GRAVITY ANOMALY

INTERPRETATION
 Overview
 Introduction
 Interpretation Parameters
 Simplified Interpretation
Techniques
 Modeling Anomaly Sources
 Gravity effects caused by subsurface
geology are superimposed upon the
earth’s overall gravity field.
 These effects are called anomalies.
 Anomalies are typically less than 100
ppm of the total field
 To image these anomalies, several
corrections are made to remove the
earth’s field from the total
measurement.
 For petroleum exploration, gravity is
measured in milligals (mGal)
 Typical exploration anomalies are
generally < 25 mGal
 Typical gravity sensors are capable of
measurements < 0.5 mGal.
 Gravity can be collected on land, at sea,
in the air, and by satellite.
 The gravity field always points
downward; thus, the measurements
can be scalar.

 The magnetic field can point in any

direction; therefore, vector
information is more important in
interpreting magnetics.
Spherical Coordinate :

Cartesian Coordinate :

A Sphere
Forward Modeling (the direct problem)

Inverse Modeling (in practice, it is of greater importance)

Density
Size
Shape
Location

The term ∆𝝆𝒂𝟑 introduces an ambiguity to the problem. There are

infinite combinations of ∆𝝆 and 𝒂𝟑 giving the same multiplication result
(∆𝝆𝒂𝟑 ).

This highlights the importance of adding geological and geophysical

constraints !
Jika, 𝜌 𝑦 = 𝜌𝑐
𝒉∞

𝒚=𝟎 𝒓=𝟎

Maka :
The Numerical Approach

The Graphical Approach

 Surface gravity anomalies
 Free Air Anomaly
FAA= gobs – g(Φ) + 0.3085h
 Bouguer Anomaly, Complete Bouguer
Anomaly
CBA= gobs – g(Φ) + 0.3085h - 0.04188 h + TC
 Isostacy Anomaly
Isostatic Residual Anomaly = Bouguer Anomaly –
Isostatic Correction
 CBA= gobs – g(Φ) + 0.3085h - 0.04188 h + TC

Isostatic Residual Anomaly = Bouguer Anomaly –

Isostatic Correction

Compensation depth
 No assumptions made
 Strongly influenced by topography/bathymetry
 At long wavelengths, FAA varies about zero due
to isostatic processes

Implications
 Not used generally for land based surveys
 More generally used in marine surveys where
water layer / bathymetry used as first layer of
model (this layer can be 2D or 3D)

Andersen, O. B., P. Knudsen and P. Berry (2010) The DNSC08GRA global marine gravity field
from double retracked satellite altimetry, Journal of Geodesy, Volume 84, Number 3, DOI:
10.1007/s00190-009-0355-9.
 Assumes the rock mass between the
measurement point and the height datum
used (normally sea level) to be of constant
density
 Large regional variations in anomaly
amplitude between oceanic and continental
areas due to crustal thickness variations and
density structure

Implications
 Better imaging of sub-surface geology and
structure than FAA at all depths for marine
and land surveys
 Long wavelength field closely correlates
with crustal thickness
 Can be more easily interpreted than FAA
 Difficult to use in regions of major crustal
thickness variations e.g. Continental edges,
subduction related areas. In these high
Bouguer gradient areas the Isostatic residual
anomalies used for interpretation
 Bisa digunakan untuk
memperkirakan
rigiditas lithosphere
dan asthenosphere
 Post-glacial rebound
 Subsidence akibat
pembebanan dalam
pembentukan
cekungan

o Isostatic compensation of
the Viking Graben based on
seismic model of the
sedimentary basin and
Moho.
o If bathymetry had been
used to estimate Moho
variation, then the Isostatic
residual anomaly would be
very similar to the Bouguer
anomaly since the variation
in the water depth of the
North Sea is very small.
o Thus the true isostatic
anomaly (red profile – top
panel) is significantly
underestimated.
If mass is
redistributed ...
Post-glacial rebound

We can “see” isostatic adjustment today from load of glaciers on

crust during last glaciation and unloading from melting
(possible because response of asthenosphere is slow)

Post-glacial
rebound still occurs
in Canada &
northern Europe
i.e. crust is rising --
(not isostatically
balanced)

(can measure uplift

rates with highly
precise GPS
receivers--mm’s/yr)
ISOSTACY
 Fast, inexpensive tool for evaluating
large areas
 Can distinguish sources at
exploration depths
 Nondestructive; measures an existing
field through a passive measurement
 Can use old data today and easily
integrate with new data
 Lends itself to simple enhancements
 Scalar measurement can yield a
pseudostructure map
 Needs geological and geophysical
constraints to interpret
 Does not directly provide a structural
cross section without additional
geologic input
 Overlapping anomalies may confuse
the interpretation
 Data quality may deteriorate in
rougher terrain
 Tends to image gross structures; fine
structure are more difficult to image
 Resolution deteriorates with depth
 Qualitative Interpretation
 Localizing anomalous body
 Geometry Interpretation
 Structural Interpretation
 Spatial Extent
 Lateral
 Vertical (probably)
 Quantitative Interpretation
 Forward Modeling
 Inverse Modeling

 Anomaly Enhancement
 Anomaly separation to Regional and
Residual Anomaly
 Spectral Separation
 Polynomial
 Filtering
 Applicable to quantitative interpretation
 Horizontal and Vertical Derivative
 FHD, FVD, SVD
 For qualitative interpretation only
 Parameters of the source body affect
the size and shape of the gravity
response
 3 key parameters :
 Density
 Depth
 Size
 When modeling gravity effects, it is
much more important to constrain
the size (shape) and depth of the
geologic body than it is to constrain
the density
 Forward modeling
 Inverse modeling
 Amplitude of the anomaly has a
linear relationship to density
 No effect on the wavelength
 The amplitude of the gravity signal
caries as a function of 1/depth2 to
the source
 The gravity response is related
directly to eht amount of anomalous
mass
 Size differences in 3-Ds are X3
functions
 Ambiguity
 Need other data support as
constraints
 Constraints reduce uncertainty
 Use well logs and outcrop data to make a
structural cross sections through critical
areas containing gravity data to be
interpreted
 Plot gravity profiles above structural cross
sections and seismic sections. Add magnetic
profiles of available.
 From geology interpreted from data, build
gravity model sections. Devide the section
into intervals of approximately the same
density.
 Calculate a predicted gravity profile. Check
the observed profile againts the calculated
profile. Where differences exist, adjust the
gravity model and recalculate the gravity
profile until a suitable match between
observed and calculated is made.
 Check the interpretation of the gravity map,
i.e., location of faults, against the model
profiles and all other available data.
 A gravity map often is used directly as a
pseudostructure map
 Structural highs have higher density
and are expressed in the data as gravity
highs because dense basement rocks
are closer to the surface
 There is not a one-to-one relationship
between miliGals and depth; therefore,
the map must be viewed in a
qualitative sense as a formline map.
 There are exceptions, as well, where
structural highs are gravity lows
because dense basement rocks are not
closer to the surface.
 These structures may be of lower
density than the surrounding rocks.
 The range of densities for all rock
types is typically 1.60 – 3.20 g/cm3
 Sedimentary rocks : 1.80 – 2.80
g/cm3
 Small variations of density in
sedimentary rocks may be invisible to
the method
 5 – 10 % error in estimating
subsurface densities from gravity is
quite common
 This is in contrast to magnetics,
where typically there are orders of
magnitude variations in
susceptibilities.
 Have no anomalous gravity response
 It is impossible to determine the
subsurface density distribution if
there are no lateral changes
 Layer-cake geology yields no
anomalous gravity signal
 A bed is considered infinite and
horizontal if it is about five times
wider in all directions than it is thick,
with no dip
 Gravity interpretation can produce a
range of answers
 The better the geologic and
geophysical constraints, the better
the interpretation.
 A completely unconstrained
interpretation produces several
acceptable answers that can all
produce the identical anomaly.
 While it is often easy to rule out
certain classes of interpretations as
geologically unreasonable, it is best
to start with good constraints or to
thest reasonable geologic questions.
 Gravity is not as good at depth-to-
basement or depth-to-density
anomaly estimations as other
geophysical methods
 It is often difficult to determine the
appropriate depth to geologic source
unless other constraints exist
 Gravity is particularly good at
locating horizontal positions of
geologic bodies that have a different
density than the surrounding rock –
ore bodies or salt-cored bodies, for
example.