Local and Regional Comparisons of Gravity and Magnetic Fields

  • C. JekeliEmail author
  • O. Huang
  • T. L. Abt
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 136)


A long recognized connection between the gravitational gradients of the Earth’s crust and its magnetic anomalies, known as Poisson’s relationship, is the object of investigation in this paper. We develop the mathematical and theoretical basis of this relationship in both the space and frequency domains. Anomalies of the magnetic field thus implied by the gravitational gradients (or other derivatives of the gravitational potential) are called pseudo-magnetic anomalies; and, they assume a linear relationship between the mass density of the source material and its magnetization induced by the Earth’s main magnetic field. Tests in several regions of the U.S. that compare gravitational gradients derived from the high-resolution model, EGM08, and a continental magnetic anomaly data base reveal that the correlation implied by Poisson’s relationship is not consistent. Some areas exhibit high positive correlation at various frequencies, while others have even strong negative correlation. Therefore, useful applications of Poisson’s relationship depend on the validity of the underlying assumptions that, conversely, may also be investigated and studied using a combination of gradiometric and magnetic data.


Magnetic Anomaly Gravitational Potential Main Field Magnetic Potential Magnetic Dipole Moment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ates A, Keary P (1995) A new method for determining magnetization direction from gravity and magnetic anomalies: application to the deep structure of the Worcester Graben. J Geol Soc 152:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baranov V (1957) A new method for interpretation of aeromagnetic maps: Pseudo-gravimetric anomalies. Geophysics 22:359–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briden JC, Clark RA, Fairhead JD (1982) Gravity and magnetic studies in the Channel Islands. J Geol Soc 139:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dindi EW, Swain CJ (1988) Joint three-dimensional inversion of gravity and magnetic data from Jombo Hill alkaline complex, Kenya. J Geol Soc 145:493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fedi M (1989) On the quantitative interpretation of magnetic anomalies by pseudo-gravimetric integration. Terra Nova 1:564–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gunn PJ (1975) Linear transformations of gravity and magnetic fields. Geophys Prospect 23:300–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jekeli C, Erkan K, Huang O (2008) Gravity vs pseudo-Gravity: a comparison based on magnetic and gravity gradient measurements. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Gravity Geoid and Earth Observations, GGEO2008, 23–27 July 2008, Chania, Greece, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  8. Klingele EE, Marson I, Kahle H-G (1991) Automatic interpretation of gravity gradiometric data in two dimensions: vertical gradient. Geophys Prospect 39:407–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. North American Magnetic Anomaly Group (NAMAG) (2002): Magnetic anomaly map of North America. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Pavlis NK, Holmes SA, Kenyon SC, and Factor JK (2008) An earth gravitational model to Degree 2160: EGM2008. Presented at the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union, Vienna, Austria, April 13–18, 2008Google Scholar
  11. Poisson SD (1826) Mémoire sur la théorie du magnétisme. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l’Institut de, France, pp 247–348Google Scholar
  12. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE (1990) Applied geophysics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Geodetic Science, School of Earth SciencesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations