Mathematical analysis of gravity anomalies due to an infinite sheet-like structure

  • Mansour A. Al-Garni
Original Paper


Gravity anomalies caused by a thin infinite sheet are interpreted quantitatively based on an integral transform approach which is elegant and simple. The proposed technique depends on the modified Hilbert transform which is called “Sundararajan transform.” The amplitudes of the well-known Hilbert transform and Sundararajan transform are exactly the same but with a phase difference of 270° between them. The interpretation of gravity anomalies due to a thin infinite sheet has been implemented using the Sundararajan transform rather than the well-known Hilbert transform, yielding a straightforward solution. Parameters such as the depth to the top of the sheet (z), the inclination angle (θ), and the amplitude coefficient (K) have been analytically determined using simple mathematical equations. The origin of the causative target can be determined by the intersection point between Hilbert and Sundararajan transforms as well as the intersection point of the amplitudes of the analytic signal of the two transforms. The proposed technique has been first applied to synthetic data where the procedures are clearly illustrated. The effect of noise on the interpretation procedures of the proposed technique has been investigated, showing in general satisfactory results especially depth estimation. However, the most sensitive parameter to noise is the dipping angle, which can be misleading in high level of noise, whereas the least sensitive parameter is the depth. Strictly speaking, the noise does not significantly distort the depth estimation obtained with this proposed technique. Finally, the interpretation of the gravity anomaly across the Mobrun ore body, Noranda, Quebec, Canada, has been carried out using the proposed technique where the parameters are estimated and compared to the results that have been published in literatures using different techniques.


Hilbert transform Sundararajan transform Gravity anomaly Source origin Random noise Interpretation 



The author would like to express his sincere and profound thanks to the editors and the reviewers for their thorough reviews and the feedback to improve the manuscript as presented here.


  1. Abdelrahman EM (1990) Discussion on “a least-squares approach to depth determination from gravity data” by GUPTA, O.P. Geophysics 55:376–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdelrahman EM (1994) A rapid approach to depth determination from magnetic anomalies due to simple geometrical bodies. J Univ Kuwait Sci 21:109–115Google Scholar
  3. Abdelrahman EM, El-Araby TM (1993) A least-squares minimization approach to depth determination from moving average residual gravity anomalies. Geophysics 59:1779–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abdelrahman EM, Sharafeldin SM (1995a) A least-squares minimization approach to depth determination from numerical horizontal gravity gradients. Geophysics 60:1259–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abdelrahman EM, Sharafeldin SM (1995b) A least-squares minimization approach to shape determination from gravity data. Geophysics 60:589–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Abdelrahman EM, Bayoumi AI, Abdelhady YE, Gobash MM, ELAraby HM (1989) Gravity interpretation using correlation factors between successive least—squares residual anomalies. Geophysics 54:1614–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Abdelrahman EM, Bayoumi AI, El-Araby HM (1991) A least-squares minimization approach to invert gravity data. Geophysics 56:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Abdelrahman EM, El-Araby TM, El-Araby HM, Abo-Ezz ER (2001a) Three least squares minimization approaches to depth, shape, and amplitude coefficient determination from gravity data. Geophysics 66:1105–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Abdelrahman EM, El-Araby TM, El-Araby HM, Abo-Ezz ER (2001b) A new method for shape and depth determinations from gravity data. Geophysics 66:1774–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Al-Garni MA (2007) Gravity interpretation using Haar transforms. Bull Fac Sci Cairo Univ 75(A):117–135Google Scholar
  11. Al-Garni MA (2008) Walsh transforms for depth determination of a finite vertical cylinder from its residual gravity anomaly. SAGEEP, April 6-10: 689–702Google Scholar
  12. Asfahani J, Tlas M (2012) Fair function minimization for direct interpretation of residual gravity anomaly profiles due to spheres and cylinders. Pure Appl Geophys 169:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Atchuta Rao D, Ram Babu HV, Venkata Raju D (1985) Inversion of gravity and magnetic anomalies over some bodies of simple geometric shape, PAEGOPH 123:239–249Google Scholar
  14. Bhattacharyya BK (1965) Two-dimensional harmonic analysis as a tool for magnetic interpretation. Geophysics 30:829–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Biswas A (2015) Interpretation of residual gravity anomaly caused by a simple shaped body using very fast simulated annealing global optimization. Geosci Front 6(6):875–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Biswas A (2016) Interpretation of gravity and magnetic anomaly over thin sheet-type structure using very fast simulated annealing global optimization technique. Model Earth Syst Environ 2:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bowin C, Scheer E, Smith W (1986) Depth estimates from ratios of gravity, geoid and gravity gradient anomalies. Geophysics 51:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elawadi E, Salem A, Ushijima K (2001) Detection of cavities from gravity data using a neural network. Explor Geophys 32:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Essa KS (2012) A fast interpretation method for inverse modelling of residual gravity anomalies caused by simple geometry. J Geol Res 2012:1–10, Article ID 327037. Google Scholar
  20. Essa KS (2013) New fast least-squares algorithm for estimating the best-fitting parameters due to simple geometric-structures from gravity anomalies. J Adv Res 5(1):57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fedi M (2007) DEXP: a fast method to determine the depth and the structural index of potential fields sources. Geophysics 72(1):I1–I11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gay SP (1963) Standard curves for the interpretation of magnetic anomalies over long tabular bodies. Geophysics 28:161–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gay SP (1965) Standard curves for the interpretation of magnetic anomalies over long horizontal cylinders. Geophysics 30:818–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gokturkler G, Balkaya C (2012) Inversion of self-potential anomalies caused by simple geometry bodies using global optimization algorithms. J Geophys Eng 9:498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grant RS, West GF (1965) Interpretation theory in applied geophysics. McGraw-Hill Book Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Gupta OP (1983) A least-squares approach to depth determination from gravity data. Geophysics 48:360–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilty TK (1983) Werner deconvolution of profile potential field data. Geophysics 48:234–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lines LR, Treitel S (1984) A review of least-squares inversion and its application to geophysical problems. Geophys Prospect 32:159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGrath H (1970) The dipping dike case: a computer curve-matching method of magnetic interpretation. Geophysics 35(5):831–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGrath PH, Hood PJ (1973) An automatic least-squares multimodel method for magnetic interpretation. Geophysics 38(2):349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mehanee S (2014) Accurate and efficient regularized inversion approach for the interpretation of isolated gravity anomalies. Pure Appl Geophys 171(8):1897–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mohan NL, Sundararajan N, Seshagiri Rao SV (1982) Interpretation of some two-dimensional magnetic bodies using Hilbert transforms. Geophysics 46:376–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mohan NL, Anandababu L, Roa S (1986) Gravity interpretation using Mellin transform. Geophysics 52:114–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nabighian MN (1972) The analytical signal of 2-D magnetic bodies with polygonal cross section, its properties and use for automated anomaly interpretation. Geophysics 37:507–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nettleton LL (1962) Gravity and magnetics for geologists and seismologists. AAPG 46:1815–1838Google Scholar
  36. Nettleton LL (1976) Gravity and magnetics in oil prospecting. McGraw-Hill Book Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Odegard ME, Berg JW (1965) Gravity interpretation using the fourier integral. Geophysics 30:424–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prakasa Rao TKS, Subrahmanyan M, Srikrishna Murthy A (1986) Nomograms for direct interpretation of magnetic anomalies due to long horizontal cylinders. Geophysics 51:2150–2159Google Scholar
  39. Roy L, Agarwal BNP, Shaw RK (2000) A new concept in Euler deconvolution of isolated gravity anomalies. Geophys Prospect 48:559–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharma B, Geldart LP (1968) Analysis of gravity anomalies of two dimensional faults using Fourier transforms. Geophys Prospect 16:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaw RK, Agarwal BNP (1990) The application of Walsh transforms to interpret gravity anomalies due to some simple geometrically shaped causative sources: a feasibility study. Geophysics 55:843–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silva JBC (1989) Transformation of nonlinear problems into linear ones applied to the magnetic field of a two-dimensional prism. Geophysics 54:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh A, Biswas A (2016) Application of global particle swarm optimization for inversion of residual gravity anomalies over geological bodies with idealized geometries. Nat Resour Res 25:297–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sivakumar Sinha GDJ, Ram Babu HV (1985) Analysis of gravity gradient over a thin infinite sheet. Proc Indian Acad Sci Earth Planet Sci 94(1):71–76Google Scholar
  45. Srinivas Y (2000) Modified Hilbert transform—a tool to the interpretation of geopotential field anomalies: Ph.D Thesis submitted to Osmania University, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Sundararajan N (1982) Interpretation techniques in exploration geophysics using the Hilbert transform: Ph.D thesis (Unpublished), Osmania UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. Sundararajan N (1995) 2-D Hartley transform. Geophysics 60:262–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sundararajan N (1997) Fourier and Hartley transform—a mathematical twin. Indian J Pure Appl Math 28:1361–1365Google Scholar
  49. Sundararajan N, Srinivas Y (1996) A modified Hilbert transform and its applications to self- potential interpretations. J Appl Geophys 36:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sundararajan N, Mohan NL, Seshagiri Rao SV (1983) Gravity interpretation of 2-D fault structures using the Hilbert transform. J Geophysics 34:34–47Google Scholar
  51. Sundararajan N, Arun Kumar I, Mohan NL, Seshagiri Rao SV (1990) Use of the Hilbert transform to interpret S.P. anomalies due to 2-D structures. PAGEOPH 133:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sundararajan N, Srinivas Y, Laxminarayana Rao T (2000) Sundararajan transform—a tool to interpret potential field anomalies. Explor Geophys 31:622–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas JB (1969) An introduction to statistical communication theory. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson DT (1982) EULDPH-a new technique for making computer-assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics 47:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tlas M, Asfahani J, Karmeh H (2005) A versatile nonlinear inversion to interpret gravity anomaly caused by a simple geometrical structure. Pure Appl Geophys 162:2557–2571CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Earth SciencesKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations