More on DEMs (10 m vs.

30 m)

Interpretation of Gravity Data

Uniqueness (ambiguity) Problem

 applies to all potential field methods, and, indeed, all geophysical methods
 there is an inherent ambiguity in interpretation of gravity data
 even if you had gravity at every point on Earth's surface, there are multiple models that would produce those
values
 because of integral nature of gravity, it can be proven that any anomaly can be result of an infinite number of
density distributions!
Constraining Interpretations

 not hopeless: gravity eliminates even "more infinite" number of density distributions
 combine gravity data with other constraints:
o density of crustal rocks, particularly in local area
o configuration of rocks: well data, regional geology, etc.
o other geophysics: magnetics, seismic, etc.

Interpretation approaches

Direct Interpretation: Inverse method

 only possible if many constraints (artificial?) imposed

1. assume general class of model (e.g., buried sphere)

2. analyze anomaly (anomalies) to define specific model

Indirect Interpretation: Forward modelling

1. assume specific initial subsurface density model

2. calculate gravity (always do-able, at least numerically)
3. compare with data
4. adjust density model as necessary
5. repeat steps 2 through 4

Role of interpretation in survey planning

 should the survey be conducted?!

 how should it be conducted?

Simplifying density models

 because we are interested in (and indeed only measure) change in g, we are only interested in changes in
density (density contrast)
 background density can always be subtracted
 furthermore, horizontal slab doesn't contribute to gravity anomalies
 in some cases (e.g., sphere, horizontal cylinder), mass excess/deficiency, is determinable quantity
 a datum shift may be made to compare model to data

 Another example illustrating the ideas of gravity anomaly and density contrast:
Vertical g

 gravity of Earth >> any anomaly

 gravity defines vertical
 therefore gravity meters only measure vertical component:
 Gravity due to simple bodies

 easiest, most versatile approach to survey planning, interpretation

 even complex structures produce anomalies similar to simple shapes; for example, horizontal circular cylinder
versus square cylinder:
Infinite Slab

, where d is the thickness

  works for gently sloping surfaces
 example: topography on basement
 error < 3% for slope < 1/5 (see Adams and Hinze, vol. 3, SEG Geotech. & Environ. Gphy., p.99
 use estimate magnitude of anomaly for many flat-layer situations:
o relief on density contrast boundary: basement, bedrock, etc.
o dip-slip fault in horizontal strata
o laterally extensive mines
o water removal/recharge in horizontal aquifer

Sphere

 applicable to approx. equidimensional bodies (longest dimension << depth)

 gravity due to sphere

vertical component:

Since, , we get
Where is g 1/2 of maximum?

"Inversion" technique

1. find distance (x1/2) from peak of anomaly where anomaly is half maximum anomaly:

 
 2. depth of body: 

3. since

Notes 

 non-uniqueness:

(can't determine radius AND density contrast)

 anomaly size is relative to "baseline", or "background"
 in general, half-width to left and right are unequal

Example:

gmax = 35 mgals, 1/2-width at 17.5 mgals = 7.5 m; therefore z = 10 m; assuming density contrast of 1.0, find radius of
sphere.

Infinite Horizontal Cylinder

 applicable to bodies much longer in one horizontal direction than in vertical or other horizontal direction
 tunnels, river channels, horst or graben block, etc.
 This is a max at x=0, or

where we've dropped the subscript v.

  Find the relationship between half-width and depth:

Vertical Cylinder

 no simple expression exists for gravity off-axis; but on axis:

special case:  infinite slab

special case:  semi-infinite cylinder

Note that finite cylinder formula can be derived by superposition of two semi-infinite cylinders

Narrow Vertical Cylinder

 while no simple expression exists for gravity off-axis of a thick cylinder, for thin cylinder an approximate solution
exists
 good for z > 2a

semi-infinite case
 depth criterion:

 knowing z, we can now find 

finite case

 use superposition:

Semi-infinite Horizontal Slab

 

finite horizontal slab

thin semi-infinite sheet

 for a line,

 so for a sheet,
  Note that

 Depth criterion

thin finite sheet

Computing depth:

 Compute at center of anomaly:

 Compute to one side:

 
  On graph with no vertical exaggeration, find depth which yields these angles:

2D Grids

The vertical gravity component due to a line element of mass  per unit length is:

Now consider an arbitrary 2-D body of density :

The area of the shaded element is dz*dx, so
For , z constant, each block contributes the same to g

"Computer" Methods of Interpretation

Talwani, 1973, in Bolt: Computational Methods in Geophysics

3D laminar bodies

Talwani and Ewing, 1960, Geophysics, v. 25, 203-225

Pluoff, 1976, Geophysics, v. 41, 727-739
 uses solid angle approach
  for thin horizontal sheet,

2-D polygon method

Talwani, Sutton and Worzel, 1959, JGR, 64: 1545 - 1555

Talwani, Worzel and Landisman, 1959, JGR, 64: 49-59
 uses line integral approach
This is the method used in most 2D computer modelling programs, like GM-SYS.

3D vertical prisms (method of Cordell and Henderson)

Three-dimensional iterative method of Cordell and Henderson (Cordell,
L., and Henderson, R. G., "Iterative three-dimensional solution of gravity
anomaly data using a digital computer," Geophysics 33 (1968), 596-
601). Block heights are relative to a predetermined reference surface;
density contrast is also predetermined.  Initial block height might be
determined by using the gravity value above the block and using the
Bouguer slab approximation. Then slab heights are adjusted to give a
best fit to the measured gravity values (or a gridded gravity field derive
from measured gravity data). Figure from Blakely, 1996.
 Danes, 1960, Geophysics, 25: 1215-1228
 square prisms, infinite bottom depth; get finite prisms by using another set of prisms
 iterative method:
o pick set of prisms
o find g at center of each prism
o adjust heights to match actual field
o close to direct approach (inversion), given assumptions

General 3D Bodies

GRVMAG message from Manik Talwani re: his 3D G&M inversion program (5/10/2001)

 Bhattacharyya, B. K., Navolio, M. E., 1976, A Fast Fourier Transform method for rapid computation of gravity
and magnetic anomalies due to arbitrary bodies: Geophys. Prosp., 24, 633-649.
 Gerard, A., Debeglia, N., 1975, Automatic three-dimensional modeling for the interpretation of gravity or
magnetic anomalies: Geophysics, 40 (6), 1014-1034.
 Talwani, M., Ewing, M., 1960, Rapid computation of gravitational attraction of three-dimensional bodies of
arbitrary shape: Geophysics, 25 (1), 203-225.
 Okabe, M. 1979, Analytic expressions for gravity anomalies due to homogeneous polyhedral bodies and
translations into magnetic anomalies. Geophysics v44, p730-744.

Interpretation Examples

 Infinite Slab: Bedrock depths, Reading, Mass.

  Subsurface voids, Medford Caves, Florida
 Valley geometry, Pine Valley, central Nevada
o location, Bouguer gravity map
o gravity, geologic profiles
o horizontal cylinder model
o double-cylinder model
o 2-D polygon model