
1
low=-15
high=166
0 object
depth:
1 unit
-1
-2 Vertical component of the magnetic field

Sensor spacing of gradiometer = 1 unit
-3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East distance, unit
Figure 5: Anomalies caused by magnetic dipoles. These objects are located at the filled
green circles. The value for length and depth can have any unit, such as meters or feet, and
the shape of the anomaly will remain unchanged. The magnetic pattern at the top is typically
measured with a cesium or Overhauser magnetometer, while the lower pattern is usually
found with a fluxgate gradiometer. Both patterns are similar, with low readings toward the
north. Note that the peak magnetic high is closer to the dipole in the gradient map (below)
than in the total field map (above). Notes
200
Effect of measurement spacing
Magnetic dipole
Depth = 1 unit
Total field
150 spacing = about 0 Earth:
Ie = 66 degrees
De = 0 degrees
Magnetic anomaly, nT
100
spacing = 1 unit
50
-50
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Figure 6: The cross-section of a dipolar anomaly. The magnitude of the magnetic high is
usually much greater than that of the low (which is found near North 1 here). While the
correct pattern is a smooth curve (black), measurements in the field will be widely-spaced in
order to save time (circled points on the red curve).
If the measurements are spaced too widely, the analysis of the dipolar anomalies will
have errors. This figure suggests that an object that is 1 m underground could be readily
detected with a measurement spacing of 1 m; however, the measured anomaly (the red
curve) would have a peak amplitude and width that are different from the correct values
(revealed by the black curve). Notes
N (magnetic)
magnetic high 5m
magnetic low
Fort Morton, bombproof, contour lines at 1 nT (colored) or 5 nT (black)

-175
-195
bombproof
PM
trench
bombproof
-215
North distance, ft
bombproof
-235
PM
-255
-275
325 345 trench 365 385 405 425
East distance, ft
Figure 7: The magnetic map near the bombproof at Fort Morton. The green lines
approximate the edges of buried trenches (see Figure 3). Colored contour lines are at
intervals of 1 nT; for anomalies that are greater than 5 nT, the lines are drawn in black at
intervals of 5 nT. Most of the anomalies here could be caused by metallic objects of iron or
steel that are underground. This density of iron objects is not unusual for an historical site.
Notes
Fort Morton, bombproof detail, contour lines at 1 nT N (magnetic)
-230
North distance, ft -235
magnetic high
-240
magnetic low
-245
2.5 m
-250
400 405 410 415 420 425
East distance, ft
12
8
Magnetic anomaly, nT
2.2 ft
4.8 ft
0 line E410
line E419
-4
-250 -245 -240 -235 -230
North distance, ft
Figure 8: Estimates of depth from the half-width rule. Part of the magnetic map from Figure
7 is enlarged at the top; profiles that cross two anomalies are plotted below. Dashed
(broken) lines indicate the width of two anomalies at half of their peak amplitudes. The
maximum depth of the objects underground is this half-width minus the sensor height (which
was 2.5 ft). One object (the black line) may therefore be 2.3 ft underground (4.8 ft - 2.5 ft, or
0.7 m). The green curve suggests that the object is above the ground surface; this is
impossible, but the object must be very shallow. Notes
Figure 9: A half-width analysis of the bombproof magnetic map. The measurements of the
magnetic survey are plotted in Figure 7. The red symbols estimate the location of
underground objects. The pair of nearby numbers list the estimated mass of the objects
(above, kg), and the depth of the objects (below, m). Notes
# M I D Z
1 0.1 60 15 -0.3
2 0.5 -45 -30 -0.6
3 0.4 45 0 -0.3
magnetic high 4 0.2 30 -45 -0.3
magnetic low 5 0.3 75 30 -0.6
N (magnetic) 6 0.4 -15 -15 -0.3
7 1.5 0 60 -1.2
Calculated anomaly of 8 magnetic dipoles, contours at 5 nT interval 8 0.3 60 30 -0.6
10
Be = 53,200 nT; Ie = 66 deg; Dg = -7 deg
Hs = 0.5 m
9 6
7
3
7
6
North distance, m
5 4
2
4
8
1
1 5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
East distance, m
Figure 10: Magnetic anomalies that have been calculated. Some show a clear high-low pair
(such as anomaly 3 in the upper left), while others are seen as only a high (number 5 at the
lower center), or only a low (number 2 at the lower left). Some anomalies have a low to the
north of the high (3), while others have the low at a different direction (number 7 at the upper
right). These differences are the result of remnant magnetization, which is common with
steel objects and other features that have become magnetized after being heated (such as
brick or igneous stone) and have then been moved. Notes
# M I D Z
1 0.1 60 15 -0.3
2 0.5 -45 -30 -0.6
3 0.4 45 0 -0.3
magnetic high 4 0.2 30 -45 -0.3
5 0.3 75 30 -0.6
N (magnetic) 6 0.4 -15 -15 -0.3
7 1.5 0 60 -1.2
Total gradient of 8 magnetic dipoles, contours at 10 nT/m interval 8 0.3 60 30 -0.6
10
Be = 53,200 nT; Ie = 66 deg; Dg = -7 deg 0.52 m
Hs = 0.5 m
6
9
0.42 m
8
3
7 7
6 0.44 m
North distance, m
4
1.86 m
5
2
0.72 m
2
0.71 m
0.65 m 8
5
1
1
0.41 m
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
East distance, m
Figure 11: The total gradient of the magnetic field, determined from Figure 10. The
anomalies are now only highs, and their peaks are close to the dipolar sources (green
circles). This map shows that the high and low at anomalies 1 and 2 (at the lower left) are
caused by two objects, and not one. The straight blue lines cross the anomalies at half of
their peak amplitudes; this is the estimated depth of the objects below the level of the
calculations, which was 0.5 m above the assumed ground surface. The blue numbers list this
estimate of the depth underground. Notes
N (magnetic)
5m
magnetic high
Fort Morton, bombproof, total gradient, contours at 0.5 nT/m (to 5 nT/m)
-175
-195
PM
-215
North distance, ft
-235
PM
-255
-275
325 345 365 385 405 425
East distance, ft
Figure 12: The total gradient of the magnetic map for the bombproof area. Rather circular
contour lines are now centered near the sources of the anomalies. This map can be
compared to the original magnetic map of this area, in Figure 7. The lack of magnetic lows
simplifies this map. However, broad magnetic highs in the original map that were found at
the powder magazines (green PM) are now almost invisible. This is a general failing of
measurements and maps of the magnetic gradient: The anomalies of deep objects are
greatly attenuated. Notes
Figure 13: Several anomalies for analysis with the MagPick program. This map was
prepared with that program. A small section of Figure 7 (near E390 S200) is enlarged here.
Colors and contour lines reveal four magnetic highs and two or more lows. The northern two
anomalies have distinct pairs of high and low readings, and are certainly dipolar anomalies.
The lower two magnetic highs have no certain lows to be paired with. Notes
Figure 14: Selecting three anomalies for analysis. Lines connect the high and low pairs of
these anomalies; the ends of the lines do not need to be at the high and low extremes of the
anomalies. While the high-low pairs of the upper two anomalies are certain, the lower
anomaly has no low that definitely pairs with its high. Notes
Figure 15: Setting the inversion parameters for MagPick. The direction and magnitude of the
Earth's field are first entered. The "elevation" of the measurements is entered as a negative
value, since depth is defined as positive in this program. The grid file that was entered had
the non-binary format used by Golden Software, and so "GS ASCII" is selected. Three files
(positions.dat, calc.grd, and diff.grd) store the results of the inversion (locations of dipoles,
the calculated field, and the difference between the measurements and calculations). Notes
Figure 16: The result of the inversion with MagPick. In the small upper window, X and Y list
the interpreted east and north coordinate of the object, while the Z value lists the depth of
each of the three objects. The lower window lists further parameters that have been
determined by the inversion; Incl. and Decl. indicate the direction of total magnetization as an
inclination and declination angle, in degrees. The value "J total" lists the total magnetization
of the object. Notes
Figure 17: The conclusion of the analysis. The estimates of the depth and mass of three
objects are listed next to plus symbols that show the estimated locations of the objects. The
depth estimates are to the middle of the (assumed) compact objects, not to their tops. Notes
Figure 18: The analysis of the entire bombproof map with the MagPick Program. The highs
and lows of 61 dipolar anomalies have been marked here with short line segments. This
entire collection of anomalies was not analyzed all at once. Instead, small clusters of nearby
anomalies were analyzed as a group until all anomalies had been studied. Notes
Field Dip ID X Y Z Fit Inclin Declin J total correct Z correct J
TotFld 1 1 1 0.2 0.0007 60 30 100 1 1
TotFld 2 -1 -1 0.4 0.0007 40 60 200 1 1
Vdif10 1 1 1 0.16 0.7691 89.6 170.8 79.6 1.25 1.25
Vdif10 2 -0.97 -0.95 0.34 0.7691 53 74.7 148 1.18 1.35
Vdif05 1 1 1 0.11 0.7875 89.4 71.3 56.3 1.82 1.78
Vdif05 2 -0.97 -0.95 0.27 0.7875 53.6 74.8 97.3 1.48 2.06
Figure 19: Corrections for two types of gradiometers. The MagPick program assumes that
the maps for analysis have been measured with total-field magnetometers. However, one
can also analyze surveys that have been made with gradiometers which measure the vertical
component of the Earth's field (such as fluxgate instruments). An approximate correction for
two gradiometers has been calculated here: One with a sensor spacing of 0.5 m (Vdif05),
and one with a spacing of 1 m (Vdif10).
The two rows labeled "TotFld" show how the MagPick program has analyzed a pair of
dipoles (1 and 2); one was at a depth Z of 0.2 m and the other one was 0.4 m below the
magnetic sensor. The results are essentially perfect.
For a gradiometer with a sensor spacing of 1 m (Bartington), multiply the "total depths"
and moments by 1.3 to correct them. Distance or depth below the lower sensor is called the
"total depth".
For a sensor spacing of 0.5 m (Geoscan), multiply the total depths and moments that
have been calculated by MagPick by a factor of 1.8 for a correction.
As an example, if a magnetic survey has been done with a Geoscan instrument with a
sensor spacing of 0.5 m, the difference of the magnetic readings of the vertical component of
the Earth's magnetic field at the two heights is to be analyzed with MagPick. The depths
(below the height of the lower sensor) that are determined should be multiplied by 1.8 to
approximate the correct values. If the lower sensor is at a height of 0.3 m and the total depth
indicated by MagPick is 0.5 m, then multiply that by 1.8 to give 0.9 m and subtract the sensor
height to yield the estimated depth, which is 0.6 m.
Note that these corrections apply only to a given range of depths; the depths selected
here are common for many archaeological features. Notes
to infinity
at Z = -1
40
ground
surface
30
Ratio of two equations:
B1/B2 = (Z2 - Z0)3 / (Z1 - Z0)3
B, magnetic anomaly, nT
(5.93 / 2.5)0.333 = (1 - Z0) / (0.5 - Z0)

Z0 = -1
20
magnetic anomaly = constant / (distance to object)3
B = C / (Z - Z0)3 with C = 20, Z0 = -1
10
B1 = 5.93 nT
B2 = 2.5 nT
object
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Z, height above the ground, m
Figure 20: The basic idea of Euler deconvolution. Where compact objects (slightly spherical)
are underground, their magnetic anomaly changes as the cube of the distance above the
center of the object; this is summarized by the equation shown in red. If the magnetic field is
measured at two heights, giving anomalies B1 and B2, then the depth of the object (Z0) can be
calculated as shown by the equations in black; this depth is where the magnetic field would
become infinite (if the object was extremely small). With Euler deconvolution, a magnetic
map is measured at one height, and the gradient of the field is calculated from that map; this
also allows an estimation of the depth of objects. Notes
Window size
N (magnetic)
15 ft 7 ft 3 ft
5m
Fort Morton, bombproof, Euler deconvolution with three window sizes

-175
-195 N
N
D
-215
North distance, ft
-235
N
-255
D
-275
325 345 365 385 405 425
Symbol width is 5 times depth East distance, ft
Figure 21: Euler deconvolution of the bombproof map. The plus symbols have a width that is
five times the interpreted depth of the features. The color of the symbols indicates the width
of the analysis window. The best estimates of the location and depth of the objects are found
where the symbols cluster most closely. Notes
N (magnetic)
shallow 5m
deep
Fort Morton, bombproof, interpreted depths, contour lines at 0.1 ft interval
-175
1.6
2.2
1.2
1.4
1.8
1.4
1.8
2
-195 1
1.2
2.2
2
1.6
1.6
2
2
1.8
2.2 2
1.4
2
1.6
1.8
-215
2
North distance, ft
1.4
6
1.
1.2
1.4
1
1.8
1.
6
2
2
1.8
2.
2.
1.
2
2 1.8
8
2 .2
-235
1.6
2.2
1.8
2
2
2.4
2
2.2
1.6
2.2
2. 4
2.2
2
2.4
-255
2 1.4
1.8
1.8
2.
1.6.4
1.6
2
1 .2
1
-275
325 345 365 385 405 425
Window size = 7 ft East distance, ft
Figure 22: Averaged depths from the Euler deconvolution. By gridding the locations and
depths in Figure 21, a single depth may be estimated at each location where an object is
predicted. Notes
Figure 23: Complete parameters of 19 dipolar anomalies. The red symbols locate the
dipoles, while the numbers next to them list the total magnetic moment of each, its direction (I
and D), and finally its depth. These parameters were determined by an analysis that
generated a magnetic model for each anomaly; the calculated field of thesemodels was
similar to the magnetic measurements. Notes
Figure 24: A comparison of two analyses. The locations and depths of some objects are
listed here as they were estimated by creating dipolar models (red) and applying the
half-width rule (blue). The findings from the two methods are often similar. Notes
contour interval = 1 nT
Image - Observed TMI
-175
-200
-225
-250
Y(m)
-275
325 X(m) 350 375 400 425
Figure 25: The magnetic map of the bombproof area as plotted with the Potent program.
Warm colors of red and yellow mark magnetic highs, while cool colors such as blue and
green indicate lows. The map says "Observed TMI"; TMI is short for Total Magnetic Intensity
and so this is equivalent to saying "total-field measurements". The preparation of this map is
the first step in an analysis of the data with the Potent program from Geophysical Software
Solutions. Notes
N (magnetic)
5m
Fort Morton, bombproof, some anomaly areas and clusters

-175
-195
-215
North distance, ft
-235
-255
-275
325 345 365 385 405 425
East distance, ft
Figure 26: Areas for analysis with Potent. The red and blue polygons outline areas where
one or more anomalies are to be analyzed together. The lines are drawn to include as much
of the anomalies to be analyzed as possible, while excluding all other anomalies as much as
possible. Notes
N (magnetic) above and red = elevation, ft (negative underground)
2 5m
below and blue = magnetic moment, Am
Fort Morton, bombproof, dipole parameters

-175
-0.10
0.02 -0.74
-0.69 0.02
0.37
-0.80
0.04 -0.32 0.04
0.06 -2.21 0.08
0.03
-2.70 0.17 0.02
-195 -2.50 -6.52
-1.36
0.93 0.18 0.09
0.32 0.18 -2.00
-4.03 -1.12 -0.62
0.61 -3.65 0.03
0.10-1.00 0.13
0.21 -2.00 1.19
0.03 0.05
-1.05 -1.29
-215 -2.00
-6.45
0.05 -1.00
North distance, ft
0.49 0.23 0.05 0.10 -1.48

0.00 0.06
0.02
0.03 0.05
-1.90 0.00
-1.28 -1.21
0.05 0.01 -2.50
-235 -0.20 0.03 -4.31 -1.63
0.07
0.17 0.19 -2.62 -0.50 0.07 0.00
0.01 0.04
0.01 0.27 0.02 -0.81 0.05
-1.00 -0.80
-0.18
-3.00 0.04 -1.83 0.02 0.03
0.03 -0.50
0.09 0.08 -2.00
-2.16 0.01
-1.42
-255 0.19 -1.78 0.04 -2.50
0.12 -2.65
-0.85 0.08 -1.30 0.24
0.03 0.26
-0.11 -0.50 -0.32 0.13
-2.30 0.02
0.22 0.03 0.05 -1.57
0.62 -3.07
0.14
0.01 0.33 0.15
0.01
-275
325 345 365 385 405 425
East distance, ft
Figure 27: The interpretation from the Potent program. Plus symbols + locate the objects,
while their depths are listed in red, and their magnetic moments in blue. Like the MagPick
program, this program also calculates the total magnetization and its direction for each
dipolar anomaly. Notes
red = high; violet = low Image - Calculated TMI
-175
63
15
55
14
57
56
8
6
61
58 62
11
-200 59 12
7
60 10 1
13 9
4
5 2
18
3
16
19
17
-225
50 29
52 51
21
53 54 30
31 26 24 20
49 23
28 22
48 27
25
-250
47 33
32
42 34
37
43
38
Y(m)
41 40 36
46
44 35
45 39
-275
325 X(m) 350 375 400 425
Figure 28: A calculated map. The calculated field of the 63 dipoles that are located in Figure
27 is plotted here. This map is quite similar to the measurements in Figure 25, and this is an
indication that the analysis may be adequate. Pink and red colors indicate magnetic highs,
while low values are shown with blue colors. The interval between contour lines here is 1 nT.
Note that the contour lines are smooth and round; measurements almost never find this
simple pattern. Notes
N (magnetic)
magnetic high 5m
magnetic low
Bombproof, residual: measured - calculated, contour lines at 1 nT (colored) or 5 nT (black)

-175
-195
-215
North distance, ft
-235
-255
-275
325 345 365 385 405 425
East distance, ft
Figure 29: A residual map. This shows the remainder after the calculations in Figure 28
have been subtracted from the measurements in Figure 25. All anomalies that remain here
have not been included in the analysis. Notes
N (magnetic)
Potent solution 5m
MagPick solution
Fort Morton, bombproof, depth estimated by two procedures (depths in feet, 1 ft = 0.3 m)
-175
0.1
-0.52 2.1
0.69 0.74
-0.37
0.8 0.08 0.32 3.08
-0.07 4.09
-0.1
6.37 3.62 0.33
4.36
-195 2.5 2.21 -0.08
1.36
2.7 -0.09 3.72
6.52 3.56 2.21 1.12 1.41
3.65 1.88 2
2.22 -0.02
4.03 2 0.62
4.62
1.96 1
1.05 1.29
-215 0.75 3.36 2.46 2
North distance, ft
7.52 4.47
1.15 1
-0 6.45
-0.23
2.14 -0.51 -0.38 1.48
1.34 -0.38
1.78 2.83
1.9 1.58 0
0.84
-235 4.31 1.63 2.76 1.14
1.28 1.21 0.82 2.5
0.2 2.41 -0.19 -0
-0.27
1 0.5 0.81
0.61 2.62
3.89 2.32
2.01 3.7 0.8
7.06 1.99 0.18
13.09 2 0.5
3 1.83
1.42
-255 2.58 1.78 2.5
2.16 0.85 1.69
2.65
0.5 3.16
2.64
1.92 0.53 0.32
0.5 1.3
2.3 1.49
-0.22 3.07 1.46
0.11 0.82
3.46 -0.55 1.57
-0.62 3.79
-275
325 345 365 385 405 425
East distance, ft
Figure 30: A Comparison of two analyses of location and depth. The locations of dipolar
sources and their depths are plotted here for the Potent (red) and the MagPick (blue)
programs. The predicted locations and depths of the objects are generally close for both
programs. Some depths are listed as negative values; this is impossible and it just means
that a small-area anomaly was distorted by an error in its measurement. Notes
Figure 31: The directions of magnetization of dipolar anomalies. The directions at the
bombproof are plotted at (A) on the left, while the findings from along the northern trench (B)
are shown on the right. The directions of magnetization that were determined in the
bombproof area are clustered near the direction of the Earth's magnetic field (the small black
square). The findings of direction in area (B), near the trench, are scattered much more
widely. Notes
View publication stats

Analysis of Dipolar Magnetic Anomalies: February 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Dipolar Magnetic Anomalies: February 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Analysis of dipolar magnetic anomalies

Technical Report · February 2017

by: Bruce W. Bevan (Geosight)

Magnetic moment can be converted to mass by knowing the relative magnetic

Notes on the figures

Figure 8: The values that I measured were as follows:

cannot be used further without removing half of those dipoles.

Main field inclination = 66, declination = -7,

detection of multiple buried metallic objectives [objects]", Symposium on the Application of

North distance, unit

Magnetic map, gradient, contour interval = 10 nT/m

-2 Vertical component of the magnetic field

Fort Morton, bombproof, contour lines at 1 nT (colored) or 5 nT (black)

North distance, ft -235

(5.93 / 2.5)0.333 = (1 - Z0) / (0.5 - Z0)

magnetic anomaly = constant / (distance to object)3

B = C / (Z - Z0)3 with C = 20, Z0 = -1

Fort Morton, bombproof, Euler deconvolution with three window sizes

Fort Morton, bombproof, some anomaly areas and clusters

Fort Morton, bombproof, dipole parameters

0.49 0.23 0.05 0.10 -1.48

Bombproof, residual: measured - calculated, contour lines at 1 nT (colored) or 5 nT (black)

View publication stats

You might also like