Use of Euler deconvolution in recognizing magnetic anomalies of pipelike bodies

Automatic identification of responses from porphyry intrusive systems within magnetic data using image analysis

“…Cooper and Cowan (2005) used a texture analysis method to detect subtle monopolar and dipolar anomalies in magnetic data. Paterson et al (1991) advocated the use of Euler deconvolution to relate the spatial derivatives of the data to the expected source characteristics. Keating (1995) proposed a form of correlation filtering which looks for matches with a theoretical model of an idealised kimberlite pipe.…”

Euler deconvolution: Past, present, and future‐a review

“…They coined the term "Euler deconvolution" by analogy with "Werner deconvolution". Paterson et al (1991) showed that an SI value of 2.0 was of practical use in locating kimberlite pipes. Since then, SIs between 2 and 3 have found environmental application in drum location (Yaghoobian et al, 1992).…”

Estimating the location of a causative body from a self-potential anomaly using 2D and 3D normalized full gradient and Euler deconvolution

“…The EUD method is based on the Euler homogeneity relation (Thompson, 1982) and is employed to estimate the accurate origin and depth of the potential field source. Since the 1990s, 2D and 3D implementations of EUD on gravity and magnetic potential sources have been widely used (Reid et al, 1990;Paterson et al, 1991;Roest et al, 1992;Beasley and Golden, 1993;Hearst and Morris, 1993;Fairhead et al, 1997;Zhang et al, 2000;Mushayandebvu et al, 2001;Silva et al, 2001;Silva and Barbosa, 2003;Fitzgerald et al, 2004;Keating and Pilkington, 2004;Al-Saud, 2014;Ekinci et al, 2017). This method uses potential field data and their first-order derivatives in a system of linear equations.…”