An automatic new approach to gravity anomaly’s profile separation, inversion and interpretation, using an infinite horizontal slab model

References

• Abbott RE, Louie JN. 2000. Depth to bedrock using gravimetry in the Reno and Carson City, Nevada, area basins. Geophysics. 65(2):340–350. do i: 1 0.1190/1.1444730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdelfattah DM. 2022. A new approach automatic separation of the Bouguer gravity anomaly, using a new concept for 2D-Semi-inversion of the sphere-shaped model. NRIAG J Astron Geophys. 11(1):257–281. doi: 10.1080/20909977.2022.2072083.
   Google Scholar
• Abdelfattah DM. 2022. New semi-inversion method of Bouguer gravity anomalies separation. In: Gravitational field. IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.101593.
   Google Scholar
• Abdeslem JG. 2000. 2-D inversion of gravity data using sources laterally bounded by continuous surfaces and depth-dependent density. Geophysics. 65(4):1128–1141. ID: 4769. doi: 10.1190/1.1444806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aghajani H, Moradzadeh A, Zeng H. 2009. Estimation of depth to salt domes from normalized full gradient of gravity anomaly and examples from the USA and Denmark. J Earth Sci. 20(6):1012–1016. doi: 10.1007/s12583-009-0088-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Chalabi M. 1971. Some studies relating to nonuniqueness in gravity and magnetic inverse problem. Geophysics. 36(5):835–855. Corpus ID: 119861663. doi: 10.1190/1.1440219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldi P, Unguendoli M. 1978. Inversion of gravity profiles by polynomial method. Geophys Prospect. 26(1):247. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1978.tb01590.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschetti F, Dentith M, List R. 1997. Inversion of potential field data by Genetic Algorithm. Geophys Prospect. 45(3):461–478. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.1997.3430267.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullard EC. 1936. Gravity measurements in East Africa. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser A Math Phys Sci. 235:445–531.
   Google Scholar
• Burger HR, Sheehan AF, Jones CH. 2006. Introduction to applied geophysics: exploring the shallow subsurface 210. CU Authors Book Gallery.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravarthi V. 1995. Modelling of density interface with binomial density variation. J Appl Geophys. 34(1):69. doi: 10.1016/0926-9851(94)00048-S.
   Web of Science ®Google 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00674.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis RW. 1971. An analysis of gravity data from the Tucson Basin, Arizona. Ariz Geol Soc Dig. 9:103–121.
   Google Scholar
• Fournier KP, Krupicka SF. 1975. A new approximate method for directly interpreting gravity anomaly profiles caused by surface geologic structures. Geophys Prospect. 23(1):80. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1975.tb00682.x.
   Google Scholar
• Gomm H. 1982. Technical performance of drilling operations of wells Erslev-1 and 2 on Mors Salt Dome. Symposium on geological investigation for high-level waste disposal in the Mors Salt Dome. Copenhagen Denmark: IAEA; p. 99–119. 15(4).
   Google Scholar
• Hajian A, Shirazi M. 2015. Depth estimation of salt domes using gravity data through general regression neural networks, case study: Mors Salt dome Denmark. J Earth Space Phys. 41(3):425–438.
   Google Scholar
• Hammer S. 1963. Deep gravity interpretation by stripping. Geophysics. 28(3):369–378. doi: 10.1190/1.1439186.
   Google Scholar
• Heindl LA. 1959. Geology of the San Xavier Indian Reservation, Arizona: Ariz. Geol Soc Guidebook. (2):153–159.
   Google Scholar
• Hinpkin RG, Hussian A. 1983. Regional gravity anomalies-1: Northern Britain, Scale 1: 625,000: L Inst. Geol. Science (now British Geol. Survey) rep. 82/10.
   Google Scholar
• Jorgensen F, Sandersen PBE, Auken E, Andersen HL, Sørensen K. 2005. Contributions to the geological mapping of Mors, Denmark– a study based on a large-scale TEM survey. Bull Geol Soc Den. 52:53–75. doi: 10.37570/bgsd-2005-52-06.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kick JF. 1985. Depth to bedrock using gravimetry. Leading Edge. 4(4):38–42. doi: 10.1190/1.1439143.
   Google Scholar
• Kreitz E. 1982. Seismic evaluation of the Mors salt dome. In: Results of Geological Investigations for High-Level Waste Disposal in the Mors Salt Dome, Proceedings of a Symposium; 18–19 Sept 1981; Copenhagen 1; p. 74–98.
   Google Scholar
• Lacy RJ, Morrison BC. 1966. Case history of integrated geophysical method at the mission deposit, arizona mining geophysics, V. 1: Tulsa, Okla. Soc. Explor Geophys.
   Google Scholar
• LaFehr TR. 1982. Evaluation of surface and borehole gravity measurements at the Mors salt dome. In: Results of Geological Investigations for High-Level Waste Disposal in the Mors Salt Dome, Proceedings of a Symposium; 18-19 Sept. 1981; Copenhagen 1; p. 192–232.
   Google Scholar
• LaFehr TR. 1991. An exact solution for the gravity curvature (Bullard B) correction. Geophysics. 56(8):1179–1184. doi: 10.1190/1.1443138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee TC, Biehler S. 1991. Inversion modeling of gravity with prismatic mass bodies. Geophysics. 56(9):1365. doi: 10.1190/1.1443156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, Chouteau M. 1999. On density derived from Borehole Gravity. Log Anal. 40(1). Paper Number: SPWLA-1999-v40n1a3.
   Google Scholar
• Madirazza I. 1980. Structural Geology of Linde, Gording and Mors Salt Diapirs. In: Proc. Radioactive Waste Disposal Symposium, ELSAM. Denmark: Frederecia; p. 75–90.
   Google Scholar
• Mickus KL, Peeples WJ. 1992. Inversion of gravity and magnetic data for the lower surface of a 2.5 dimensional sedimentary basin. Geophs Prospect. 40:171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miroslav B, Michael R, Michael L. 2013. Tutorial: The gravity-stripping process as applied to gravity interpretation in the eastern Mediterranean. Leading Edge. 32(4):410–416. doi: 10.1190/tle32040410.1.
   Google Scholar
• Nowell DAG. 1999. Gravity terrain corrections—An overview. J Appl Geophys. 42(2):117–134. doi: 10.1016/S0926-9851(99)00028-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldenburg DW. 1974. The inversion and interpretation of gravity anomalies. Geophysics. 39(4):526–536. doi: 10.1190/1.1440444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker RL. 1975. The theory of ideal bodies for gravity interpretation. Geophys J R Astron Soc. 42(2):315–334. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1975.tb05864.x.
   Google Scholar
• Parker RL. 1977. Understanding inverse theory. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci. 5(1):35–64. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ea.05.050177.000343.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen LB. 1977. Interpretation of potential field data a generalized inverse approach. Geophsy Prospect. 25(2):199. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1977.tb01164.x.
   Google Scholar
• Rao DB, Prakash MJ, Babu NR. 1990. 3D and 2½ D modelling of gravity anomalies with variable density contrast 1. 38(4):411. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1990.tb01854.x.
   Google Scholar
• Rao VC, Pramanik AG, Kumar GVRK, Raju ML. 1994. Gravity interpretation of sedimentary basins with hyperbolic density contrast 1. 42(7):825. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1994.tb00243.x.
   Google Scholar
• Salem A, et al. 2010. Estimation of depth and shape factor from potential-field data over sources of simple geometry-. Conference Paper in SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts; January 2002. doi: 10.1190/1.1817358.
   Google Scholar
• Saxov S. 1956. Some gravity measurements in Thy, Mors and Vendsyssel. Geodaetisk Int Skrifter Ser. 3(25):46.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma PV. 1986. Methods in Geochemistry and Geophysics, 12. Geophysical Methods in Geology. Amsterdam/Oxford/(NY): Elsevier Scientific Publication Company.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma PV. 1997. Environmental and Engineering Geophysics. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silva JBC, Oliviera AS, Barbosa VCF. 2010. Gravity inversion of 2D basement relief using entropic regularization. Geophysics. 75(3):I29. doi: 10.1190/1.3374358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasco DW, Johnson LR, Majer EL. 1993. Ensemble inference in geophysical inverse problems. Geophys J Int. 115(3):711–728. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1993.tb01489.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma RK, Majumdar R, Ghosh D, Ghosh A, Gupta NC. 1976. Results of gravity survey over Raniganj coalfield. India Geophys Prospect. 24(1):19. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1976.tb00382.x.
   Google Scholar
• Wahyudi EJ, Marthen R, Fukuda Y, Nurali Y. 2017. Time-lapse microgravity data acquisition in baseline stage of CO2 injection Gundih pilot project. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 62:012047. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/62/1/012047.
   Google Scholar
• Woollard GP. 1938. The effect of geologic correlations on gravity anomalies: transactions—American Geophysical Union. 19(part 1):85–90. doi: 10.1029/TR019i001p00085.
   Google 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. doi: 10.1190/1.3294699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar