Multiscale estimation of excess mass from gravity data
Open accessAbstract
We describe a multiscale method to estimate the excess mass of gravity anomaly sources, based on the theory of source moments.Using a multipole expansion of the potential field and considering only the data along the vertical direction, a system of linear equations is obtained.The choice of inverting data along a vertical profile can help us to reduce the interference effects due to nearby anomalies and will allow a local estimate of the source parameters.A criterion is established allowing the selection of the optimal highest altitude of the vertical profile data and truncation order of the series expansion.The inversion provides an estimate of the total anomalous mass and of the depth to the centre of mass.The method has several advantages with respect to classical methods, such as the Gauss' method: (i) we need just a 1-D inversion to obtain our estimates, being the inverted data sampled along a single vertical profile; (ii) the resolution may be straightforward enhanced by using vertical derivatives; (iii) the centre of mass is also estimated, besides the excess mass; (iv) the method is very robust versus noise; (v) the profile may be chosen in such a way to minimize the effects from interfering anomalies or from side effects due to the a limited area extension.The multiscale estimation of excess mass method can be successfully used in various fields of application.Here, we analyse the gravity anomaly generated by a sulphide body in the Skelleftea ore district, North Sweden, obtaining source mass and volume estimates in agreement with the known information.We show also that these estimates are substantially improved with respect to those obtained with the classical approach.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Local geological sources may lead to gravity signals up to about 10 mGal.
“while local geological sources may lead to gravity signals up to ∼ 10 mGal (Yale et al. 1998; Bondarescu et al. 2012; Castaldo et al. 2014).”
From Determination of a high spatial resolution geopotential model using atomic clock comparisons (2017) · cites this paper as Castaldo et al. 2014
Section 4 describes a gravity anomaly generated by a local sulphide body at the Udden mine, supporting the geological-source part of the claim. The passages found do not give an anomaly amplitude of about 10 mGal; Section 3.1 mentions mGal only as a unit in a mass-estimation formula. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- S Blakely, R.J., 1995. Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications, Cambridge University Press, 461 pp.
- Fedi, M. & Cascone, L., 2011. Composite continuous wavelet transform of potential fields with different choices of analyzing wavelets, J. geophys. Res., 116(B7), doi:10.1029/2010JB007882. · DOI
- Grant, F.S. & West, G.F., 1965. Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics. International Series in the Earth Sciences, McGraw-Hill.
- Kellogg, O.D., 1953. Foundations of Potential Theory. Dover Press.
- Lu, M., 2004. Pit lakes from sulphide ore mining, geochemical and limno- logical characterization before treatment, after liming and sewage sludge treatments, Doctoral thesis, Lulea University of Technology.
- Malehmir, A., Thunehed, H. & Tryggvason, A., 2009. The Palaeoprotro- zoic Kristineberg mining area, northern Sweden: results from integrated 3D geophysical and geological modelling, implications for targeting ore deposits, Geophysics, 74(1), B9-B22.
- McGrath, P.H., 1991. Dip and depth extent of density boundaries using hori- zontal derivatives of upward-continued gravity data, Geophysics, 56(10), 1533-1542.
- Medeiros, W.E. & Silva, J.B.C., 1995a. Analysis of gravity source moment inversion, part I: Using no a priori information about the source, Pure appl. Geophys., 144(1), 79-94.
- Medeiros, W.E. & Silva, J.B.C., 1995b. Analysis of gravity source moment inversion. part II: Using a priori information about the source, Pure appl. Geophys., 144(1), 95-116.
- Medeiros, W.E. & Silva, J.B.C., 1995c. Gravity source moment inversion: a versatile approach to characterize position and 3-D orientation of anoma- lous bodies, Geophysics, 60(5), 1342-1353.
- Menke, W., 2012. Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete Inverse Theory, 3rd edn., Academic Press (Elsevier), 293 pp.
- Moreau, F., Gibert, D., Holschneider, M. & Saracco, G., 1999. Identification of sources of potential fields with the continuous wavelet transform: basic theory, J. geophys. Res., 104, doi:10.1029/1998JB900106. · DOI
- Oliveira, V.C., Barbosa, V.C.F. & Silva, J.B.C., 2011. Source geometry esti- mation using the mass excess criterion to constrain 3-D radial inversion of gravity data, Geophys. J. Int., 187(2), 754-772.
- Parasnis, D.S., 1975. Mining Geophysics, Elsevier.
- Reynolds, J.M., 1997. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geo- physics, John Wiley and Sons.
- Sailhac, P. & Gibert, D., 2003. Identification of sources of poten- tial fields with the continuous wavelet transform: two-dimensional wavelets and multipolar approximations, J. geophys. Res., R, 108, 2262, doi:10.1029/2002JB002021. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Determination of a high spatial resolution geopotential model using atomic clock comparisons
Lion, G., Panet, I., Wolf, P., Guerlin, C., Bize, S., & Delva, P. (2017) · Journal of Geodesy · doi:10.1007/s00190-016-0986-6 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
“2009), while local geological sources may lead to gravity signals up to ∼ 10 mGal (Yale et al. 1998; Bondarescu et al. 2012; Castaldo et al. 2014).”
Background
- Authors
- Castaldo, R., Fedi, M., & Florio, G.
- Affiliations
- Istituto per il Rilevamento Elettromagnetico dell'Ambiente (IT)
- University of Naples Federico II (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Castaldo, R.
- Fedi, M.
- Florio, G.
- Venue
- Geophysical Journal International
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-04-12
- Volume
- 197
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1387-1398
- ISSN
- 0956-540X (ISSN-L)
- 1365-246X
- OpenAlex
- W2140290377
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 0.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Geophysical Journal International (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geophysics › Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Geophysics and Gravity Measurements
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Geophysical Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- gravity anomalies, multipole expansion, vertical derivative, noise robustness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
