# Gravity Gradient Tensor of Arbitrary 3D Polyhedral Bodies with up to Third-Order Polynomial Horizontal and Vertical Mass Contrasts

- 328 Downloads

## Abstract

During the last 20 years, geophysicists have developed great interest in using gravity gradient tensor signals to study bodies of anomalous density in the Earth. Deriving exact solutions of the gravity gradient tensor signals has become a dominating task in exploration geophysics or geodetic fields. In this study, we developed a compact and simple framework to derive exact solutions of gravity gradient tensor measurements for polyhedral bodies, in which the density contrast is represented by a general polynomial function. The polynomial mass contrast can continuously vary in both horizontal and vertical directions. In our framework, the original three-dimensional volume integral of gravity gradient tensor signals is transformed into a set of one-dimensional line integrals along edges of the polyhedral body by sequentially invoking the volume and surface gradient (divergence) theorems. In terms of an orthogonal local coordinate system defined on these edges, exact solutions are derived for these line integrals. We successfully derived a set of unified exact solutions of gravity gradient tensors for constant, linear, quadratic and cubic polynomial orders. The exact solutions for constant and linear cases cover all previously published vertex-type exact solutions of the gravity gradient tensor for a polygonal body, though the associated algorithms may differ in numerical stability. In addition, to our best knowledge, it is the first time that exact solutions of gravity gradient tensor signals are derived for a polyhedral body with a polynomial mass contrast of order higher than one (that is quadratic and cubic orders). Three synthetic models (a prismatic body with depth-dependent density contrasts, an irregular polyhedron with linear density contrast and a tetrahedral body with horizontally and vertically varying density contrasts) are used to verify the correctness and the efficiency of our newly developed closed-form solutions. Excellent agreements are obtained between our solutions and other published exact solutions. In addition, stability tests are performed to demonstrate that our exact solutions can safely be used to detect shallow subsurface targets.

## Keywords

Gravity gradient tensor Polyhedral bodies Polynomial mass contrast Shallow target detection Gravity explorations## 1 Introduction

Gravity exploration methods try to identify the anomalous mass bodies in the Earth (Blakely 1996). Gravity signals such as gravity fields and gravity gradient tensors are measured using gravimeters and gravity gradiometers, which can be located on the air–Earth interface, in boreholes, or be carried by marine ships and aircraft, and even by satellites (Nabighian et al. 2005). The amplitudes of the gravity field are inversely proportional to the square of the distance (*R*) between the observation site and the causative body, that is \(O(R^{-2})\). As for the gravity gradient tensor, its amplitude is inversely proportional to the third power of distance, that is \(O(R^{-3})\). Therefore, compared to the gravity field, gravity gradient tensor signals are more sensitive to the shallow anomalous structures in the Earth (Droujinine et al. 2007; Beiki and Pedersen 2010; Martinez et al. 2013; Beiki et al. 2014; Gutknecht et al. 2014; Li 2015; Ramillien 2017). Mathematically, both gravity field and gravity gradient tensor signals can be formulated as volume integrals over the causative body. When the observation site is located inside the mass body, a local spherical coordinate system can be introduced at the observation site, so that a factor of distance squared (\(R^{2}\)) would be introduced (such as \(\mathrm{d}v=R^2 \sin \theta \mathrm{d}r \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi\), Blakely 1996), which can further weaken the singularity appearing in the integrands of the gravity signals (Jin 2002). Therefore, from the mathematical point of view, the gravity field can be evaluated without mathematical singularities, as \(O(R^{-2}\times R^{2})=O(1)\), but the mathematical singularities always remain in the gravity gradient tensor formulation, when observation sites approach the causative body, that is \(O(R^{-3}\times R^{2})=O(R^{-1})\).

Designing gravity gradiometers for measuring gravity gradient tensor signals is a difficult task. The gravity gradient tensor is a \(3\times 3\) symmetrical tensor with each entry being the second derivatives of the gravitational potential (or the first derivatives of the gravity field or the gravity acceleration). In terms of differential measurements, accelerations of at least two spatially separated masses were generally used to estimate the components of the gravity gradient tensor. Depending on the accuracies of the available gradiometers, gravity gradient tensor signals can be applied in geodesy (0.01 Eötvös to 0.1 Eötvös), autonomous navigation (0.1 Eötvös to 1 Eötvös) and oilfield and mineral exploration geophysics (1 Eötvös to 10 Eötvös) (Evstifeev 2017). In exploration geophysics, the cause of the increased interest in gravity gradiometers is that, compared to gravity anomalies measured by gravimeters, gravity gradient tensor signals contain more detailed information about the subsurface structures (Chapin 1998; Nabighian et al. 2005). Furthermore, compared to gravity field data, gravity gradient tensor anomaly maps generally provide more contrasting and clearer edge delineations, such as those arising from salt domes in oil and gas prospecting (Pedersen and Rasmussen 1990). Up to now, several gravity gradiometers have been adopted in realistic exploration geophysical problems, such as the 3D FTG (full tensor gradiometer) system by Bell Geospace (Bell and Hansen 1998; Bell et al. 1997; Brewster 2016; Abtahi et al. 2016) and the Falcon AGG airborne gravity gradiometer by BHP Billiton (Australia) (Lee 2001).

To invert measured gravity gradient tensor (GGT) signals, we need an accurate forward solver. In general, GGT forward modelling can be performed either numerically or analytically. Using numerical methods such as Gaussian quadrature approaches (Talwani and Ewing 1960), Fourier domain methods (Parker 1973; Wu and Chen 2016), finite-element methods and finite-difference methods (Cai and Wang 2005; Farquharson and Mosher 2009; Jahandari and Farquharson 2013), the GGT signals caused by a mass body can be straightforwardly evaluated. However, the accuracies of numerical GGT signals can be seriously reduced by these numerical methods. For instance, using finite-element and finite-difference methods, improper translation of the computed gravitational potential to its second-order derivatives can lead to serious numerical errors. These undesired precision loss issues can be completely avoided by analytic approaches, which offer highly accurate GGT signals in terms of exact solutions.

Due to early limitations in the considered model geometries, the simple rectangular prismatic element has been widely accepted as a basic element in gravity forward modelling. Using these prismatic elements, the mass distributions in the Earth were simply approximated conceding a certain loss of geometrical accuracy. As for this basic element, several exact solutions of the gravity gradient tensor signals were developed (Forsberg 1984; Li and Chouteau 1998; Montana et al. 1992; Nagy and Papp 2000; Holstein et al. 2013; De Stefano and Panepinto 2016). However, it is difficult to accurately approximate a complex body using prisms. Polyhedral elements are endowed with great flexibility in presentation of 3D mass sources with complex geometries. Compared to prismatic elements, discretisations in terms of polyhedrons need lower numbers of elements to represent complicated mass bodies (Petrović 1996). Several analytical solutions have been successfully derived for the gravity gradient tensor signals of a homogeneous polyhedral body (Okabe 1979; Götze and Lahmeyer 1988; Kwok 1991; Petrović 1996; Werner and Scheeres 1996; Tsoulis and Petrović 2001; Holstein 2002; Tsoulis 2012; Holstein et al. 2013; D’Urso 2014a). Closed-form solutions of the gravity gradient tensor were also derived for other homogeneous simple geometries, such as pyramids (Sastry and Gokula 2016) and cylinders (Rim and Li 2016).

Seeking simplicity, geophysicists often assume that the Earth is composed of 3D anomalies in a layered medium or a succession of strata with horizontally undulating interfaces (e.g., sedimentary basins and underlying bedrock). In each layer, the rock mass density predominantly exhibits depth-dependent variations. To approximate the density variations in sedimentary basins, several closed-form solutions of gravity signals were derived for depth-dependent mass contrast functions, such as exponential functions (Cordell 1973; Chai and Hinze 1988; Chappell and Kusznir 2008), hyperbolic functions (Litinsky 1989; Rao et al. 1995), parabolic functions (Chakravarthi et al. 2002), quadratic polynomials (Rao 1985, 1990; Gallardo-Delgado et al. 2003) and cubic polynomials (García-Abdeslem 2005). Compared to these depth-dependent functions, polynomials offer a more flexible way to approximate arbitrarily variable density distributions. Very recently, Jiang et al. (2017) have given a detailed performance comparison between polynomial mass contrast functions and depth-dependent mass contrast functions for the capability of approximating complicated density distributions in the Earth. The result clearly demonstrates the superiority of polynomial mass contrast functions over the depth-dependent mass contrast functions. As the real Earth has complicated mass density distributions, it is important to deal with a general polynomial mass contrast function, which not only varies in depth (vertical direction), but also varies in the horizontal direction.

For general polynomial functions, Pohánka (1998), Holstein (2003), Hansen (1999), D’Urso (2014b) and Ren et al. (2017a) have successfully derived closed-form solutions for the gravity field of a polyhedral body, in which the mass contrast linearly varies in both horizontal and vertical directions. Quite recently, analytical expressions for the gravity field of a polyhedral body with cubic polynomial density contrast in both horizontal and vertical directions were derived by D’Urso and Trotta (2017) and Ren et al. (2018). Nevertheless, only Holstein (2003) and D’Urso (2014b) have successfully derived closed-form solutions for gravity gradient tensor of a polyhedral body, in which the mass contrast varies linearly in both horizontal and vertical directions. To the best of our knowledge, closed-form solutions for gravity gradient tensor signals of a polygonal body with high-order polynomial mass contrasts (such as quadratic and cubic orders) varying in both horizontal and vertical directions have not been previously reported.

To overcome this both theoretically and practically important issue, we have successfully derived closed-form solutions for modelling the gravity gradient tensor of the above cases in this study. Inside the polyhedral body, its density contrast is approximated by a general polynomial function (currently, a maximum order up to and including three is considered). The polynomial mass contrast function can vary in both horizontal and vertical directions. Therefore, it has the capability to approximate complicated mass contrasts in realistic Earth models. To begin with, we apply the Gaussian gradient theorem to transform the volume integrals of GGT signals into surface integrals over the faces of polyhedra. Then, we apply the surface divergence theorem to further transform these surface integrals into a sequence of line integrals along the edges of the polyhedra. In the process of reducing the integral dimension, several vector or dyadic identities are employed to reduce the orders of the density polynomials and of the singularities in *R* in the integrands. The line integrals along the edges of the polyhedra are evaluated in terms of known analytical expressions (e.g., Gradshteyn and Ryzhik 2007).

To verify the accuracies of our new analytical solutions, a right rectangular prism with depth-dependent density contrasts, an irregular polyhedron with linear density contrast and a tetrahedral element with horizontally and vertically varying density contrast are tested. For the prism model, its reference solution for the gravity gradient tensor is computed from the derivatives of García-Abdeslem’s (2005) analytical solution for the gravity field. The analytical solution derived by Holstein (2003) is used as reference for the irregular polyhedral model. Results from high-order Gaussian quadrature are used as reference solutions for the tetrahedron model.

## 2 Theory

*H*, and the gradient theorem (Tai 1997) is applied.

*s*means it is an operator on a 2D surface. In the above, the definition (A.3) of the number \(h_i\), constant over facet plane

*i*, as the projection onto the facet normal \(\mathbf {n}_i\) of the position vector of a planar point \({\mathbf {r}}\) relative to the observation point \({\mathbf {r}}'\) and the following vector identity were used:

*f*is an arbitrary scalar function and \({\hat{\mathbf {n}}}\) is the outward pointing normal unit vector of the considered surface. In Eq. (5), we set \(f=\frac{\lambda }{R}\).

*H*with arbitrary mass contrast function \(\lambda ({\mathbf {r}})\):

*P*is the maximum polynomial order, and \(\lambda _{d}\) are the

*d*-th order density terms. For instance, the zero (constant), first (linear), quadratic and cubic order density terms are given as:

*d*-th order density contrast. In this study, we only consider the cases \(0 \le P \le 3\). For simplicity, we denote

*x*,

*y*and

*z*by \(x_p (p=1, 2, 3)\) in the following sections, that is

### 2.1 Constant Density Contrast

### 2.2 Linear Density Contrast

### 2.3 Quadratic Density Contrast

### 2.4 Cubic Density Contrast

### 2.5 Comparison with Other Solutions

A list of available analytical solutions of the gravity gradient tensor for different geometries and different orders of polynomial mass contrasts

Shape | Order of density contrast | References |
---|---|---|

Rectangular prism | Constant | Forsberg (1984), Montana et al. (1992), Li and Chouteau (1998) and Nagy and Papp (2000) |

Cylinder | Constant | Rim and Li (2016) |

Truncated square pyramid | Linear in depth | Sastry and Gokula (2016) |

Polyhedron | Constant | Okabe (1979), Götze and Lahmeyer (1988), Kwok (1991), Werner and Scheeres (1996), Tsoulis and Petrović (2001), Holstein (2002), Holstein et al. (2007a, b), Tsoulis (2012) and D’Urso (2014a) |

Polyhedron | Linear | |

Polyhedron | Constant | Our solution |

Polyhedron | Linear | Our solution |

Polyhedron | Quadratic | Our solution |

Polyhedron | Cubic | Our solution |

## 3 Verification

Three models were used to validate our closed-form solutions. The first one is a rectangular prism model (Fig. 2), for which the derivatives of closed-form solutions for the gravity field in García-Abdeslem (2005) were taken as references. The second model is an irregular polyhedron with linear density contrast, taken from Holstein (2003), for which a comparison with Holstein’s (2003) solution is given. The third model is a relatively complicated tetrahedral body (Fig. 5). As there are no reference solutions for the GGT of polyhedral mass bodies with quadratic and cubic density contrasts, we have used high-order Gaussian quadrature rules (such as 512 × 512 × 512 = 124,217,728 quadrature points) to calculate GGT reference solutions. Additionally, we allowed the density in the tetrahedral body to vary in both horizontal and vertical directions. We should mention that because our formulae require the observation site to be located at the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system, for each observation site, a coordinate translation must be performed to move the observation site to the origin.

### 3.1 A Prismatic Body with Depth-Dependent Density Contrast

*z*-axis downward. In Fig. 2a, the coordinate ranges of the prismatic body are \(x=[10,20]\) km, \(y=[10,20]\) km and \(z=[0,8]\) km. The density function is a depth-dependent cubic polynomial which is taken from García-Abdeslem (2005):

*z*is in km.

In the García-Abdeslem’s (2005) work, an analytic formula for the vertical gravity field caused by a rectangular prism with density contrast varying as a depth-dependent cubic polynomial was derived. Therefore, we took the derivatives of García-Abdeslem’s solution (i.e., \(T_{xz}\), \(T_{yz}\), \(T_{zz}\)) as references to verify our solution for the gravity gradient tensor. Furthermore, to verify our solution for an arbitrary polyhedral body, we decomposed the original rectangular prism into two polyhedra (as shown in Fig. 2b). These two polyhedra share the plane with vertices 1, 3, 8 and 9. Note, this test requires points 1, 3, 8 and 9 to be co-planar. If they were not co-planar, the surface (1, 3, 8, 9) would need to be divided into two triangles (1, 3, 8) and (3, 8, 9). The values of \(T_{xz}\), \(T_{yz}\) and \(T_{zz}\) were computed at two observation sites. One is located at point (12, 12, − 0.001) km with a 1-m offset right above the top face of the prismatic body, whereas the other one is located at point (20, 10, − 0.001) km, that is near a corner of the rectangular prism.

The results computed by our closed-form solution and by derivatives of García-Abdeslem’s (2005) gravity field solution are compared in Table 2. We compare GGT elements \(T_{xz}\), \(T_{yz}\), \(T_{zz}\), because only \(g_z\) is given in García-Abdeslem (2005). Excellent agreement is obtained between these two approaches, with relative errors on the order of \(10^{-13}\%\) at site (12, 12, − 0.001) km and relative errors \(10^{-6}\)–\(10^{-7}\%\) at site (20, 10, − 0.001) km. The tensor trace \(T_{xx}+T_{yy}+T_{zz}=\nabla ^{2}_{{\mathbf {r}}'}U\) is a useful tool for indicating numerical error. Using the Poisson equation \(\nabla ^2_{{\mathbf {r}}'}U=-4\pi G\lambda\) for the gravitational potential *U*, the tensor trace vanishes outside the source body and is \(-4\pi G\lambda\) inside the source body. Since our observation points are outside the source body, we have calculated the relative errors shown in Table 2 as \(|T_{xx}+T_{yy}+T_{zz}|/(|T_{xx}|+|T_{yy}|+|T_{zz}|)\). The relative error of the tensor trace is \(2.74\times 10^{-13}\%\) at the location above the top face and \(3.77\times 10^{-11}\%\) above the corner. Both our solution and García-Abdeslem’s (2005) solution for the GGT are singular, when observation sites are located on edges and corners. When the observation site gets close to the corner, the mathematical singularity becomes stronger, and this is, why the relative error is larger at site (20, 10, − 0.001) km.

Observation sites (km) | Component | Our solution (s\(^{-2}\)) | Derivatives of García-Abdeslem’s solution (s\(^{-2}\)) |
---|---|---|---|

Above the top face (12, 12, – 0.001) | \(T_{xz}\) | − 3.88858891017895E–08 | − 3.88858891017895E–08 |

\(T_{yz}\) | − 3.8885889101789 | − 3.8885889101789 | |

\(T_{zz}\) | − 1.6452014864780 | − 1.6452014864780 | |

\(T_{xx}\) | 8.22600743239035E–08 | – | |

\(T_{yx}\) | − 2.05924999039651E–08 | – | |

\(T_{yy}\) | 8.22600743239036E–08 | – | |

\(\dfrac{|T_{xx}+T_{yy}+T_{zz}|}{|T_{xx}|+|T_{yy}|+|T_{zz}|}\) | 2.73514373119212E–15 | – | |

Above a corner(20, 10, − 0.001) | \(T_{xz}\) | 3.7606613 | 3.7606613 |

\(T_{yz}\) | − 3.7606613 | − 3.7606613 | |

\(T_{zz}\) | − 2.1458379 | − 2.1458379 | |

\(T_{xx}\) | 1.07291859383300E–08 | – | |

\(T_{yx}\) | 3.60015219545839E–07 | – | |

\(T_{yy}\) | 1.07291932616670E–08 | – | |

\(\dfrac{|T_{xx}+T_{yy}+T_{zz}|}{|T_{xx}|+|T_{yy}|+|T_{zz}|}\) | 3.77463390064588E–13 | – |

### 3.2 An Irregular Polyhedron with Linear Density Contrast

*U*is the gravitational potential. The vertical profile is from a point with coordinates of \((0, 0, -\,34)\) km to a point with coordinates of (0, 0, 0) km, with observation points placed at a uniform vertical (

*z*) spacing of 1 km. Due to the discontinuity of the gradient tensor signals on the boundary, we only perform tests at two points which are very close to the boundary (with a small distance of \(\pm \,10^{-10}\) km). The value of \(-4\pi G\lambda\) is used as the reference. The relative errors are calculated using the formula \(\frac{(T_{xx}+T_{yy}+T_{zz})+4\pi G\lambda }{|T_{xx}|+|T_{yy}|+|T_{zz}|}\) and shown in Fig. 4. The maximum absolute relative error is \(3.08389\times 10^{-13}\%\).

Values of the gravity gradient tensors for the irregular polyhedron and the observation points marked by blue stars in Fig. 3

At the outer point (0, 0, 0) km | At the centroid (40, 250, − 1541)/88 km | |||
---|---|---|---|---|

Our solution | Holstein’s (2003) solution | Our solution | Holstein’s (2003) solution | |

\(T_{xx} (s^{-2})\) | − 7.6908531369E–01 | − 7.6908531369E–01 | − 2.0052858984E+00 | − 2.0052858984E–00 |

\(T_{xy} (s^{-2})\) | 1.7105121125E–02 | 1.7105121125E–02 | 2.8319243428E–02 | 2.8319243428E–02 |

\(T_{xz}(s^{-2})\) | − 6.0704410609E–02 | − 6.0704410609E–02 | − 2.786584432 | − 2.786584431 |

\(T_{yy}(s^{-2})\) | − 4.5350144435E–01 | − 4.5350144435E–01 | − 9.5222605949E–01 | − 9.5222605949E–01 |

\(T_{yz}(s^{-2})\) | − 2.6549313009E–01 | − 2.6549313009E–01 | 1.2199835474E–01 | 1.2199835474E–01 |

\(T_{zz}(s^{-2})\) | 1.2225867580E+00 | 1.2225867580E–00 | − 9.6088586564E+00 | − 9.6088586564E–00 |

### 3.3 A Tetrahedral Mass Body with Horizontal and Vertical Density Contrasts

In practical gravity exploration, the underground mass bodies can have complicated shapes. To calculate their GGT signals, we generally need to discretise the underground mass bodies into sets of disjoint elements with different shapes, such as structured hexahedral or prismatic elements and unstructured tetrahedral elements. Compared to regular prismatic elements, unstructured tetrahedral elements can well approximate arbitrarily complicated anomalies. Using recent Delaunay triangulation techniques (e.g., Si 2015), geophysicists can easily set up discretised triangulated grids to represent complicated anomalous targets. Therefore, unstructured grid techniques have been widely used in the geophysical community, not only in gravity exploration (Jahandari and Farquharson 2013; Ren et al. 2017c), but also in the electromagnetic induction community (Li and Key 2007; Schwarzbach et al. 2011; Ren et al. 2013) and the seismic imaging field (Lelièvre et al. 2011). Testing a single tetrahedral mass body not only aims to test the performance of our new closed-from solutions for complicated density contrasts (horizontal and vertical density contrasts), but also demonstrates its compatibility with other codes developed for unstructured grids. This verification is an important step towards joint inversion for multiple parameters, such as magnetisation vector, conductivity, velocity and mass density on the same unstructured gird.

### 3.4 Numerical Stability

We present an experiment, in which the tetrahedron shown in Fig. 5 was used to recover the above linear error growth curve. The size of the tetrahedron was set to the diameter of its circumscribed sphere, that is \(\alpha =0.134\) km. The starting point for the profile is located at the centre of the circumscribed sphere of the tetrahedral model. The measuring profile is formulated as \(x=y, z=0\) km.

*T*and \({T}_{\mathrm{point}}\), respectively. In addition, the relative errors \(\eta =\left| {T}-{T}_{\mathrm{point}}\right| /\left| {T}_{\mathrm{point}}\right|\) were computed. Four polynomial density contrasts of different orders were used for the stability test:

The relative error curves are shown in Fig. 13 for the above four density contrasts. In Fig. 13, at low dimensionless target distances \(\gamma ^{-1}\), the relative errors decrease with increasing \(\gamma ^{-1}\), because the tetrahedron is better approximated as a mass point with increasing distance. However, the gravity anomalies are progressively corrupted with increasing target distance, and when the dimensionless target distance (\(\gamma ^{-1}\)) is beyond a critical value, the rounding error in the unstable calculations exceeds the solution difference, resulting in a rising trend of the relative errors (cf. Holstein 2003). We reconstructed the entire error growth curves by extrapolating the ascending parts back to \((\gamma ^{-1}=1,\;\eta =\varepsilon )\). In Fig. 13, the reconstructed curves are denoted by blue dashed lines. We observe that there are two linear error growth trends for each polynomial density contrast, that is \(T_{zx}\) and \(T_{zy}\) share the same error growth behaviour, and \(T_{xx}\), \(T_{yy}\), \(T_{zz}\) and \(T_{yx}\) share the same error growth behaviour. The estimated values of \(\kappa\) are shown in Table 4. Using the estimated \(\kappa\), the critical dimensionless target distances were calculated from that value of \(\gamma ^{-1}\) where the rising part of the error curve indicates a relative error of 1 (Holstein and Ketteridge 1996; Holstein 2003; Zhou 2010) in Eq. (25), which are also shown in Table 4.

Experimental values of \(\kappa\) and \(1/\gamma _{\mathrm{crit}}\) for polynomial density contrasts of different orders. All experiments were performed on a computer with an Intel Core i5-4590 processor using double precision arithmetics

Order | \(T_{xz}\), \(T_{yz}\) | \(T_{xx}\), \(T_{yy}\), \(T_{zz}\), \(T_{xy}\) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

\(\kappa\) | \(1/\gamma _{\mathrm{crit}}\) | \(\kappa\) | \(1/\gamma _{\mathrm{crit}}\) | |

Constant | 4.21 | 5195.26 | 3.23 | 70,079.11 |

Linear | 5.28 | 926.39 | 4.31 | 4256.74 |

Quadratic | 6.31 | 302.90 | 5.36 | 835.48 |

Cubic | 7.33 | 137.09 | 6.39 | 282.00 |

## 4 Conclusions

In the presented work, we have derived a set of closed-form solutions for the gravity gradient tensor of an arbitrary polyhedral body. The density contrast of the polyhedral body is represented as a polynomial function of up to and including third order. The polynomial function allows density contrasts to simultaneously vary in both horizontal and vertical directions. To our best knowledge, this is the first time that analytical solutions of the gravity gradient tensor are derived for an arbitrary polyhedral body with polynomial orders up to three. Three synthetic models (a prismatic body, an irregular polyhedron and a tetrahedral body) were used to test the correctness and the efficiency of our newly developed closed-form solutions. By comparing to published closed-form solutions and high-order Gaussian quadrature solutions, the high accuracies of our solutions with deviations of less than \(2\times 10^{-7}\)% from the Gaussian quadrature solutions were demonstrated. The computation time used by our analytical solution is significantly less than that of the high-order Gaussian quadrature.

The numerical stability tests show that, when dealing with cubic density contrast, our closed-form solutions would generate inaccurate solutions, if the dimensionless target distance, which is defined as the ratio of the distance between the observation site and the causative body to the dimension of the causative body, is larger than about 282 for \(T_{xx}\), \(T_{yy}\), \(T_{zz}\), \(T_{yx}\) components, and 137 for \(T_{zx}\), \(T_{zy}\) components, on a profile with \(x=y\) and \(z=0\,{\text {m}}\). This inaccuracy problem is caused by the limited precision of floating point operations, when the amplitudes of the gravity gradient tensors are very close to zero. However, since most applications of gravity gradient tensors aim at detecting anomalous bodies in the very shallow subsurface of the Earth, this problem of precision loss should not cause a serious problem in practical situations, and our closed-form solutions are very safe to be applied in exploration geophysics.

For the cases of constant, linear, second and cubic polynomial order, there are systematic recurrences of previously evaluated integrals as well as occurrences of new types of integrals, when going to higher polynomial order. We assume that this is a trend even for higher polynomial orders (\(P>3\)). However, extending our work to higher polynomial orders will be a nontrivial task as more and more complicated integrals need to be considered. By contrast, using the analytical expressions presented in this study, closed-form solutions for the magnetic field can be derived easily.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Grants from the National Basic Research Program of China (973 - 2015CB060200), the National Science Foundation of China (41574120), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province of China (2016JJ2139), the State High-Tech Development Plan of China (2014AA06A602), the Project of Innovation-driven Plan in Central South University (2016CX005), and an award for outstanding young scientists by Central South University (Lieying program 2013) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University (1053320171677). YL was supported by Pioneer Hundred Talents Program, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Deep thanks are given to H. Holstein and H. Götze and an anonymous reviewer for critical and helpful comments which significantly improved the quality of this article.

## References

- Abtahi SM, Pedersen LB, Kamm J, Kalscheuer T (2016) Consistency investigation, vertical gravity estimation and inversion of airborne gravity gradient tensor data—a case study from northern Sweden. Geophysics 81(3):B65–B76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beiki M, Pedersen LB (2010) Eigenvector analysis of gravity gradient tensor to locate geologic bodies. Geophysics 75(6):I37–I49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beiki M, Keating P, Clark DA (2014) Interpretation of magnetic and gravity gradient tensor data using normalized source strength—a case study from McFaulds Lake, Northern Ontario, Canada. Geophys Prospect 62(5):1180–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bell RE, Hansen RO (1998) The rise and fall of early oil field technology: the torsion balance gradiometer. Lead Edge 17(1):81–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bell RE, Anderson R, Pratson L (1997) Gravity gradiometry resurfaces. Lead Edge 16(1):55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blakely RJ (1996) Potential theory in gravity and magnetic applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Brewster J (2016) Comparison of gravity gradiometer designs using the 3D sensitivity function. SEG Tech Progr Expand Abstr 2016:1583–1587Google Scholar
- Cai Y, Wang C (2005) Fast finite-element calculation of gravity anomaly in complex geological regions. Geophys J Int 162(3):696–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chai Y, Hinze WJ (1988) Gravity inversion of an interface above which the density contrast varies exponentially with depth. Geophysics 53(6):837–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chakravarthi V, Raghuram H, Singh S (2002) 3-D forward gravity modeling of basement interfaces above which the density contrast varies continuously with depth. Comput Geosci 28(1):53–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chapin D (1998) Gravity instruments: past, present, future. Lead Edge 17(1):100–100. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1437806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chappell A, Kusznir N (2008) An algorithm to calculate the gravity anomaly of sedimentary basins with exponential density-depth relationships. Geophys Prospect 56(2):249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cordell L (1973) Gravity analysis using an exponential density-depth function—San Jacinto Graben, California. Geophysics 38(4):684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- De Stefano M, Panepinto S (2016) On the approximation of the potential fields when using right rectangular prisms. Geophys Prospect 65:1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Droujinine A, Vasilevsky A, Evans R (2007) Feasibility of using full tensor gradient (FTG) data for detection of local lateral density contrasts during reservoir monitoring. Geophys J Int 169(3):795–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- D’Urso M (2014a) Analytical computation of gravity effects for polyhedral bodies. J Geod 88(1):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- D’Urso M (2014b) Gravity effects of polyhedral bodies with linearly varying density. Celest Mech Dyn Astron 120(4):349–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- D’Urso MG, Trotta S (2017) Gravity anomaly of polyhedral bodies having a polynomial density contrast. Surv Geophys 38(4):781–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Evstifeev MI (2017) The state of the art in the development of onboard gravity gradiometers. Gyroscopy Navig 8(1):68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Farquharson CG, Mosher CRW (2009) Three-dimensional modelling of gravity data using finite differences. J Appl Geophys 68(3):417–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Forsberg R (1984) A study of terrain reductions, density anomalies and geophysical inversion methods in gravity field modelling. Technical report, Ohio State University, Columbus Department of Geodetic Science and SurveyingGoogle Scholar
- Gallardo-Delgado LA, Pérez-Flores MA, Gómez-Treviño E (2003) A versatile algorithm for joint 3D inversion of gravity and magnetic data. Geophysics 68(3):949–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- García-Abdeslem J (2005) The gravitational attraction of a right rectangular prism with density varying with depth following a cubic polynomial. Geophysics 70(6):J39–J42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Golub GH, Welsch JH (1969) Calculation of Gauss quadrature rules. Math Comput 23(106):221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Götze HJ, Lahmeyer B (1988) Application of three-dimensional interactive modeling in gravity and magnetics. Geophysics 53(8):1096–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gradshteyn IS, Ryzhik IM (2007) Table of integrals, series, and products, 7th edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Gutknecht BD, Goetze HJ, Jahr T, Jentzsch G, Mahatsente R, Zeumann S (2014) Structure and state of stress of the chilean subduction zone from terrestrial and satellite-derived gravity and gravity gradient data. Surv Geophys 35(6):1417–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hansen R (1999) An analytical expression for the gravity field of a polyhedral body with linearly varying density. Geophysics 64(1):75–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holstein H (2002) Gravimagnetic similarity in anomaly formulas for uniform polyhedra. Geophysics 67(4):1126–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holstein H (2003) Gravimagnetic anomaly formulas for polyhedra of spatially linear media. Geophysics 68(1):157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holstein H, Ketteridge B (1996) Gravimetric analysis of uniform polyhedra. Geophysics 61(2):357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holstein H, Schrholz P, Starr AJ, Chakraborty M (1999) Comparison of gravimetric formulas for uniform polyhedra. Geophysics 64(5):1438–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holstein H, Sherratt E, Anastasiades C (2007a) Gravimagnetic anomaly formulae for triangulated homogeneous polyhedra. In: 69th EAGE conference and exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2007Google Scholar
- Holstein H, Sherratt EM, Reid AB (2007b) Gravimagnetic field tensor gradiometry formulas for uniform polyhedra. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2007:750–754. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2792522 Google Scholar
- Holstein H, Fitzgerald D, Stefanov H (2013) Gravimagnetic similarity for homogeneous rectangular prisms. In: 75th EAGE conference and exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2013Google Scholar
- Jahandari H, Farquharson CG (2013) Forward modeling of gravity data using finite-volume and finite-element methods on unstructured grids. Geophysics 78(3):G69–G80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jiang L, Zhang J, Feng Z (2017) A versatile solution for the gravity anomaly of 3D prism-meshed bodies with depth-dependent density contrast. Geophysics 82(4):G77–G86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jin J (2002) The finite element method in electromagnetics. Wiley-IEEE Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kwok YK (1991) Gravity gradient tensors due to a polyhedron with polygonal facets. Geophys Prospect 39(3):435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lee JB (2001) FALCON gravity gradiometer technology. Explor Geophys 32(3/4):247–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lelièvre PG, Farquharson CG, Hurich CA (2011) Computing first-arrival seismic traveltimes on unstructured 3-D tetrahedral grids using the fast marching method. Geophys J Int 184(2):885–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Li X (2015) Curvature of a geometric surface and curvature of gravity and magnetic anomalies. Geophysics 80(1):G15–G26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Li X, Chouteau M (1998) Three-dimensional gravity modeling in all space. Surv Geophys 19(4):339–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Li Y, Key K (2007) 2D marine controlled-source electromagnetic modeling: Part 1—an adaptive finite-element algorithm. Geophysics 72(2):WA51–WA62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Litinsky VA (1989) Concept of effective density: key to gravity depth determinations for sedimentary basins. Geophysics 54(11):1474–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Martinez C, Li Y, Krahenbuhl R, Braga MA (2013) 3D inversion of airborne gravity gradiometry data in mineral exploration: a case study in the Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Brazil. Geophysics 78(1):B1–B11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Montana CJ, Mickus KL, Peeples WJ (1992) Program to calculate the gravitational field and gravity gradient tensor resulting from a system of right rectangular prisms. Comput Geosci 18(5):587–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nabighian MN, Ander ME, Grauch VJS, Hansen RO, LaFehr TR, Li Y, Pearson WC, Peirce JW, Phillips JD, Ruder ME (2005) Historical development of the gravity method in exploration. Geophysics 70(6):63ND–89NDCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nagy D, Papp G, Benedek J (2000) The gravitational potential and its derivatives for the prism. J Geodesy 74(7):552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Okabe M (1979) Analytical expressions for gravity anomalies due to homogeneous polyhedral bodies and translations into magnetic anomalies. Geophysics 44(4):730–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Parker R (1973) The rapid calculation of potential anomalies. Geophys J Int 31(4):447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pedersen LB, Rasmussen TM (1990) The gradient tensor of potential field anomalies: some implications on data collection and data processing of maps. Geophysics 55(12):1558–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Petrović S (1996) Determination of the potential of homogeneous polyhedral bodies using line integrals. J Geodesy 71(1):44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pohánka V (1998) Optimum expression for computation of the gravity field of a polyhedral body with linearly increasing density. Geophys Prospect 46(4):391–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ramillien GL (2017) Density interface topography recovered by inversion of satellite gravity gradiometry observations. J Geodesy 91(8):881–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rao DB (1985) Analysis of gravity anomalies over an inclined fault with quadratic density function. Pure Appl Geophys 123(2):250–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rao DB (1990) Analysis of gravity anomalies of sedimentary basins by an asymmetrical trapezoidal model with quadratic density function. Geophysics 55(2):226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rao CV, Raju M, Chakravarthi V (1995) Gravity modelling of an interface above which the density contrast decreases hyperbolically with depth. J Appl Geophys 34(1):63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rathod H, Venkatesudu B, Nagaraja K (2006) Gauss Legendre quadrature formulas over a tetrahedron. Numer Methods Partial Differ Equ 22(1):197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ren Z, Kalscheuer T, Greenhalgh S, Maurer H (2013) A goal-oriented adaptive finite-element approach for plane wave 3-D electromagnetic modelling. Geophys J Int 194(2):700–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ren Z, Chen C, Pan K, Kalscheuer T, Maurer H, Tang J (2017a) Gravity anomalies of arbitrary 3D polyhedral bodies with horizontal and vertical mass contrasts. Surv Geophys 38(2):479–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ren Z, Chen C, Tang J, Chen H, Hu S, Zhou C, Xiao X (2017b) Closed-form formula for full magnetic gradient tensor of a homogeneous polyhedral body: a tetrahedral grid example. Geophysics 82(6):WB21–WB28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ren Z, Tang J, Kalscheuer T, Maurer H (2017c) Fast 3-D large-scale gravity and magnetic modeling using unstructured grids and an adaptive multilevel fast multipole method. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 122(1):79–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ren Z, Zhong Y, Chen C, Tang J, Pan K (2018) Gravity anomalies of arbitrary 3D polyhedral bodies with horizontal and vertical mass contrasts up to cubic order. Geophysics 83(1):G1–G13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rim H, Li Y (2016) Gravity gradient tensor due to a cylinder. Geophysics 81(4):G59–G66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sastry RG, Gokula A (2016) Full gravity gradient tensor of a vertical pyramid model of flat top and bottom with depth-wise linear density variation. In: Symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems 2015. Society of Exploration Geophysicists and Environment and Engineering Geophysical Society, pp 294–301Google Scholar
- Schwarzbach C, Börner RU, Spitzer K (2011) Three-dimensional adaptive higher order finite element simulation for geo-electromagnetics—a marine CSEM example. Geophys J Int 187(1):63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Si H (2015) TetGen, a Delaunay-based quality tetrahedral mesh generator. ACM Trans Math Softw 41(2):11:–11:36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tai C (1997) Generalized vector and dyadic analysis: applied mathematics in field theory. IEEE Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Talwani M, Ewing M (1960) Rapid computation of gravitational attraction of three-dimensional bodies of arbitrary shape. Geophysics 25(1):203–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tsoulis D (2012) Analytical computation of the full gravity tensor of a homogeneous arbitrarily shaped polyhedral source using line integrals. Geophysics 77(2):F1–F11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tsoulis D, Petrović S (2001) On the singularities of the gravity field of a homogeneous polyhedral body. Geophysics 66(2):535–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Werner RA, Scheeres DJ (1996) Exterior gravitation of a polyhedron derived and compared with harmonic and mascon gravitation representations of asteroid 4769 Castalia. Celest Mech Dyn Astron 65(3):313–344Google Scholar
- Wilton D, Rao S, Glisson A, Schaubert D, Al-Bundak O, Butler C (1984) Potential integrals for uniform and linear source distributions on polygonal and polyhedral domains. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 32(3):276–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wu L, Chen L (2016) Fourier forward modeling of vector and tensor gravity fields due to prismatic bodies with variable density contrast. Geophysics 81(1):G13–G26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ylä-Oijala P, Taskinen M (2003) Calculation of CFIE impedance matrix elements with RWG and n \(\times\) RWG functions. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 51(8):1837–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhou X (2010) Analytic solution of the gravity anomaly of irregular 2D masses with density contrast varying as a 2D polynomial function. Geophysics 75(2):I11–I19CrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.