You are on page 1of 5

International Journal Geology and Mining IJGM

Vol. 4(1), pp. 151-155, March, 2018. © ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Research Article

A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical

Gradient for Density Determination Used in a Mine at
Barberton City of Ohio, United States
BAUMGRATZ, Leonardo Lucas
Fundação Agência das Bacias Hidrográficas dos Rios Piracicaba, Capivari e Jundiaí
E-mail:;; Tel: 55 19 996022040

Underground Gravity Vertical Gradient is an important practice for prospecting underground

densities, although in most cases it does not match the densities obtained directly in the
laboratory from rock samples representative of the location. The densities of the laboratory
samples were systematically lower when compared to the densities calculated by gravimetric
determination suggesting some kind of systematic error. Several researchers propose different
sources to explain these systematic errors including an anomalous value of the free-air vertical
gradient. The anomalous value was admitted for the free-air vertical gradient in this paper to
reinterpret the densities determination research made in a mine at Barberton, Ohio, in 1950, by
gravimetric measurements and by laboratory rock samples. The results of both approaches
reached similar densities agreeing with the free-air vertical gradient proposed.

Keywords: Gravimetry, Underground gravity, Free-air vertical gradient, Anomalous vertical gradient.

Gravimetric prospecting methods depend fundamentally that the laboratory samples have a clear and systematic
on the density of the adjacent underground, which can be tendency to have low-density values when compared to
achieved by two different processes. It can be measured densities determined by gravimetry, and the conclusion
directly in the laboratory using a set of samples was that "...the main suspect of causing this systematic
representing the region of interest, or it can be calculated error could be an anomalous value of the free-air vertical
by the variation of gravity on a vertical profile, which is the gradient caused by local or regional anomalies of gravity
method for determining density by the Underground in the mine vicinity.” Later, he studied local and regional
Gravity Vertical Gradient (UGVG). maps of Bouguer anomalies trying to explain this anomaly
but did not find any evidence that could justify it. It is
A lot of practical works done in deep mines show that in interesting to note that Hammer (1950) suggested as the
most cases the densities obtained by the two processes main cause of the error an anomalous value of the free-air
are discordant, as mentioned by Hammer (1950) whose vertical gradient.
research investigated carefully the underground densities
in a mine 2,246.60 feet deep by means of gravimetric His work was so precise and highlighted an issue so
methods. To check the results, measurements of the important that several authors such as Rogers (1952) and
density of several rock samples representing the profile in Fajklewicz et al. (1982) cited him.
the laboratory were made. Each sample was selected Problems with the free-air vertical gradient are very old.
carefully to be as representative as possible of the 5-foot They were detected in the nineteenth century according to
interval depth. The densities of the samples presented a the list of researchers cited by Thyssen-Bornemisza and
large discordance with the gravimeter results. He reported Stachler (1956), shown in Table 1.

A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density Determination used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio of United States
Baumgratz LL. 152

Table 1: Experimental values of the free-air vertical gradient and its deviation from the standard value of -0.3086 mGal,
according to Thyssen-Bornemisza and Stachler (1956).
Free-air vertical gradient observed Deviation from normal
Authors Year Height (ft)
(mGal/m) value
Jolly 1881 68.913 -0.295 -0.0136
M.Thiesen 1890 37.660 -0.303 -0.0056
Scheel and Diesselhorst 1895 97.541 -0.289 -0.0196
Richarz and Kriegar-Menzel 1898 7.424 -0.285 -0.0236

By studying this list of authors, it is possible to see that the Eq. (3) may be solved directly for the density giving:
mean gradient value is -0.293 mGal/m. According to the F ( g  T )
concepts proposed by Baumgratz (2003), the free-air   Equation (4)
vertical gradient could be -0.2922 mGal. 4   G 4    G .H
The density σ can be calculated by Eq. 4 where F is the
MATERIALS AND METHODS free-air vertical gradient, G is the gravitational constant,
and Δg/ΔH is the angular coefficient dg0/dH obtained by
Gravimetric determination of underground densities is regression analysis. The term ΔT represents the variation
based on the correct interpretation of the gravimetric of the Terrain Correction over the elevation interval ΔH,
variations. It is the methodology normally used in UGVG and this term is ordinarily so small that no appreciate error
studies. In this context, the free-air vertical gradient is of is introduced by using an assumed value of the density for
fundamental importance. it (Hammer, 1950). This author admitted for F the standard
Hammer (1950) investigated the underground densities in value of -0.3086, and then Eq. (4) resulted in:
a mine by laboratory measurements of a set of samples
representing the region and by UGVG method. The
laboratory samples mean density was 2.562 g/cm and
  3.687  39.201 ( g  T ) / H Equation (5)
standard deviation of 0.127. This author admitted for F the
standard value of -0.3086 mGal. For H given in foot, which explains the value 39.201. The
Using this new value of F=-0.2922 is the main change to solution showed a high density of 2.75 g/cm3, diverging
reinterpret Hammer (1950) in the calculations of the from the mean density of the laboratory samples that was
underground density by gravimetric determination. The 2.562 g/cm3 (Hammer, 1950).
method for calculating the underground density applied in
this paper is the same that was used by Hammer (1950) in When adjusting F = -0.2922 the solution for Eq. (4) is:
his work. The only modification made here was in relation   3.4861  39.201 ( g  T ) / H    2.548
to the free-air vertical gradient that became -0.2922 mGal. Equation (6)
In this case, the regression analysis shows a profile's
RESULTS mean density of 2.548 g/cm³ compatible with laboratory
samples (2.562 g/cm³) obtained by Hammer (1950).
Determination of the Mean Density by Regression
Analysis If density was calculated by Eq. 4 adopting F=-0.293 (this
value was obtained from Table 1), the result would be
The data gathered by Hammer (1950), which are 2.564 g/cm³; it is very close to the laboratory samples
respectively depth (H) and gravity observed (∆g0) are in density.
Column 1 and 2 of Table 2. The regression function is the
Eq. (1): Determination of Density for Each Depth Based on the
Bouguer Anomaly
g 0  0.0323  0.023918 H Equation (1)
The angular coefficient dg0/dH expresses gravity variation These equations above apply to determine the profile's
per unit of depth. The correlation coefficient is 0.999, so is mean density. These cannot be used to highlight the small
valid the relation: variations in density that occur naturally underground
0.023918  g / H  g 0 / H Equation (2) because to do this it would be necessary to consider
Bouguer anomalies. The “normal” gravity (∆gN) is a
It is known that in an underground vertical profile the theoretical value calculated by regression analyses and its
difference in gravity between two stations makes it correct interpretation depends on field studies. According
possible to calculate the density through the well-known to Hammer (1950), there are no external gravity anomalies
expressions (Hammer, 1950): interfering in the system under study; it can be assumed
g  F  4    G     H  T Equation (3)
that the difference between the “observed” and “normal”
gravity is caused by local variations of densities. Table 2
Int. J. Geol. Min. 153

(from Column 1 to 11) shows the calculations of the depth gravity observed should be equal to normal gravity, but
densities through the anomalous free-air vertical gradient they are different as shown in Column 4. Terrestrial
proposed here. Columns 1, 2 and 5 are the data gathered Correction (TC) (topographical and internal corrections of
by Hammer (1950), which are respectively depth, gravity the mine) was obtained from the tables made by Hammer
observed and Terrestrial Correction. (1939). The difference between observed and normal
gravity summed to TC can be interpreted and studied as a
The normal gravity results are in Column 3. It is noteworthy Bouguer Anomaly; their values are in Column 6. The
that these should be the gravity values that the profile variations presented by the Bouguer anomaly and
would have if its density was constant, it was calculated by identified as ∆B make it possible to calculate how much
Eq. (1). This is a purely theoretical concept and the theory the density varies between two stations.
must be confirmed by practice. The results found for

Table 2: Reinterpretation of the Hammer (1950) based on new gravity vertical gradient*.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
H ∆g0 Normal ΔgN TC Bouger Anomaly ΔB ΔH (ΔB/ΔH) x 104 ΔϬ Ϭ**
(2) - (3) (4) + (5) (7)/(8)
Feet mGal mGal mGal mGal mGal feet g/cm³ g/cm³
Surface 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 -0.15 204 -7.31 0.029 2.577
204 4.9 4.88 0.02 -0.14 -0.12 0.07 192 3.53 -0.014 2.534
396 9.63 9.46 0.16 -0.21 -0.05 0.04 208 1.69 -0.007 2.541
604 14.65 14.45 0.20 -0.22 -0.02 -0.02 192 -1.16 0.005 2.553
796 19.20 19.04 0.16 -0.20 -0.04 -0.03 208 -1.68 0.007 2.555
1004 24.09 24.01 0.08 -0.15 -0.07 -0.18 192 -9.49 0.037 2.585
1196 28.46 28.61 -0.15 -0.11 -0.26 0.00 208 -0.24 0.001 2.549
1404 33.38 33.58 -0.20 -0.06 -0.26 -0.14 192 -7.41 0.029 2.577
1596 37.78 38.17 -0.39 -0.01 -0.40 0.42 208 19.96 -0.078 2.470
1804 43.12 43.15 -0.03 0.04 0.01 0.22 192 11.34 -0.044 2.504
1996 47.88 47.74 0.14 0.09 0.23 -0.05 206 -2.28 0.009 2.557
2202 52.70 52.67 0.03 0.15 0.18 -0.01 44.6 -1.51 0.006 2.554
2246,6 54.13 53.73 0.40 -0.22 0.18
*For assumed F= -0.2922 mGal.
**For assumed "normal" density 2.548 g/cm³

Column 7 shows the Bouguer variations and Column 8 the errors in elevation interval; errors in reductions and, lastly,
depth variation. These data give the variation of density by in anomalous vertical gradient. He concluded the main
Eq. (7) and shown in Column 10. suspect of causing this systematic error would be an
anomalous value of the free-air vertical gradient caused by
  39.201 ( B / H ) Equation (7) local or regional gravity anomalies in the vicinity of the
The density of each station (Column 11) is the mean Table 3 and Figure 1 make it possible to compare the three
density of 2.548 summed to density variation, Eq. (8) results of densities, which are the laboratory samples in
Column 2, calculated by Hammer (1950) in Column 3 and
  2.548   Equation (8) calculated to free-air anomalous value proposed in
Column 4. The density difference between laboratory
samples and free-air proposed has never exceeded the
DISCUSSION standard deviation in all depths. This can be easily seen in
Figure 1, its curves practically intertwined and it shows
The densities obtained by Hammer (1950) in the more clearly how these two densities are next to each
laboratory and by gravimetric determination show other.
a significant difference, and most of the density results of
gravity determination exceeded the standard deviation of The curve of free-air proposed keeps the same curvature
mean laboratory samples, only at 1596 and 2202 feet of the free-air standard because the same method was
depth they did not exceed. According to this author, the used for the booth. A lot of practical works done in deep
densities, calculated by the UGVG method, in some depth mines show that in most cases the densities obtained by
intervals exceeded the density of all individual laboratory the two processes are discordant. So; further studies
samples in the respective interval. He discussed the should be done to investigate this anomalous value of free-
sources of errors in his work; errors in the gravity readings; air in a vicinity of the mine (i.e Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.) to
A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density Determination used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio of United States
Baumgratz LL. 154

Table 3 Underground densities (g/cm3) in a vertical profile calculated by different methods.

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Density obtained through UGVG
Depth Density of laboratory samples Calculated by Hammer (1950) Calculated through Free-air proposed
F= -0.3086 F= -0.2922
0 2.450 2.779 2.577
204 2.544 2.734 2.534
396 2.543 2.745 2.541
604 2.545 2.752 2.553
796 2.577 2.757 2.555
1004 2.521 2.785 2.585
1196 2.626 2.752 2.549
1404 2.649 2.777 2.577
1596 2.588 2.673 2.470
1804 2.545 2.703 2.504
1996 2.579 2.759 2.557
2202 2.640 2.750 2.554
Mean 2.562* 2.747 2.546
* It is the mean of all laboratory samples in Hammer (1950), and its standard deviation is 0.127.

understand if this anomalous value is only in this place, or CONCLUSION

whether it is generalized value as proposed by Baumgratz In this specific case, the anomalous value of free-air
(2003). vertical gradient of -0.2922 mGal justifies the density
results found by Hammer (1950) at Barberton, Ohio,
It needs to consider that value of free-air= -0.2922 mGal is
United States.
not a mere supposition, it has a mathematical and
conceptual basis developed in respect to the principles of
mechanics, and it has already been applied to the works
of Bullen (1953) and Götze et al. (1988) satisfactorily
explaining the anomalies they pointed out according to Baumgratz LL (2003). Os Padrões em um Universo
Baumgratz (2003, 2013). Surrealista: Uma introdução à teoria da expansão.
Piracicaba, Br: Editora Degaspari Ltda, 162 p.
If the anomalous value of free-air will be correct in this Baumgratz LL (2013) Scalar Expansion the universe in
specific case, the densities determination of a finite interval inflation. Available in:
of underground rocks in a place with the gravimeter is so
accuracy like as laboratory measurements of rock _The_Universe_in_Inflation Accessed: October 7, 2013.
samples. Anomalous value of the free-air vertical gradient Bullen KE (1953). An Introduction to the Theory of
can be the main cause of systematic error found by Seismology. Cambridge at the University Press,
Hammer (1950). Cambridge, 499 p.
A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density Determination used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio of United States
Int. J. Geol. Min. 155

Fajklewicz Z, Glinski A & Sliz J (1982). Some applications Accepted 23 February 2018
of the underground tower gravity vertical gradient.
Geophysics 47:1688-1692. Citation: Baumgratz LL (2018). A Study of Anomalous
Götze HJ, Lahmeyer B, Schmidt S. Strunk S (1988). Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density
Aplicaciones de gravimetria en geología: curso de Determination Used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio,
postgrado. Universidad Nacional de Salta, Argentina, United States. International Journal Geology and Mining
pp. 51-65. 4(1): 151-155.
Hammer S (1939). Terrain corrections for gravimeter
stations. Geophysics, 4:184-194.
Hammer S (1950) Density determinations by underground
gravity measurements. Geophysics, 15: 637-651.
Copyright: © 2018. Baumgratz LL. This is an open-access
Rogers GR (1952). Subsurface gravity measurements.
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Geophysics, 17: 365-377.
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
Thyssen-Bornemisza S, Stackler WF (1956). Observation
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
of the vertical gradient of gravity in the field.
Geophysics, 21: 771-779. provided the original author and source are cited.

A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density Determination used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio of United States