68

CHAPTER III

Aero-Magnetic Data Processing

and Interpretation
 69

3. AERO-MAGNETIC DATA PROCESSING AND

INTERPRETATION

3.1 Introduction

The aim of a magnetic survey is to investigate subsurface

geology on the basis of anomalies in the Earth’s magnetic field
resulting from the magnetic properties of the underlying rocks. The
magnetic method, perhaps the oldest of geophysical exploration
techniques, blossomed after the advent of airborne surveys in World
War II. After the war, this improvement initiated a new era in the use
of airborne magnetic surveys, both for the exploration industry and for
government efforts to map regional geology at national scales (Hanna,
1990, Hood, 1990).

The basic principle of applying geophysical techniques to

kimberlite exploration has been known for over fifty years (Reed, at
al., 2007). Gerryts in 1970 presented most of the geophysical
techniques for kimberlite exploration. Atkinson (1989) reviewed the
state of diamond exploration and althrough many ground geophysical
techniques had proved effective to delineate the boudaries of
kimberlite pipes, aeromagnetic surveys sttill provided the rapid,
inexpensive reconnaissance exploration tool. Aeromagnetic surveys
have been successfully identifed previously unknown kimberlites in
Northern Ontario (Brummer, et al., 1992) with small isolated circular
anomalies. Paterson et al., (1991) have successfully used an
automated magnetic interpretation technique, Euler deconvolution
(Reid et al., 1990) to select circular magnetic targets for kimberlite
exploration. The combination of radiometrics with magnetics was the
most widely used airborne geophysical method of diamond exploration
(Richardson, 1996).

Kimberlites have generally higher magnetic susceptibility than

surrounding gneisses and granites and are additionally prone to retain
remnant magnetism. As a consequence, magnetic anomalies are
commonly associated with kimberlite intrusions although the
association can be subtle (Power, et al., 2007).
 70

Successful applications of the magnetic method require an in-

depth understanding of its basic principles and careful data collection,
reduction and interpretation. Interpretation may be limited to
qualitative approaches which simply map the spatial location of
anomalous subsurface conditions, but under favorable circumstances
the technological status of the method will permit more quantitative
interpretations involving specification of the nature of the anomalous
sources. No other geophysical methods provide critical input to such
wide variety of problems.

As new instruments continued to be developed from the 1950s

to 1970s, sensitivity was increased from around 1 nT for the proton
precession magnetometer to 0.01 nT for alkalivapor magnetometers.
The development of magnetic gradiometer systems in the 1980s
highlighted the problem of maneuver noise caused by both the
ambient magnetic field of the platform and by currents induced in the
platform while moving in the earth’s magnetic field (Hardwick, 1984).
The higher resolution was achieved primarily by tightening line spacing
and lowering the flight altitude. Today, high-resolution aeromagnetic
(HRAM) surveys are considered industry standard, although exactly
what flight specifications constitute a high-resolution survey is ill
defined. Typical exploration HRAM surveys have flight heights of 80–
150 m and line spacings of 250–500 m (Millegan, 1998).

The type of aeromagnetic survey specifications, instrumentation,

and interpretation procedures, will depend on the objective of the
survey. Generally, aeromagnetic surveys divide into two classes:
regional and detailed surveys.

Regional surveys usually have a relatively wide traverse line

spacing, 500 meters or more, and cover an area of at least 5,000
square kilometers. This class of survey is usually done for one of the
following purposes:

1. Geological Mapping to aid in mapping lithology and structure in

both hard rock environments and for mapping basement
lithology and structure in sedimentary basins or for regional
tectonic studies.
2. Depth to Basement mapping for applications to petroleum, coal
and other non metallic exploration in sedimentary basins or
 71

mineralization associated with the basement surface such as

strata bound Pb-Zn deposits or U-bearing basal pebble
conglomerates.

Detailed surveys have a line spacing of less that 500 meters and
are done for a variety of reasons, usually in conjunction with other
airborne methods. Reasons for conducting a detailed survey include:

1. Direct prospecting for magnetic ores like magnetic iron ores,

crome, asbestos-bearing ultramafic rocks, or kimberlites.
2. Indirect prospecting, in combination with other methods or alone
to:

o Discriminate between metallic and non-metallic

conductors.
o Assist in interpreting body geometry and depth
o Determine the geologic environment of the source.
o Locate specific "basement targets" for investigation using
seismic methods in deep hydrocarbon exploration.
o Define the "regional" field for gravity interpretation in
sedimentary basins.
o Map weak magnetic lineations related to faulting within the
sedimentary section in some hydrocarbon plays.

Kimberlites (the host rock for diamonds) are explored

successfully using high-resolution aeromagnetic surveys (positive or
negative anomalies, depending on magnetization contrasts) (Macnae,
1979; Keating, 1995, Power et al., 2004).

3.2 Input Database

Magnetic data procured from Airborne Mineral Surveys and

Exploration (AMSE) division of Geological Survey of India (GSI). The
surveys conducted by various nodal agencies are mosaiced seamlessly
and supplying in IGRF corrected contour map formats. The agencies
involved in the multi-sensor air-borne data acquisition were mainly
OHR, BRGM-CGG, NGRI, NRSA, GSI and AMD. The current study area
was covered by Twin Otter Airborne Survey System (TOASS) by GSI in
2000-2001 with the following specifications.
 72

Flight Line Direction : NE-SW

Mean Flight line Spacing : 500 m

Mean Terrain Clearance : 120 m (AGL)

Contour Interval : 10 nT

Mean Inclination : 19.330

Mean Declination : -1.3530

Mean Total Field : 41528.9 nT

3.3 Qualitative Analysis

Recognition of characteristic patterns and shapes of anomalies in

relation to particular rock units or geologic structures is one of the first
steps in qualitative interpretation of a magnetic map. With the advent
of HRAM surveys, many near-surface geologic features are so clearly
expressed that their geologic origin is obvious in color shaded-relief
images. In the shaded-relief (Gunn, 1997, Davies et al., 2004, Gay,
2004), folds look like folds, fault expressions can exhibit en echelon
and anastomosing behavior (Grauch, et al., 2001, Langenheim, et al.,
2004) and individual dikes within swarms are clearly resolved
(Hildenbrand and Raines, 1990, Modisi, et al., 2000). Magnetic
anomalies produced by rocks with strong, reverse-polarity remanence
display characteristic, high-amplitude negative anomalies (Books,
1962, Grauch, et al., 1999) that, without high-resolution data, might
be confused with magnetic lows caused by a lack of magnetization,
which are also negative but generally featureless (Airo, 2002).

The present Aeromagnetic study makes a significant contribution

for finer elucidation of the subsurface magnetic topography in the
region surrounding the Narayanpet kimberlite fields. The following
section gives detail results of qualitative and quantitative analysis of
the data.

3.3.1 IGRF corrected Total magnetic intensity

Figure 3.1 is the colour image of the IGRF corrected Total

magnetic Intensity (TMI) and Figure 3.2 is the contoured IGRF
 73

corrected Total Magnetic Intensity of the study area, contoured with an

interval of 10 nT. The magnetic signatures range from a low of -150
nT along western region of the study area, to a high of 550 nT in the
southwestern and northeastern parts of the region. From these
figures, the high magnetic trend is almost near the confluence of
Krishna and Bhima rivers as well as northeastern highlands (north of
Narayanpet town). While the colour image maps of variation in the
absolute field, inclination and declination in the study area are shown
respectively.

From Figure 3.1 the distinct pattern of highs and lows and the
steep gradients between them at places that describe prominent
magnetic linears are attributable to the complex assemblage of
features of varied dimenstions and direction resulting from different
phases of magmatic activity. Some of the features are associates with
basic/ultra basic/younger acidic intrusive that indicate zones of
magnetic permeability (Sinha, et al., 2003).

From comparison of the magnetic signatures with the geology of

the region, not many inferences are made; because the various forms
of granites (whether migmatites, gneisses, pink/ grey granites and/or
biotite granites) the magnetic highs and lows are in conjuction of
subsurface faults. Not with the composition of the granites. In the
study area all are various forms of granites only except dharwar
schists and few basic/ ultra basic dykes. A NW-SE trend to NNW-SSE
trend fault axes are evident in the broad low seen in shades of blue
and green color on the figure 3.1. Two other trends magnetic high
response are also running in the same direction with red color.
 74

Figure 3.1: Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI) of the Study Area

 75

Figure 3.2: Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI) contours of the Study Area
 76

Interesting features observed in this area are intersections of

various magnetic linear features which are supposed to be intersection
of faults. These features are prognosticated kimberlite emplacement
areas of the area (Figure 5.31).

3.3.2 Reduction to Pole (RTP)

The shape of a magnetic anomaly depends on the shape of the

causative body. But unlike a gravity anomaly, a magnetic anomaly
also depends on the inclination and declination of the body’s
magnetization, the inclination and declination of the local earth’s
magnetic field, and the orientation of the body with respect to
magnetic north. To simplify anomaly shape, Baranov (1957) and
Baranov and Naudy (1964) proposed a mathematical approach known
as reduction to the pole. This method transforms the observed
magnetic anomaly into the anomaly that would have been measured if
the magnetization and ambient field were both vertical — as if the
measurements were made at the magnetic pole. This method requires
knowledge of the direction of magnetization, often assumed to be
parallel to the ambient field, as would be the case if remanent
magnetization is either negligible or aligned parallel to the ambient
field. If such is not the case, the reduced-to-the-pole operation will
yield unsatisfactory results. Reduction to the pole is now routinely
applied to all data except for data collected at high magnetic latitudes.

The RTP operator becomes unstable at lower magnetic latitudes

because of a singularity that appears when the azimuth of the body
and the magnetic inclination both approach zero. Numerous
approaches have been proposed to overcome this problem. Leu (1982)
suggested reducing anomalies measured at low magnetic latitudes to
the equator rather than the pole; this approach overcomes the
instability, but anomaly shapes are difficult to interpret. Pearson and
Skinner (1982) proposed a whitening approach that strongly reduced
the peak amplitude of the RTP filter, thus reducing noise. Silva (1986)
used equivalent sources, which gave good results but could become
unwieldy for large-scale problems. Hansen and Pawlowski (1989)
designed an approximately regulated filter using Wiener techniques
that accounted well for noise. Mendonca and Silva (1993) used a
truncated series approximation of the RTP operator. Gunn (1972,
 77

1995) designed Wiener filters in the space domain by determining

filter coefficients that transform a known input model at the survey
location to a desired output at the pole. Keating and Zerbo (1996) also
used Wiener filtering by introducing a deterministic noise model,
allowing the method to be fully automated. Li and Oldenburg (1998b,
2000a) proposed a technique that attempts to find the RTP field under
the general framework of an inverse formulation, with the RTP field
constructed by solving an inverse problem in which a global objective
function is minimized subject to fitting the observed data. All of these
techniques assume that the directions of magnetization and ambient
field are invariant over the entire survey area.

The computed reduction to pole in the study area is shown in

Figure 3.3 to anticipate the subsurface structures and rock
assemblages. However, apart from contour pattern, this map is no
different from magnetic (IGRF corrected) anomaly map.
 78

Figure 3.3: Reduced to Pole (RTP) of the study Area

 79

3.3.3 First Horizontal and Vertical Derivatives

First vertical derivatives emphasize shallower anomalies and can

be calculated either in the space or frequency domains. These
operators also amplify high-frequency noise, and special tapering of
the frequency response is usually applied to control this problem. A
stable calculation of the first vertical derivative was proposed by
Nabighian (1984) using 3D Hilbert transforms in the X and Y
directions. Before the digital age, use of the second vertical derivative
for delineating and estimating depths to the basement formed the
basis of aeromagnetic interpretation (Vacquier et al., 1951; Andreasen
and Zietz, 1969).

Many modern methods for edge detection and depth-to source

estimation rely on horizontal and vertical derivatives. Gunn et al.
(1996) proposed using vertical gradients of order 1.5 and also showed
the first use of complex analytic signal attributes in interpretation. Use
of the horizontal gradient for locating the edges of magnetic sources
developed as an extension of Cordell’s (1979) technique to locate
edges of tabular bodies from the steepest gradients of gravity data.

The total gradient (analytic signal) is another popular method for

locating the edges of magnetic bodies. For magnetic profile data, the
horizontal and vertical derivatives fit naturally into the real and
imaginary parts of a complex analytic signal (Nabighian, 1972, 1974,
1984; Craig, 1996). In 2D (Nabighian, 1972), the amplitude of the
analytic signal is the same as the total gradient, is independent of the
direction of magnetization, and represents the envelope of both the
vertical and horizontal derivatives over all possible directions of the
earth’s field and source magnetization. In 3D, Roest et al. (1992)
introduced the total gradient of magnetic data as an extension to the
2D case. Unlike the 2D case, the total gradient in 3D is not
independent of the direction of magnetization (Haney et al., 2003),
nor does it represent the envelope of both the vertical and horizontal
derivatives over all possible directions of the earth’s field and source
magnetization.

Figures (3.7, 3.8 and 3.9, 3.10) shows the horizontal (X and Y)
gradients and corresponding color shaded image and contours
respectively. Figure 3.5 is the vertical (Z) derivative contour and
 80

Figure 3.4: First Vertical Derivative (Z Direction) Map of the study area
 81

Figure 3.5: First Vertical Derivative Contour Map of the study area
 82

Figure 3.6: 3D Perspective View of First Vertical Derivative

 83

Figure 3.7: Horizontal Derivative (X Direction) Map of the Study Area

 84

Figure 3.8: Horizontal Derivative (X Direction) Contour Map of the study area
 85

Figure 3.9: Horizontal Derivative (Y Direction) Map of the Study Area

 86

Figure 3.10: Horizontal Derivative (Y Direction) Contour Map of the study area
 87

Figure 3.4 color shaded images of the study area, where as Figure 3.6
is representing the 3D perspective view of first vertical derivative of
the study region. These maps reveal the anomalous highs and lows as
well as number of lineaments as shoen in figure 3.13, which is giving
more subsurface information.

3.3.4 Analytic Signal

Nabighian (1972, 1974) introduced the concept of the analytic

signal for magnetic interpretation and showed that its amplitude yields
a bell-shaped function over each corner of a 2D body with polygonal
cross section. The analytic signal, defined as the anomaly square root
of the sum of squares of the horizontal (x and Y) and vertical
derivatives (Z) along the orthogonal axes of the anomaly resolves the
anomaly maps. Further, the analytical signal of total magnetic
intensity (Macleod et al., 2000) is vertically independent of the
magnetic inclination of magnetization (Shaung, 1994) and is the better
control tool than reduction to pole for interpretation of magnetic
anomalies in the middle and low altitudes, and locates the causative
bodies more accurately.

Figures 3.11 and 3.12 of analytical signal shaded image and

contour maps of the study region is reflecting similar trends observed
in total magnetic intensity map, which suggests that the magnetic
basement occurs at shallow depth. Observed closures can in general
be attributable to the wide variation in susceptibility of rock-units in
zones of fracturing/shearing/faulting or superposition by later
metamorphic events.

The trends apparent from the analytic signal (amplitudes) are

shown in figure 3.11, broadly three magnetic high trends running E-W,
NW-SE and NNE-SSW are observed and some minor trends like NNW-
SSE and NE-SW also observed (Figure 3.13).
 88

Figure 3.11: Analytical Signal Map of the study Area

 89

Figure 3.12: Analytical Signal Contour Map of the study Area

 90

Figure 3.13: Magnetic Lineaments overlaid on First Vertical Derivative contours.

 91

3.4 Quantitative Analysis

To obtain the subsurface configuration of the magnetic interface

in the study region, quantitative analysis was attempted, this analysis
consisted of modeling and inversion of profiles digitized from the low
pass filtered (Figure 3.2) to obtain the corresponding sections showing
the magnetic interface representative of major changes in lithology at
depth.

Though there are many ways to attempt quantitative estimates

of depth to an intracrustal magnetic interface. Therefore, in the
present studies Peter’s half slope method, Modeling /Inversion,
spectral method and Euler deconvolution methods were performed on
21 profiles from AA1, BB1to BB5, CC1 to CC2, DD1 to DD2, EE1, FF1
to FF3, GG1 to GG3, HH1 to HH3 and II1 (Figures 3.17 to 3.37 and
3.39 to 3.59) of length of up to 10 KM.

The software used for inversion is the GM-SYS (2000), a

magnetic modeling software from Northwest Geophysical Associates
Inc. This software is based on the methods of Talwani et al., (1959).
Talwani and Heritzler (1964) make use of the algorithms described in
Won and Bevis (1987). The software assumes a two dimensional flat
earth model and uses the USGS SKI (Webring, 1985) implementation
of the Margaret inversion algorithm (Margaret, 1963) to liberalize and
invert the calculation.

The observed and computed fit of the anomaly, as also the

inferred magnetic interface along the profiles modeled assuming a two
layer (upper and lower magnetic layer based on the magnetic
lineament trend) are shown in profiles of AA1, BB1 to BB5, CC1 to
CC2, DD1 to DD2, EE1, FF1 to FF3, GG1 to GG3, HH1 to HH3 and II1.
For the present investigation low/high average magnetic
susceptibilities obtain from different workers (Ramadass, et al., 2007)
and were assumed for the magnetic layer of the body.

From modeled body, magnetic basement layer along these

profiles are less than 300 mtrs all along except at centre of the
anomaly. The increase in depth of magnetic basement probably
showing the intrusion type bodies.
 92

3.4.1. Peter’s Half-Slope Method

Peters’ slope half-slope method (Peters, 1949) is one of the

earliest magnetic estimate technique. The method depends on the
horizontal distance between two parallel lines that pass through the
maximum and minimum of an anomaly and have a slope equal to one
half the maximum horizontal gradient of the anomaly. The depth to
the top of the body is proportional to the horizontal distance. Each of
these horizontal distance measurements when multiplied by an
empirical-determined factor equals the depth to the top of the
anomaly source. The slope is multiplied by a factor between 0.5 and
1.5 depending upon whether the source is a thin or thick dyke. The
slope method is a "direct" estimate that is roughly proportional to
depth (Breiner, 1994).

Figure 3.14: Derivation of values for Peter’s Half-slope method (after Sheriff,
1978).

Based on the studies using Peter’s Half-Slope method the

average depth of prognosticated kimberlite location profiles are
summarized in the Table 3.1.
 93

Table 3.1: Peters’ Half-Slope Average Depths of the the Profiles

identified.

Peter's Half
Slope Average
S.No. Longitude Latitude Profile
Depths in
meters
1 77°06'33.48"E 16°46'32.52"N AA1 684
2 77°14'45.96"E 16°47'19.68"N BB1 630
3 77°16'16.68"E 16°45'31.68"N BB2 585
4 77°20'49.92"E 16°43'16.32"N BB3 775
5 77°26'47.40"E 16°40'27.48"N BB4 713
6 77°33'09.36"E 16°40'05.52"N BB5 1724
7 77°24'41.76"E 16°47'07.80"N CC1 608
8 77°32'57.84"E 16°48'20.16"N CC2 824
9 77°28'26.04"E 16°46'29.28"N DD1 469
10 77°33'45.72"E 16°46'23.88"N DD2 458
11 77°28'05.52"E 16°42'59.76"N EE1 1189
12 77°07'01.20"E 16°40'27.48"N FF1 624
13 77°08'33.72"E 16°41'10.32"N FF2 446
14 77°14'39.12"E 16°41'24.36"N FF3 593
15 77°10'41.52"E 16°36'18.36"N GG1 870
16 77°17'35.88"E 16°38'01.32"N GG2 939
17 77°22'34.68"E 16°39'05.04"N GG3 843
18 77°08'35.52"E 16°33'28.44"N HH1 1319
19 77°11'08.88"E 16°32'31.92"N HH2 552
20 77°30'04.32"E 16°34'26.40"N HH3 1333
21 77°11'57.12"E 16°34'58.44"N II1 484

3.4.2. Euler Deconvolution

Thompson (1982) proposed a technique for analyzing magnetic

profiles based on Euler’s relation for homogeneous functions. The Euler
deconvolution technique uses first-order x, y and z derivative to
determine location and depth for various idealized targets (sphere,
cylinder, thin dyke, pipe and contact), each characterized by a speficic
structural index. Reid, et al., (1990) extended the technique to 3D
data by applying the Euler operator to windows of gridded data sets.
Mushayandebvu, et al., (2000) and Silva and Barbosa (2003), among
others, helped in understanding the applicability of the technique.
 94

Hansen and Suciu (2002) extended the single-source Euler

deconvolution technique to multiple sources to better account for the
overlapping effects of nearby anomalies. Keating and Pilkington (2000)
and Salem and Ravat (2003) proposed applying Euler deconvolution to
the amplitude of the analytic signal, while Zhang, et al., (2000)
showed how the technique could be applied to tensor data. Phillips
(2002) proposed a two-step methodology for 3D magnetic source
locations and structural indices using extended Euler or analytic signal
methods. Finally, Mushayandebvu, et al., (2004) showed that
eigenvalues generated in the grid Euler solution could be exploited to
decide automatically whether an individual anomaly was 2D or 3D and,
in the former case, could be exploited to deduce strike and dip.

The Euler Deconvolution system is based on Euler’s homogeneity

relationship, which does not assume any particular geologic model.
Therefore, Euler deconvolution can be applied in a wider variety of
geologic situation than converntional model-dependent techniques.
The of homogeneity N (-n in the Euler’s equation) may be interpreted
as a structural index – a measure of the rate of change with distance
of the field.

A 0 (zero) index implies that the field is a constant regardless of

distance from the source model. In case of a gravity contact, the field
would be infinite. These situations are physically impossible for real
data and a zero index represents a physical limit, which can only be
approached as the infinite dimensions of the real source increase. In
practice, an index of 0.5 can often be used to obtain reasonable results
when the index of 0 would otherwise be indicated.
 95

Table 3.2: Euler Deconvolution Structural Indices

Figure 3.15: The Euler solution on the right represent the correct SI for a
magnetic pipe-like body (top) and a dyke (bottom) (after Reid, et al., 1990).

Depth of the prognosticated kimberlite areas are calculated

through Euler Devonvolution Method. Profiles AA1, BB1to BB5, CC1 to
CC2, DD1 to DD2, EE1, FF1 to FF3, GG1 to GG3, HH1 to HH3 and II1
are generated for these prognosticated areas to calculate the same
(Figure 5.31) and cross-correlated with profile models (Table 3.3).
 96

Table 3.3: Euler Deconvolution Depths of the the Profiles identified.

Euler
Deconvolution
S.No. Longitude Latitude Profile
Depths in
meters
1 77° 06'33.48"E 16°46'32.52"N AA1 759
2 77°14'45.96"E 16°47'19.68"N BB1 736
3 77°16'16.68"E 16°45'31.68"N BB2 685
4 77°20'49.92"E 16°43'16.32"N BB3 699
5 77°26'47.40"E 16°40'27.48"N BB4 855
6 77°33'09.36"E 16°40'05.52"N BB5 1640
7 77°24'41.76"E 16°47'07.80"N CC1 738
8 77°32'57.84"E 16°48'20.16"N CC2 1073
9 77°28'26.04"E 16°46'29.28"N DD1 549
10 77°33'45.72"E 16°46'23.88"N DD2 608
11 77°28'05.52"E 16°42'59.76"N EE1 1223
12 77° 07'01.20"E 16°40'27.48"N FF1 699
13 77° 08'33.72"E 16°41'10.32"N FF2 765
14 77°14'39.12"E 16°41'24.36"N FF3 768
15 77°10'41.52"E 16°36'18.36"N GG1 911
16 77°17'35.88"E 16°38'01.32"N GG2 1061
17 77°22'34.68"E 16°39'05.04"N GG3 921
18 77° 08'35.52"E 16°33'28.44"N HH1 1220
19 77°11'08.88"E 16°32'31.92"N HH2 648
20 77°30'04.32"E 16°34'26.40"N HH3 1631
21 77°11'57.12"E 16°34'58.44"N II1 538

3.4.3. Power Spectrum

Spector & Grant (1970) stated that the depth factor invariably
dominated the shape of the radially averaged power spectrum of
magnetic data. Here, ‘radially averaged’ means that the powers for
equal lengths of the wavevector are averaged. This statement has
paved the way for a very convenient interpretation of the power
spectrum of potential field data. The radially averaged power spectrum
of the field in a 2D observation plane decreases with increasing depth
to source t by a factor exp (-2tr), r being the wavenumber. Hence, if
the depth factor dominates the shape of the power spectrum, the
logarithm of the power spectrum should be proportional to -2tr and
 97

the depth to source cane be derived directly from the slope of the log
radially averaged power spectrum.

Spector and Grant’s understanding of the power spectrum has

another widespread application. If the slope of the log power
spectraum indicates the depth to source, then a section with constant
slope defines a spectral band of potential field originating from sources
of equal depth. Hence, it appears to be possible to separate the
contribution of these particular sources from the rest of the field by
band-pass filtering (Spector and Grant, 1970, Jacobsen 1987, Cowan
and Cowan 1993, Pawlowski, 1994, 1995). Since the low-wavenumber
(long-wavelength) portion of the power spectrum is usually rather
steep, this implies that the long-wavelength anomalies necessarily
originate from deep-seated sources.

In the current study Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) filter are used
to calculate the depth. The data is transformed from the space domain
to the wavenumber domain using an FFT. The wavenumber increment
of the resulting transform will be 1/ (line-length).

Figure 3.16: The three components of energy spectrum for interpretation

(after Hildenbrand et al., 1993).

Depth of the prognosticated kimberlite areas are calculated

through radially averaged Power Spectrum Method. Profiles AA1,
BB1to BB5, CC1 to CC2, DD1 to DD2, EE1, FF1 to FF3, GG1 to GG3,
 98

HH1 to HH3 and II1 (Figures 3.16 to 3.36) are generated for these
prognosticated areas to calculate the same (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4: Power Spectrum Depths of the the Profiles identified.

Power
S.No. Longitude Latitude Profile Spetrum
Depth Bottom
1 77° 06'33.48"E 16°46'32.52"N AA1 664
2 77°14'45.96"E 16°47'19.68"N BB1 802
3 77°16'16.68"E 16°45'31.68"N BB2 609
4 77°20'49.92"E 16°43'16.32"N BB3 505
5 77°26'47.40"E 16°40'27.48"N BB4 772
6 77°33'09.36"E 16°40'05.52"N BB5 1338
7 77°24'41.76"E 16°47'07.80"N CC1 755
8 77°32'57.84"E 16°48'20.16"N CC2 1057
9 77°28'26.04"E 16°46'29.28"N DD1 410
10 77°33'45.72"E 16°46'23.88"N DD2 660
11 77°28'05.52"E 16°42'59.76"N EE1 1130
12 77° 07'01.20"E 16°40'27.48"N FF1 586
13 77° 08'33.72"E 16°41'10.32"N FF2 675
14 77°14'39.12"E 16°41'24.36"N FF3 755
15 77°10'41.52"E 16°36'18.36"N GG1 1107
16 77°17'35.88"E 16°38'01.32"N GG2 954
17 77°22'34.68"E 16°39'05.04"N GG3 1016
18 77° 08'35.52"E 16°33'28.44"N HH1 1470
19 77°11'08.88"E 16°32'31.92"N HH2 639
20 77°30'04.32"E 16°34'26.40"N HH3 1534
21 77°11'57.12"E 16°34'58.44"N II1 609
 99

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile AA1

Figure 3.17: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of AA1

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile BB1

Figure 3.18: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of BB1.

 100

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile BB2

Figure 3.19: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of BB2.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile BB3

Figure 3.20: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of BB3.

 101

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile BB4

Figure 3.21: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of BB4.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile BB5

Figure 3.22: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of BB5.

 102

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile CC1

Figure 3.23: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of CC1.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile CC2

Figure 3.24: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile CC2.

 103

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile DD1

Figure 3.25: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of DD1.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile DD2

Figure 3.26: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of DD2.

 104

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile EE1

Figure 3.27: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile EE1.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile FF1

Figure 3.28: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of FF1.

 105

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile FF2

Figure 3.29: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of FF2.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile FF3

Figure 3.30: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of FF3.

 106

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile GG1

Figure 3.31: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile GG1.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile GG2

Figure 3.32: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of GG2.

 107

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile GG3

Figure 3.33: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of GG3.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile HH1

Figure 3.34: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile HH1.

 108

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile HH2

Figure 3.35: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of HH2.

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile HH3

Figure 3.36: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of HH3.

 109

Radially Averaged Power Spectrum of Profile II1

Figure 3.37: Radially averaged Power Spectrum Profile of II1.

3.5 GM-Sys Modelling

Based on the linearity of first vertical derivative 9 probable

profiles (Figure 3.37) are grouped. Using GM-Sys inversion modeling
profiles created and depth estimated along with Power Spectram and
Eular Deconvolution methods.

Profile AA1

This profile is situated west of Yadgir town and almost 600 to

750 m depth as per the Half-Slope, Power Spectrum (Figure 3.17) and
Euler deconvolution methods. This is at the intersection of NNW-SSE
and E-W (almost) faults. The maximum magnetic response along this
profile exhibits 140 nT. The inferred magnetic interface is less than
12989 m in the centre 250 m width, exhibiting the caret type
structure, suggest the presence of kimberlitic body (Figure 3.39).
 110

Profiles BB1 to BB5

These profiles are running almost NW-SE to E-W and again NW-
SE from north of Yadgir town to east of Utkur village almost at a
length of 55 km. Total 5 kimberlite pipes are prognosticated in this
section. The depths of BB1 to BB4 are about 500 to 850 m, where as
the BB5 is almost 1700 m depth as per the Half-Slope, Power
Spectrum (Figures 3.18 to 3.22) and Euler deconvolution methods.
BB1 and BB2 inferred magnetic interfaces are ranging from 8702 m to
13379 except BB3, which is 3330 m and in the centre 200-300 m
width, exhibiting the caret type structure; suggest the presence of
kimberlitic bodies. BB3 inferred magnetic layer is showing two
kimbelite bodies with less than 10 km (left) and almost 5 km (right)
with nearly 1000 m width. BB4 and BB5 inferred magnetic layers are
nealy 10 km with nearly 2000 m width and looks like broad v shaped
kimberlites. The maximum magnetic response along this profile
exhibits 310 nT and the minimum response along the fault line is 110
nT (Figures 3.40 to 3.44).

Profiles CC1 and CC2

These profiles are running almost E-W and then NE-SW at

northeast corner of the study area. In between these two kimberlites
many kimberlite pipes were identified by various authors and
published by GSI. These two profiles are connected with magnetic
highs in first vertical derivative image. The depths of CC1 are about
600 to 750 m, where as the CC2 is 1330 to 1720 m as per the Half-
Slope, Power Spectrum (Figures 3.23 and 3.24) and Euler
deconvolution methods. CC1 and CC2 inferred magnetic interfaces are
8881 m and 9727 m respectively and in the centre 1500 m width,
exhibiting broad v shaped structure; suggest the presence of
kimberlitic bodies. The maximum magnetic response along this profile
exhibits 340 nT and the minimum response along the fault line is 260
nT (Figures 3.45 and 3.46).

Profiles DD1 and DD2

These profiles are running almost E-W and running north of

Narayanpet town. In between these two kimberlites many kimberlite
pipes were identified by various authors and published by GSI. These
 111

two profiles are connected with magnetic highs in first vertical

derivative image. The depths of DD1 and DD2 are about 450 to 600 m
as per the Half-Slope, Power Spectrum (Figures 3.25 and 3.26) and
Euler deconvolution methods. DD1 and DD2 inferred magnetic
interfaces are 12214 m and 9068 m respectively and in the centre
1500 m and 250 m width respectively. DD1 exhibiting broad v shaped
structure; suggest the presence of kimberlitic bodies. Another small v
shaped kimberlite pipe structure also seen in DD1. DD2 exhibiting the
caret type structure, suggest the presence of kimberlitic body. The
maximum magnetic response along this profile exhibits 270 nT and the
minimum response along the fault line is 220 nT (Figures 3.47 and
3.48).

Profile EE1

This profile is situated at southwest of Narayanpet town and

almost 1130 to 1220 m depth as per the Half-Slope, Power Spectrum
(Figure 3.27) and Euler deconvolution methods. This is at the
intersection of NNW-SSE and NW-SE (almost) faults. The maximum
magnetic response along this profile exhibits 310 nT. The inferred
magnetic interface is 11850 m and the centre 1250 m width,
exhibiting the broad v shaped structure; suggest the presence of
kimberlitic body (Figure 3.49).

Profiles FF1 to FF3

These profiles are running almost WSW-ENE south of Yadgir

town. Total 3 kimberlite pipes are prognosticated in this section. The
depths of FF1 to FF3 are about 450 to 750 m as per the Half-Slope,
Power Spectrum (Figures 3.28 to 3.30) and Euler deconvolution
methods. FF1 and FF2 inferred magnetic interfaces are ranging from
10049 m and 8132 respectively and in the centre 300-400 m width,
exhibiting the slightly broad v shaped structure; suggest the presence
of kimberlitic bodies. FF3 inferred magnetic interface is 6683 m and
with nearly 500 m width, exhibiting the caret type structure, suggest
the presence of kimberlitic body. The maximum magnetic response
along this profile exhibits 130 nT and the minimum response along the
fault line is -20 nT (Figures 3.50 to 3.52).
 112

Profiles GG1 to GG3

These profiles are running almost WSW-ENE north of

Narayanpet Road Railway Station parallel to FF1 to FF3. Total 3
kimberlite pipes are prognosticated in this section. The depths of GG1
to GG3 are about 840 to 1060 m as per the Half-Slope, Power
Spectrum (Figures 3.31 to 3.33) and Euler deconvolution methods.
GG1 and GG2 inferred magnetic interfaces are 15306 m and 9122 m
respectively and in the centre 2000-2500 m width, exhibiting the
broad v shaped structure; suggest the presence of kimberlitic bodies.
GG3 inferred magnetic interface is 8401 m and with nearly 400 m
width, exhibiting the caret type structure, suggest the presence of
kimberlitic body. The maximum magnetic response along this profile
exhibits 240 nT and the minimum response along the fault line is 100
nT (Figures 3.53 to 3.55).

Profiles HH1 to HH3

These profiles are running almost E-W parallel to 5 km north

of southern border of the study area. Total 3 kimberlite pipes are
prognosticated in this section. The depths of HH1 and HH3 are about
1220 to 1470 m as per the Half-Slope, Power Spectrum (Figures 3.34
to 3.36) and Euler deconvolution methods. HH1 and HH3 inferred
magnetic interfaces are 9166 m and 5192 m respectively and in the
centre 2000-2500 m width, exhibiting the very broad v shaped
structure; suggest the presence of kimberlitic bodies. HH2 inferred
magnetic interface is 5192 m and with nearly 250 m width, exhibiting
the caret type structure, suggest the presence of kimberlitic body. The
maximum magnetic response along this profile exhibits 440 nT and the
minimum response along the fault line is 100 nT (Figures 3.56 to
3.58).

Profile II1

This profile is situated west of Narayanpet Road Railway Station

and east of Wadgira village and almost 500 to 600 m depth as per the
Half-Slope, Power Spectrum (Figure 3.37) and Euler deconvolution
methods. This is at the intersection of NW-SE and E-W (almost) faults.
The maximum magnetic response along this profile exhibits 320 nT.
 113

The inferred magnetic interface is 10957 m and in the centre 400 m

width, exhibiting the caret type structure, suggest the presence of
kimberlitic body (Figure 3.59).

Table 3.5: GM-Sys Magnetic inferfaces at each profile location

Magnetic
S.No. Longitude Latitude Profile Interface depth
in meters
1 77°06'33.48"E 16°46'32.52"N AA1 12989
2 77°14'45.96"E 16°47'19.68"N BB1 10699
3 77°16'16.68"E 16°45'31.68"N BB2 10070
4 77°20'49.92"E 16°43'16.32"N BB3 3330
5 77°26'47.40"E 16°40'27.48"N BB4 13379
6 77°33'09.36"E 16°40'05.52"N BB5 8702
7 77°24'41.76"E 16°47'07.80"N CC1 9727
8 77°32'57.84"E 16°48'20.16"N CC2 8881
9 77°28'26.04"E 16°46'29.28"N DD1 12214
10 77°33'45.72"E 16°46'23.88"N DD2 9068
11 77°28'05.52"E 16°42'59.76"N EE1 11850
12 77° 07'01.20"E 16°40'27.48"N FF1 10049
13 77° 08'33.72"E 16°41'10.32"N FF2 8132
14 77°14'39.12"E 16°41'24.36"N FF3 6683
15 77°10'41.52"E 16°36'18.36"N GG1 15306
16 77°17'35.88"E 16°38'01.32"N GG2 9122
17 77°22'34.68"E 16°39'05.04"N GG3 8401
18 77° 08'35.52"E 16°33'28.44"N HH1 9166
19 77°11'08.88"E 16°32'31.92"N HH2 14103
20 77°30'04.32"E 16°34'26.40"N HH3 5192
21 77°11'57.12"E 16°34'58.44"N II1 10957
 114

Figure 3.38: Profile lines overlaid on Magnetic Lineaments and First Vertical Derivative.
 115

Profile AA1

Figure 3.39: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile AA1.

 116

Profile BB1

Figure 3.40: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile BB1.

 117

Profile BB2

Figure 3.41: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile BB2.

 118

Profile BB3

Figure 3.42: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile BB3.

 119

Profile BB4

Figure 3.43: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile BB4.

 120

Profile BB5

Figure 3.44: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile BB5.

 121

Profile CC1

Figure 3.45: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile CC1.

 122

Profile CC2

Figure 3.46: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile CC2.

 123

Profile DD1

Figure 3.47: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile DD1

 124

Profile DD2

Figure 3.48: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile DD2

 125

Profile EE1

Figure 3.49: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile EE1.

 126

Profile FF1

Figure 3.50: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile FF1.

 127

Profile FF2

Figure 3.51: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile FF2.

 128

Profile FF3

Figure 3.52: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile FF3.

 129

Profile GG1

Figure 3.53: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile GG1.

 130

Profile GG2

Figure 3.54: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile GG2.

 131

Profile GG3

Figure 3.55: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile GG3.

 132

Profile HH1

Figure 3.56: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile HH1.

 133

Profile HH2

Figure 3.57: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile HH2.

 134

Profile HH3

Figure 3.58: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile HH3.

 135

Profile II1

Figure 3.59: Inferred Magnetic Interface along profile II1.