GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 63, NO. 3 (MAY-JUNE 1998); P. 890–897, 13 FIGS., 5 TABLES.
Derivative analysis of SP anomalies
El-Sayed Mohamed Abdelrahman∗ , Ahmed Abu Baker Ammar‡ ,
Hamdy Ismail Hassanein‡ , and Mahfooz Abdelmottaleb Hafez∗∗
ABSTRACT
Numerical second horizontal derivative self-potential
(SP) anomalies obtained from SP data using filters of suc-
cessive window lengths (graticule spacings) can be used
to determine the shape and depth of a buried structure.
For a fixed window length, the depth is determined using
a simple formula for each shape factor. The computed
depths are plotted against the shape factors on a graph.
All points for a fixed window length are connected by
a continuous curve (window curve). The solution for
the shape and depth of the buried structure is read at the
common intersection of the window curves. The method
is applied to theoretical data with and without random
noise and tested on a field example from Turkey.
INTRODUCTION
The self-potential (SP) anomaly expression produced by
some polarized geologic structures can be represented by an
approximately continuous function in shape (shape factor),
depth, and polarization angle variables with an amplitude co-
efficient known as the electric dipole moment. The anomaly
produced is typically associated only with particular sulfide or
graphite ore deposits and generally is not related to other SP
anomalies of interest, i.e., those related to fluid or heat flow.
Several graphical and numerical methods have been developed
by many workers for interpreting SP anomalies, e.g., Yüngül
(1950), Roy and Chowdhury (1959), Paul (1965), Paul et al.
(1965), Banerjee (1971), Fitterman (1979), Bhattacharyya and
Roy (1981), Atchuta Rao and Ram Babu (1983), Ram Babu
and Atchuta Rao (1988), and Abdelrahman and Sharafeldin
(1997). However, most of these methods demand knowledge
of the shape (shape factor) of the anomalous body, i.e., whether
the source is a sphere or a cylinder.
Manuscript received by the Editor September 23, 1996; revised manuscript received September 30, 1997.
∗
Cairo University, Geophysics Department, Giza, Egypt.
‡Nuclear Materials Authority, Kattamiya, Cairo, Egypt.
∗∗
National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, Helwan, Cairo, Egypt.
°c 1998 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rights reserved.
890
More recently, Abdelrahman et al. (1997) developed a least-
squares minimization approach to determine the shape of the
buried structure from residual SP data. The accuracy of the
result obtained by the Abdelrahman et al. (1997) method de-
pends on the accuracy to which the residual anomaly can be
separated from the observed SP anomaly. However, effective
interpretation procedures for shape and depth determination
based on the analytical expression of simple numerical second
horizontal derivative SP anomalies are yet to be developed.
The aim of the present study is to develop a simple method
for analysis of SP anomalies due to discrete sources. The analy-
sis stems from derivative calculations that can be used to deter-
mine the shape and depth of the causative bodies. The validity
of the method is tested on theoretical examples with and with-
out errors and a field example from Ergani copper district,
Turkey.
FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
The SP anomaly expression produced by some simple polar-
ized geologic structures can be represented by the following
approximate continuous function (Yüngül, 1950):
x cos θ + z sin θ
V (x, z, θ, q) = k , (1)
(x 2 + z 2 )q
where z is the depth, θ is the polarization angle, k is the elec-
trical dipole moment or the magnitude of polarization, x is a
horizontal position coordinate, and q is a factor related roughly
to the shape of the buried structure. For example, the shape
factor (q) for a sphere (3-D) is 1.5; for a horizontal cylinder
(2-D), it is 1. The shape factor approaches zero as the struc-
ture becomes a horizontal sheet and approaches 1.5 when the
structure becomes a sphere.
Let us consider five observation points (xi − 2s, xi − s,
xi , xi + s and xi + 2s) along the anomaly profile where
s = 1, 2, . . . , M spacing units and is called the window length or
 Derivative Analysis of SP Anomalies 891

graticule spacing. The simplest first numerical horizontal SP the accuracy to which the shape factor (q) can be assumed or
gradient (d V /d x) is determined from other geological and geophysical data.
½
k (xi − s) cos θ + z sin θ SOLUTION USING THE WINDOW CURVES METHOD
Vx (xi , z, θ, q, s) = ¡ ¢q
2s (xi − s)2 + z 2 Equation (7) can be used not only to determine the depth
¾ but also to simultaneously estimate the shape of the buried
(xi + s) cos θ + z sin θ
− ¡ ¢q , (2) structure (shape factor). The procedure is as follows:
(xi + s)2 + z 2
1) Determine the origin of the anomaly profile (xi = 0) using
where i = 1, 2, . . . , N . The second numerical horizontal deriva- the method described in Stanley (1977). A straight line
tive SP anomaly is obtained from equation (2) as joining the maximum to the minimum of the profile will
½ intersect the curve at the point xi = 0.
−k 2xi cos θ + 2z sin θ 2) Digitize the anomaly profile at least 8s + 1 points, includ-
Vx x (xi , z, θ, q, z) = ¡ 2 ¢q
4s 2 xi + z 2 ing the central point (xi = 0), where s is the maximum
window length to be used.
(xi − 2s) cos θ + z sin θ 3) Subject the digitized values to a separation technique us-
− ¡ ¢q
(xi − 2s)2 + z 2 ing the second horizontal derivative method. The nu-
¾ merical second horizontal derivative value at point xi is
(x + 2s) cos θ + z sin θ computed from observed SP data V (xi ) using the follow-
− ¡ ¢q . (3)
(x2 + 2s)2 + z 2 ing equation:
1Vx x (xi )
For all shapes (function of q), equation (3) gives the following ½ ¾
value at xi = 0: 1V (xi − 2s) − 21V (xi ) + 1V (xi + 2s)
½ ¾ = .
−2kz sin θ (4s 2 + z 2 )q − z 2q 4s 2
Vx x (0) = . (4) (8)
4s 2 z 2q (4s 2 + z 2 )q
where Vx x (0) is the second-derivative anomaly value at the 4) Several second horizontal derivative filters of successive
origin (xi = 0). window lengths (graticule spacings) are applied to the
Using equations (3) and (4), we obtain the following two input data. The second-derivative windows are specified
normalized equations at xi = 2s and xii = − 2s: by using s = 1, 2, 3, . . . , M spacing units. In this way, sev-
eral numerical second horizontal derivative SP profiles
½ are obtained. Equation (7) is then applied to each of the
Vx x (2s) z 2q (4s + z 2 )q 4s cot θ + 2z
= second-derivative profiles, yielding depth solutions for all
Vx x (0) 2z((4s 2 + z 2 )q − z 2q ) (4s 2 + z 2 )q q values. The computed depths are plotted against the
¾
z 4s cot θ + z shape factor, representing a continuous window curve.
− 2q − , (5) The window curves should intersect at a point, i.e., the
z (16s 2 + z 2 )q
value of q at the point of intersection is the shape factor
where xi = 2s, and and the value of z gives the depth to the buried structure.
½ The window curves should intersect at the true answer
Vx x (−2s) z 2q (4s + z 2 )q − 4s cot θ + 2z because equation (7) has only two unknowns (q, z) to be
=
Vx x (0) 2z((4s 2 + z 2 )q − z 2q ) (4s 2 + z 2 )q determined.
¾
−4s cot θ + z z The present approach is more advantageous than any least-
− − 2q , (6) squares inversion technique in determining the model param-
(16s + z )
2 2 q z
eters of a buried structure from measured SP anomalies. The
where xii = −2s. experience with the minimization technique for two or more
Let F = [Vx x (2s) + Vx x (−2s)]/Vx x (0). Then from equations unknowns is that it always produces good results from synthetic
(5) and (6) we obtain data with or without random noise. In the case of field data,

2z 2q (16s + z 2 )q − (4s 2 + z 2 )q (16s 2 + z 2 )q − z 2q (4s 2 + z 2 )q

F=
(16s 2 + z 2 )q ((4s 2 + z 2 )q − z 2q )
or
" © ª #1
F (16s 2 + z 2 )q ((4s 2 + z 2 )q − z 2q ) + (4s 2 + z 2 )q (16s 2 + z 2 )q + z 2q (4s 2 + z 2 )q 2q
z= (7)
2(16s 2 + z 2 )q

Equation (7) can be solved for z using a simple iterative good results may only be obtained when using very good ini-
method (Demidovich and Maron, 1973). However, the accu- tial guesses on the model parameters (K , z, q, and θ ). The
racy of the result obtained using equation (7) depends upon optimization problem for the shape, depth, polarization angle,
892 Abdelrahman et al.

and electric dipole moment is highly nonlinear; increasing the Moreover, random errors of 5% and 10% were added to
number of parameters to be solved simultaneously increases the composite SP anomaly (1V1 ) to produce two different
the dimensionality of energy surface, thereby greatly increasing noisy anomalies. Each noisy anomaly is subjected to a sep-
the probability of the optimization stalling in a local minimum. aration technique using the second-derivative method. Suc-
This is why we propose the above method rather than using the cessive second-derivative windows were applied to the noisy
least-squares minimization method in determining the shape input data to obtain successive second-derivative profiles (Fig-
and depth of a buried structure from observed SP anomalies. ures 7 and 8). Adopting the same interpretation procedure
used in the above examples, the results are given in Tables 3
THEORETICAL EXAMPLES and 4 and shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively.
Two composite SP anomalies, each consisting of the com- When the data contain 5% errors, the window curves in-
bined effect of a local structure (horizontal cylinder and a tersect each other in a narrow region where 3.1 > z > 2.9 and
sphere) and a linear regional polynomial, are computed. The 1.15 > q > 0.9 (Figure 9). The central point of this intersection
model equations are region (intersection point) occurs at the approximate location
q = 1.05 and z = 2.99 units. On the other hand, when the data
xi cos 40◦ + 3 sin 40◦
1V1 (xi ) = −300 − 10 − 2xi (9)
(x 2 + 9)
(horizontal cylinder model + first-order regional) and
xi cos 60◦ + 5 sin 60◦
1V2 (xi ) = −500 ¡ 2 ¢1 1 + 10 + 2xi (10)
xi + 25 2
(sphere model + first-order regional). The two composite SP
anomalies are given in Figures 1 and 2.
Each composite SP anomaly (1V ) is subjected to numer-
ical differentiation. Five successive second horizontal gradi-
ent windows were applied to each set of input data (Figures 3
and 4). Equation (7) was applied to each of the five second
horizontal derivative profiles, yielding depth solutions for all
possible q values (Tables 1 and 2). The computed depths are
plotted against the shape factors representing continuous win-
dow curves. The results are summarized in Figures 5 and 6.
The correct solution for the q theoretical models occurs at
the common intersection of the window curves. Figure 5 shows
the intersection at the correct location q = 1 and z = 3. Figure 6
shows the window curves intersect at the correct point q = 1.5
and z = 5. In both cases, the solutions for the shape and depth
are in excellent agreement with the parameters given in model
FIG. 2. Composite SP anomaly (1V2 ) of a buried sphere and
equations (9) and (10). first-order regional as obtained from equation (10).

FIG. 1. Composite SP anomaly (1V1 ) of a buried horizontal FIG. 3. Data analysis of Figure 1 using the present numerical
cylinder and first-order regional as obtained from equation (9). second-derivative method.
 Derivative Analysis of SP Anomalies 893

Table 1. Theoretical example in a case where the model parameters are z = 3 units, q = 1, θ = 40◦ , profile length = 50 units, and
sampling interval = 1 unit.

Shape factor Computed depths

(q) S=1 S=2 S=3 S=4 S=5

0.1 2.832520 2.564062 2.418404 2.338264 2.899540

0.2 2.851618 2.607604 2.468432 2.388402 2.338444
0.3 2.870710 2.652832 2.522093 2.334700 2.392326
0.4 2.889742 2.699584 2.579493 2.503613 2.452497
0.5 2908663 2.747672 2.640684 2.569711 2.519900
0.6 2.927425 2.796877 2.705648 2.642110 2.595713
0.7 2.945981 2.846964 2.774190 2.721191 2.680827
0.8 2.964288 2.897684 2.846450 2.807197 2.776193
0.9 2.982306 2.948780 2.921781 2.900189 2.882481
1.0 3.000000 3.000000 3.000000 3.000000 3.000000
1.1 3.017338 3.051100 3.080650 3.106218 3.128593
1.2 3.034291 3.101850 3.163239 3.218188 3.267584
1.3 3.050838 3.152041 3.247238 3.335038 3.415791
1.4 3.066957 3.201486 3.332100 3.455738 3.571617
1.5 3.082635 3.250023 3.417286 3.579160 3.733187

Table 2. Theoretical example in a case where the model parameters are z = 5 units, q = 1.5, θ = 60◦ , profile length = 50 units, and
sampling interval = 1 unit.

Shape Computed depths

factor (q) S=1 S=2 S=3 S=4 S=5

0.1 4.879413 4.486297 4.174472 3.980661 3.861079

0.2 4.888497 4.522982 4.226820 4.037907 3.918645
0.3 4.897536 4.560080 4.280839 4.978180 3.979367
0.4 4.906518 4.597489 4.336409 4.160398 4.043409
0.5 4.915441 4.635101 4.393384 4.225627 4.110941
0.6 4.924296 4.672807 4.451602 4.293459 4.182126
0.7 4.933076 4.710500 4.510883 4.363825 4.257115
0.8 4.941778 4.748074 4.571039 4.436624 4.336041
0.9 4.950392 4.785427 4.631872 4.511727 4.419001
1.0 4.958917 4.822463 4.693180 4.588976 4.506050
1.1 4.967344 4.859091 4.754761 4.668185 4.597185
1.2 4.975670 4.895290 4.816419 4.749139 4.692335
1.3 4.983891 4.930803 4.877962 4.831600 4.791353
1.4 4.992002 4.965745 4.939212 4.915311 4.894011
1.5 5.000000 5.000000 5.000000 5.000000 5.000000

FIG. 4. Data analysis of Figure 2 using the present numerical FIG. 5. Data interpretation of Figure 1 using present window
second-derivative method. curves method.
894 Abdelrahman et al.

contain 10% errors, the window curves intersect in a broad re- FIELD EXAMPLE
gion where 3.2 > z > 2.7 and 1.38 > q > 0.8 (Figure 10). The
The following field example of a Weiss anomaly is in Ergani
central point of the region occurs at the approximate location
copper district, 65 km southeast of Elazig in eastern Turkey.
q = 1.1 and z = 3.01 units. In both cases the solution for the
The Weiss anomaly is 1 km northwest of the Maden copper
depth and shape are still in very good agreement with the pa-
mine, where open-cut mining was being conducted (Yüngül,
rameters given in model equation (9). This demonstrates that
1950). The field example was interpreted by Yüngül (1950)
our method will give reliable results even when the SP data
and Bhattacharya and Roy (1981) to determine the depth to
contain measurement errors or geologic noise.
the buried structure assuming a spherical target.
The Weiss SP anomaly profile (Figure 11) was digitized at in-
tervals of 3.85 m. Four successive second horizontal derivative

FIG. 6. Data interpretation of Figure 2 using present window

curves method.
FIG. 8. Data analysis of the composite SP anomaly (1V1 ) after
adding 10% random errors using the present numerical second-
derivative method.

FIG. 7. Data analysis of the composite SP anomaly (1V1 ) after

adding 5% random errors using the present numerical sec- FIG. 9. Data interpretation of Figure 7 using the present win-
ond-derivative method. dow curves method.
 Derivative Analysis of SP Anomalies 895

Table 3. Theoretical example with 5% random noise in a case where the model parameters are z = 3 units, q = 1, θ = 40◦ , profile
length = 50 units, and sampling interval = 1 unit.

Shape Computed depths

factor (q) S=1 S=2 S=3 S=4 S=5

0.1 2.840730 2.564883 2.401193 2.322331 2.281933

0.2 2.860111 2.608505 2.448645 2.369459 2.328655
0.3 2.879472 2.653816 2.499466 2.420916 2.380409
0.4 2.898758 2.700653 2.553777 2.477184 2.438038
0.5 2.917918 2.748824 2.611651 2.538756 2.502488
0.6 2.936900 2.798113 2.673108 2.606106 2.574770
0.7 2.955659 2.848282 2.738100 2.679651 2.655900
0.8 2.974149 2.899079 2.806504 2.759709 2.746814
0.9 2.992332 2.950248 2.878116 2.846446 2.848252
1.0 3.010171 3.001537 2.952650 2.939838 2.960638
1.1 3.027635 3.052699 3.029749 3.039641 3.083971
1.2 3.044695 3.103505 3.108988 3.145375 3.217756
1.3 3.061330 3.153745 3.189897 3.256338 3.360995
1.4 3.077520 3.203232 3.271977 3.371643 3.512250
1.5 3.093252 3.251805 3.354719 3.490275 3.669770

Table 4. Theoretical example with 10% random noise in a case where the model parameters are z = 3 units, q = 1, θ = 40◦ , profile
length = 50 units, and sampling interval = 1 unit.

Shape Computed depths

factor (q) S=1 S=2 S=3 S=4 S=5

0.1 2.848946 2.565678 2.384839 2.306986 2.274089

0.2 2.868605 2.609380 2.429824 2.351203 2.319079
0.3 2.888230 2.654770 2.477921 2.399276 2.368744
0.4 2.907765 2.701689 2.529251 2.451648 2.423875
0.5 2.927156 2.749943 2.583907 2.508783 2.485368
0.6 2.946353 2.799312 2.641938 2.571150 2.554197
0.7 2.965308 2.849559 2.703337 2.639184 2.631364
0.8 2.983975 2.900432 2.768034 2.713256 2.717818
0.9 3.002315 2.951672 2.835888 2.793623 2.814361
1.0 3.020291 3.003026 2.906682 2.880390 2.921520
1.1 3.037873 3.054249 2.980129 2.973467 3.039446
1.2 3.055032 3.105108 3.055877 3.072551 3.167819
1.3 3.071748 3.155396 3.133517 3.177121 3.305832
1.4 3.088001 3.204924 3.212603 3.286454 3.452221
1.5 3.103778 3.253531 3.292667 3.399671 3.605375

FIG. 10. Data interpretation of Figure 8 using the present win- FIG. 11. The Weiss SP anomaly, Ergani copper district, Turkey
dow curves method. (after Bhattacharya and Roy, 1981).
896 Abdelrahman et al.

windows were applied to the input data (Figure 12). Equa-
tion (7) was applied to each of the four second horizontal
gradient profiles, yielding depth solutions assuming different
shape factors (Table 5). The four window curves (Figure 13)
intersect each other in a region where 0.52 > q > 0.32 and
17.2 m > z > 8.2 m. The central point of the intersection region
occurs at the location q = 0.37 and z = 12.7 m. This suggests the
shape of the ore body resembles a semi-infinite vertical cylin-
der, probably with a large radius. This is because the shape
factor computed by the present method (0.37) is located be-
tween the shape factor of a perfect semi-infinite vertical cylin-
der (q = 0.5) and the shape factor of an infinite horizontal bed
(q = 0).
It is evident from the field example that our method gives
good insight from SP data of a short profile length concerning
the nature of the source body. This is because the geologic
situation is not complicated. The present method may not be
applied to real data in complex geologic situations to obtain
reliable or detailed information about the different shallow
sources. This is true because each SP measurement determines,
at the station location, the sum of all effects from the surface
downward. In complex geologic situations, the SP profile is
seldom a simple picture of a single isolated disturbance but
always is a combination of two or more anomalies of shallow
origin and very broad anomalies of regional nature, which may
have their origin below the section within which the geologic
interest lies.
CONCLUSIONS
The problem of determining the shape and depth of a buried
structure from SP data of a short profile length can be solved
using the present method for simple anomalies. The window
curves method is very simple to execute and works well even
when the SP data contain errors. The method involves us-
ing simple models convolved with the same second horizontal
derivative filter as applied to the observed SP data. As a re-
sult, our method can be applied not only to residuals but also to
measured SP data. The method is developed to put a number

FIG. 12. Data analysis of Figure 11 using the present numerical FIG. 13. Data interpretation of Figure 11 using the present win-
second-derivative method. dow curves method.

Table 5. Numerical results of the field example.

Shape Computed depths
factor (q) S=5 S=6 S=7 S=8

0.2 1.358520 0.992553 0.979442 0.970377

0.3 2.646770 2.278049 2.376997 2.469831
0.4 3.685811 3.451179 3.702998 3.940310
0.5 4.500145 4.280270 4.831349 5.214928
0.6 5.140698 5.228441 5.768705 6.286277
0.7 5.633333 5.887302 6.547649 7.183803
0.8 6.710880 6.435367 7.200136 7.940087
0.9 6.417236 6.896708 7.752258 8.582931
1.0 6.083120 7.289467 8.224285 9.134487
1.1 6.956256 7.627397 8.361788 9.612019
1.2 7.698660 7.920941 8.986759 10.028980
1.3 7.355726 8.178128 9.298496 10.395890
1.4 7.518800 8.052120 9.574290 10.721050
1.5 7.663177 8.607115 9.819923 11.011070
 Derivative Analysis of SP Anomalies
to the shape factor and to simultaneously determine the depth
and remove the linear regional trend, i.e., a roughly quantita-
tive shape-related parameter and depth can be derived from
SP data. These two parameters might be used to gain geologic
insight concerning the subsurface.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to express our sincere thanks to the Editors and
the three capable reviewers for their keen interest, valuable
comments on the manuscripts, improvements to this work, and
excellent suggestions. Thanks are also due to Sheral Danker
and Judy Wall, SEG, for their assistance.
E. M. Abdelrahman would like to thank Prof. F. Ismail,
President, Cairo University; Prof. M. El-Sharkawy, Dean, Fac-
ulty of Science, Cairo University; Prof. Y. Abdelhady, Head
of the Geophysics Department, Cairo University; and Sh. M.
Hanafy, Assistant Lecturer, Cairo University for their constant
encouragement. Prof. Abdelrahman would also like to thank
Dr. Vladimir Cermak, Director, Geophysical Institute of the
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, for his hospi-
tality during the completion of this paper at the Geophysical
Institute.
REFERENCES
Abdelrahman, E. M., and Sharafeldin, S. M., 1997, A least-squares ap-
proach to depth determination from residual self-potential anoma-
897
lies caused by horizontal cylinders and spheres: Geophysics, 62,
44–48.
Abdelrahman, E. M., El-Araby, T. M., Ammar, A. A., and Hassanein,
H. I., 1997, A least-squares approach to shape determination from
residual self-potential anomalies: Pure and Appl. Geophys, 150,
121–128.
Atchuta Rao, D., and Ram Babu, H. V., 1983, Quantitative interpre-
tation of self-potential anomalies due two-dimensional sheet-like
bodies: Geophysics, 48, 1659–1664.
Banerjee, B., 1971, Quantitative interpretation of self-potential
anomalies of some specific geometric bodies: Pure and Appl. Geo-
phys., 90, 138, 152.
Bhattacharya, B. B., and Roy, N., 1981, A note on the use of nomogram
for self-potential anomalies: Geophys. Prosp., 29, 102–107.
Demidovich, B. P., and Maron, I. A., 1973, Computational mathemat-
ics: Mir Publ.
Fitterman, D. V., 1979, Calculations of self-potential anomalies near
vertical contacts: Geophysics, 44, 195–205.
Paul, M. K., 1965, Direct interpretation of self-potential anomalies
caused by inclined sheets of infinite horizontal extensions: Geo-
physics, 30, 418–423.
Paul, M. K., Datta, S., and Banerjee, B., 1965, Interpretation of self-
potential anomalies due to localized causative bodies: Pure and
Appl. Geophys., 61, 95–100.
Ram Babu, H. V., and Atchuta Rao, D., 1988, A rapid graphical
method for the interpretation of the self-potential anomaly over
a two-dimensional inclined sheet of finite depth extent (short note):
Geophysics, 53, 1126–1128.
Roy, A., and Chowdhury, D. K., 1959, Interpretation of self-potential
data for tabular bodies: J. of Sci. and Eng. Res., 3, 35–54.
Stanley, J. M., 1977, Simplified magnetic interpretation of the geologic
contact and thin dike: Geophysics, 42, 1236–1240.
Yüngül, S., 1950, Interpretation of spontaneous polarization anomalies
caused by spheroidal ore bodies: Geophysics, 15, 237–246.