524 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES

Cross-references to gravity anomalies for geophysical applications. It is

Geoid Undulation, Interpretation important to stress the geophysical context as there are
Gravimeters often subtle differences in the way geodesists and geo-
Gravity Anomalies, Interpretation physicists think of and use the various gravity-related
Gravity Data, Regional Residual Separation quantities (cf. Li and Gtze, 2001; Hackney and
Gravity Method, Principles Featherstone, 2003; Hofmann-Wellenhof and Moritz,
Gravity Method, Satellite 2006).
Gravity, Data to Anomalies
Impact Craters on Earth
Inverse Theory, Artificial Neural Networks Key parameters
Inverse Theory, Global Optimization Figure 1 shows the key parameters required for computing
Inverse Theory, Linear anomalous gravity. The relevant gravity quantities for
Inverse Theory, Singular Value Decomposition
Isostasy geophysical applications are:
Seismic Tomography Gravity measured at the point P, gP
Seismic, Ray Theory Normal gravity on the surface of the reference ellipsoid, g
Spherical Harmonic Analysis Applied to Potential Fields
A model or predicted gravity value at the measurement
point P, gP , derived from g
The elevation of the point P is also required to account
GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES* for the decrease in gravity with increasing elevation and
the gravity effect of the mass of rock between the measure-
Ron Hackney ment point and the reference ellipsoid. Two height quanti-
Petroleum and Marine Division, Geoscience Australia, ties need to be considered (Figure 1). The height of the
Canberra, ACT, Australia point P above the geoid, H, is measured along a plumb
line, a curved line that is perpendicular to equipotential
Definition surfaces (the geoid is the equipotential surface that most
closely approximates mean sea level see Geoid Determi-
Gravity anomaly. The difference between gravity mea-
nation, Theory and Principles). The ellipsoidal height, h,
sured at a point and a model value at that point that is
based on the normal gravity of a reference ellipsoid,
corrected for the gravity effects of elevation above the ref-

Ell. normal

e
lin
erence ellipsoid and the mass of rock between the point

mb
and the reference ellipsoid.

Plu
Introduction P
The study of anomalous gravity has its roots in geodesy ce
s surfa
where it is used to determine the shape of the Earth (see Ear th gp gp
Geodesy, Physical and Geodesy, Figure of the Earth).
Gravity anomalies have also proved extremely useful in
the interpretation of subsurface geological structure at var-
ious scales. Like many geophysical techniques, resource
exploration has been the greatest driver of the use of grav- H
ity data (e.g., Nabighian et al., 2005). Gravity anomalies
h
are often useful in the early stages of an exploration pro-
gram as they provide insight into the form of low-density
sediment accumulations (basins) or the location of high-
density ore deposits. At larger scales, gravity anomalies
provide insight into crustal structure and, most recently,
time variations in the long-wavelength gravity field mea-
sured using satellites (see Gravity Method, Satellite) pro- Geoid N
vide insight into changes in polar ice mass and
groundwater fluctuations. d
llipsoi
Before gravity data are useful in resource exploration or re nce e
e
crustal studies, non-geological contributions to the gravity Ref
field that obscure the anomalies of interest need to be g
accounted for and effectively removed. This chapter
explains the process of converting gravity measurements Gravity, Data to Anomalies, Figure 1 Diagram illustrating the
key parameters required for computing geophysical gravity
* Commonwealth of Australia anomalies.
 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES
is measured along an ellipsoidal normal, the line through P
that is perpendicular to the surface of the reference ellip-
soid. When computed algebraically (i.e., disregarding
the vector nature of gravity), the difference between h
and H gives the geoidellipsoid separation, N, where
N h ! H: (1)
Observed gravity
The measured value of gravity at a point P is the value typ-
ically determined from relative gravity measurements that
are converted to an observed value by tying to an interna-
tional network of reference gravity stations, currently the
International Gravity Standardization Network of 1971
(IGSN71: Morelli et al., 1974). Country-specific datums
may also be used (e.g., Tracey et al., 2007), but these are
also generally tied to IGSN71. The relative measurements
may be made on land or at sea (see Gravity Method, Sur-
face) or even in the air (see Gravity Method, Airborne).
The relative measurements will have been corrected for
instrument drift and Earth tide variations (see Gravity
Method, Surface).
Anomalous gravity in geophysics
An anomaly is the difference between something that we
measure at a particular place and what we expect from
a reference model at that place. In seismology, measured
travel times are compared to those expected from simpli-
fied models of the whole Earth (see Seismic Tomography).
The resulting travel-time anomalies tell us about regions
through which seismic waves travel faster or slower than
through the simplified representation of reality. This in
turn tells us something about the temperature or composi-
tion of the Earths interior. In geophysical applications,
gravity anomalies are best thought of in a similar way:
Measurements of the gravity field at the Earths surface
are compared to the gravity expected from a reference
model of the Earth. The differences in gravity between
our measurements and the reference model tell us some-
thing about lateral mass-density variations within the
Earth.
In this context, a geophysicist generally seeks to remove
large-scale, non-geological gravity effects that mask the
gravity anomalies that can be related to subsurface density
variations (e.g., related to ore deposits, sedimentary basins,
or crustal structure). The large-scale effects include Earth
mass and rotation and, depending on the application,
maybe some or all of the crust and mantle. Most of the
large-scale effect is accounted for by normal gravity,
the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of
a reference ellipsoid, an ellipsoid of rotation that best fits
the shape of the Earth (represented by the geoid see
Geodesy, Figure of the Earth).
If a model value is required at a point that does not lie
on the surface of the reference ellipsoid, adjustments must
be made to normal gravity to account for gravity effects
related to (a) the difference in height between the
525
measurement point and the surface of the reference ellip-
soid (because gravity decreases with distance from the
Earth proportionally to 1 r2 ) and (b) the body of rock
(or water) lying between the measurement point and the
reference ellipsoid. Other regional-scale gravity effects
that arise from crustal structure might also be removed
by a process of regionalresidual field separation
(see Gravity Data, Regional Residual Separation) or fil-
tering (see Gravity Data, Advanced Processing).
In the geophysical context, anomalous gravity is calcu-
lated by subtracting a predicted or model gravity value for
a point P from the measured (observed) gravity at that point.
This anomalous gravity quantity is technically referred to as
a gravity disturbance (cf. Hackney and Featherstone, 2003),
but the use of gravity anomaly is and will likely remain
entrenched in the geophysical vernacular. In a geophysical
sense, a gravity anomaly can be expressed as
Gravity anomaly Measured value ! Model value;
or mathematically as:
DgP gP ! gP (2)
where
$ DgP is the anomalous gravity
$ gP is measured gravity at the point P
$ gP is a predicted or model value of gravity at the mea-
surement point P (our best estimate of the Earths grav-
ity field at P that considers Earths mass and rotation
and the elevation, h, of the point P with respect to the
reference ellipsoid)
As illustrated in Figure 2, the predicted gravity value,
gP, is computed by applying corrections to normal gravity
that account for the height of the measurement point above
the reference ellipsoid (free-air correction) and the mass of
rock that lies between the measurement point and the ref-
erence ellipsoid (Bouguer and terrain corrections). Mathe-
matically, the computation of gP can be expressed as:
gP g ! dgF dgB ! dgT (3)
where
$ g is normal gravity on the reference ellipsoid
$ dgF is the free-air correction
$ dgB the Bouguer correction
$ dgT the terrain correction
The application of these corrections is described in the
following section.
Computing model gravity at the measurement
point
A note on units
The standard SI unit of acceleration due to gravity is m&s!2.
However, because gravity anomalies are generally about
37 orders of magnitude smaller than total gravity
acceleration, the use of derivative units is more practical.
526 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES

s s
P Ear th urface P P

gP gP gP
(g dg )
F

Surface of reference ellipsoid

g g
a b c
P P

Measured gravity
gP gP
g
gP Model gravity
(g gF + gB)

g P = (g dg + dg dg ) Real Earth
F B T

Model Earth

g g
d e

Gravity, Data to Anomalies, Figure 2 Illustration of the process of computing anomalous gravity in geophysics. (a) Observed
gravity gP reflects mass below the Earths surface (light gray shading). (b) Normal gravity, g, considers only mass below the reference
ellipsoid (dark gray shading). (c) The free-air correction, dgF, accounts for the elevation difference between the point P and the surface
of the reference ellipsoid, but not the rock mass in that space. (d) The Bouguer correction, dgB, adds the gravity effect of rock mass
between P and the surface of the reference ellipsoid, but assumes that rock mass has a smooth upper surface. (e) The terrain
correction, dgT, corrects for the smooth-topped Bouguer plate or cap.

Historically, the mGal was the standard derivative unit where ga is normal gravity at the equator of the reference
(1 mGal = 10 5 m!s 2). The mGal is still in common use, ellipsoid, f is the geocentric latitude of the measurement
but gravity anomalies and related quantities are often also point, and k and e2 are quantities derived from the parame-
given in mm!s 2 (10 6 m!s 2). In this description of the ters describing the form of the reference ellipsoid (Table 1).
anomaly computation procedure, physical constants are Equation 4 is exact and has now been adopted in many
given in standard SI units. This means that unless otherwise countries as a standard when computing gravity anomalies
stated, the equations presented give quantities in m!s 2. for geophysical applications (e.g., Hinze et al., 2005;
Tracey et al., 2007). In the past, simpler expressions were
used for computing normal gravity (cf. Li and Gtze,
Normal gravity (Figure 2b) 2001). These approximate formulae were used largely
Normal gravity, g, represents the gravity effect of for computational convenience, but given the measure-
a reference ellipsoid whose geometry is defined to best ment accuracy achievable today, their continued use is
represent the shape of the Earth. Because an ellipsoid is difficult to justify.
a mathematically defined body, computing its gravity
effect is straightforward. A closed-form expression for Free-air correction (Figure 2c)
computing normal gravity on the surface of a geocentric Equation 4 gives normal gravity on the surface of the ref-
reference ellipsoid is given by the SomiglianaPizetti for- erence ellipsoid. However, the measurement point P is
mula (e.g., Hofmann-Wellenhof and Moritz, 2006; see
almost never located exactly on the surface of the refer-
also International Gravity Formula): ence ellipsoid. This means that the model value at
1 ksin2 f a measurement point above the reference ellipsoid will
g ga pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2ffiffiffiffiffi ; (4) be less than g. The decrease in gravity above the reference
1 e2 sin f ellipsoid is accounted for by the free-air correction. This
 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES 527

Gravity, Data to Anomalies, Table 1 Parameters defining the GRS80 geocentric reference ellipsoid (Moritz, 2000), the reference
ellipsoid currently recommended by the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics as representing the size, shape, and
gravity field of the Earth with an accuracy sufficient for most geodetic, geophysical, astronomical, and hydrographic applications.
Note that the parameters a, GM, J2, and o are exact defining parameters the other parameters are derived geometric and physical
constants

Parameter Name Equation GRS80 value

a Semi-major axis (equatorial radius) 6,378,137 m

GM Geocentric gravitational constant 3,986,005 108 m3"s!2
J2 Dynamic form factor 108,263 10!8
o Angular velocity 7,292,115 10!11 rad"s!1
b Semi-minor axis (polar radius) 6,356,752.3141 m
ga Equatorial normal gravity 9.780 326 7715 m"s!2
gb Polar normal gravity 9.832 186 3685 m"s!2
k Normal gravity constant bgb =aga &! 1 0.001 931 851 353
e2 First numerical eccentricity a2 ! b2 a2 0.006 694 380 022 90
f Ellipsoidal flattening a ! b=a 0.003 352 810 681 18
m Geodetic parameter o2 a2 b=GM 0.003 449 786 003 08
RE Arithmetic mean Earth radius 2a b=3 6,371,008.7714 m

correction essentially uses the rate of change in gravity
above the surface of the Earth to correct for the decrease
in gravity with elevation.
Historically, the value of the free-air correction was
approximated as 0.3086 10!5 m"s!2/m (i.e., 0.3086
mGal/m), the gravity gradient above a spherical Earth.
A more rigorous expression for the free-air correction,
dgF, can be derived from the gradient of normal gravity
above the surface of the reference ellipsoid. Normal grav-
ity at a height h above the ellipsoid can be computed
directly from (Hofmann-Wellenhof and Moritz, 2006):
"
2 3
# density of the slab generally takes on a standardized value
gh g 1 ! 1 f m ! 2f sin2 f h 2 h2 ; (5)
!
a a
or the magnitude of the free-air correction, dgF, to be
subtracted from g can be computed using
2ga
dgF
$a
$ % %
5 3g
1 f m !3f m sin f h ! 2a h2 :
2
2 a
(6)
The parameters f (ellipsoidal flattening) and m (geo-
detic parameter) are defined in Table 1.
Bouguer correction (Figure 2d)
Once normal gravity is corrected for the vertical separa-
tion between the reference ellipsoid and the measurement
point, a further adjustment needs to be made for the body
of rock between that point and the reference ellipsoid. The
gravity effect of this rock is not represented in normal
gravity and is not accounted for by the free-air correction.
This correction, the Bouguer correction, dgB, was histori-
cally computed by representing the body of rock between
the measurement point and surface of the reference
ellipsoid as a horizontal slab extending to infinity. The
infinite-slab Bouguer correction is given by:
dgB 2pGrt (7)
where r is the assumed density of the slab, t is the thick-
ness of the slab, and G is the universal gravitational con-
stant (6.67428 10!11 m3"kg!1"s!2, the 2006 value
recommended by the Committee on Data for Science and
Technology, International Council of Science). In most
cases, the slab thickness is equivalent to the height of the
measurement point above the reference ellipsoid, h. The
of 2,670 kg"m!3, a value that closely represents the average
density of crustal rocks (Hinze, 2003). In some cases,
a density that is more representative of local geology may
be used to minimize the correlation between the Bouguer
anomaly and topography. However, using standardized
values facilitates the comparison of different datasets and
avoids incorporating geological interpretation into the
anomaly computation procedure (LaFehr, 1991a).
More sophisticated representations of the rock mass
below the measurement point take into account the curva-
ture of the Earths surface. A commonly used representa-
tion is the spherical cap, the gravity effect of which is
given by (LaFehr, 1991b):
dgBcap 2pGrmt ! lRE t ( (8)
where RE is the mean radius of the reference ellipsoid
(Table 1), t the thickness of the cap (generally equivalent
to the height of the measurement point above the reference
ellipsoid, h), and m and l are dimensionless coefficients
related to RE and the angle subtended by the spherical
cap at the center of the Earth. The spherical cap is gener-
ally taken to extend to a distance of 166.735 km from
the measurement point, the distance originally selected
by Bullard (1936) to minimize the difference between
the gravity effect of the spherical cap and the infinite slab
528 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES

for a range of elevations (cf. LaFehr, 1991b). Equation 8 is full radius of the standard spherical cap. When terrain cor-
valid for surveys made on land, but Argast et al. (2009) rections are computed to this distance, Earth curvature
present an extended form of the equation that is valid for must also be considered. However, the influence of terrain
gravity measurements made in the air and at sea. corrections beyond about 1020 km from the station is
often insignificant and sometimes ignored.
Terrain correction (Figure 2e)
Regardless of whether the Bouguer correction is com- Anomaly computation
puted from an infinite slab or from a spherical cap, it is Once the free-air, Bouguer, and terrain corrections are
computed for a body with a flat or curved top that does applied to normal gravity, the gravity anomaly at the point
not match topography. Topographic variations can have P can be computed from Equations 2 and 3, i.e.,
a significant influence on measured gravity, particularly
in areas of high relief (e.g., mountain ranges or near the Dg gP ! gP
continental slope). For this reason, it is often beneficial gP ! g ! dgF dgB ! dgT (10)
to compute a terrain correction that effectively imparts an
irregular surface onto the top of the Bouguer plate or cap. gP ! gh dgB ! dgT
Various methods exist for computing the terrain correc-
tion (cf. Nowell, 1999; Hackney and Featherstone, 2003), In Equation 10, the term in brackets represents the
but the methods generally involve dividing the region predicted or model value of gravity at the measurement
around the measurement point into a series of rectangular point. The free-air correction is subtracted because normal
prisms or concentric ring segments. A digital elevation gravity is reduced above the surface of the ellipsoid
model is then used to determine the average elevation for (Figure 2c), while the Bouguer correction is added
each prism relative to the height of the measurement point. because the extra gravity effect related to the body of rock
Accuracy can be improved by using prisms with sloping between P and the reference ellipsoid is not included in g
tops. The size of the prisms is generally increased away (Figure 2d). The terrain correction must be subtracted
from the measurement point as the influence of distant from g (Figure 2e) to remove the effect of the non-existent
prisms is less than for nearer prisms. To further simplify slab/cap mass assumed to fill valleys and to reduce the
computations, some methods approximate the more dis- model valley of gravity for topography higher than the
tant prisms as a line mass and fast-Fourier transform tech- measurement point (mass above the measurement point
niques have also been developed. reduces gravity).
Often the different methods for computing terrain cor- Once the model value of gravity is subtracted from the
rections are combined. For example, Hinze et al. (2005) measured value of gravity at P, the remaining quantity is
describe the procedure adopted for the North American the anomalous component of the gravity field that cannot
gravity database that uses segmented rings and estimated be explained by large-scale gravity effects related to the
topography within 100 m of the measurements point, seg- Earths shape and rotation, changes in gravity with eleva-
mented rings and high-resolution digital elevation data tion, and the bulk influence of rock below the measure-
from 100 to 895 m, and vertical prisms and digital eleva- ment point. The resulting anomalous gravity reflects
tion data from 895 m to 166.7 km (including corrections subsurface density variations and can be interpreted geo-
for Earth curvature beyond 14 km). logically (see Gravity Anomalies, Interpretation; Gravity
Historically, the most commonly used terrain correction Modeling, Theory and Computation).
procedure was based on computing the gravity effect of
a number of concentric rings divided into individual seg- Other factors
ments (Hammer, 1939). The gravity effect of each prism Atmospheric correction
can be computed from:
" The parameters that define the GRS80 reference ellipsoid
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
r (Table 1) rely on satellite-based measurements, meaning
dgprism 2pG r2 ! r1 r12 z2 ! r22 z2 (9) that normal gravity includes the mass of the atmosphere.
n
The application of a correction to normal gravity for the
where n is the number of prism segments in each concen- atmospheric mass is usually insignificant in comparison
tric ring (zone), r2 is the outer radius of the concentric ring, to errors associated with terrain corrections, meaning that
r1 the inner radius, and z is the elevation difference its application is not essential for many geophysical appli-
between the measurement point and the mean elevation cations (e.g., Featherstone and Dentith, 1997). Neverthe-
of the ring segment. The other parameters are the same less, the application of an atmospheric correction is
as in Equations 6 and 7. The density, r, used in Equation 9 included in new standards for gravity anomaly computa-
should be the same as that used for the Bouguer tion (e.g., Hinze et al., 2005; Tracey et al., 2007). If it is
correction. to be applied, the value to be subtracted from normal grav-
The Hammer (1939) formulation includes concentric ity can be computed using (Wenzel, 1985)
rings out to a distance of 22 km, but ideally terrain correc-
tions should be computed out to 166.735 km (#1.5$ ), the dgA 0:874 ! 9:9 ' 10!5 h 3:56 ' 10!9 h2 : (11)
 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES
This equation has an accuracy of about 0.01 10!5
m"s!2 to 10 km elevation.
Further isolating anomalies of interest
The Bouguer anomaly computed using Equation 10 is
dominated by the gravity effect of crustal-thickness varia-
tions that more-or-less isostatically compensate for topog-
raphy (thick crust under mountains, thin crust under ocean
basins see Isostasy). While the Bouguer anomaly is use-
ful for constraining crustal-scale studies, the gravity effect
of smaller-scale density variations within the upper crust
(e.g., ore deposits or sedimentary basins) is often obscured
by the long-wavelength gravity signature related to
crustal-thickness variations.
The long-wavelength component of the Bouguer anom-
aly can be removed using regionalresidual field separa-
tion techniques (see Gravity Data, Regional Residual
Separation). Alternatively, some form of isostatic com-
pensation can be assumed (see Isostasy) and the gravity
effect of the Moho that compensates for topography can
be computed and subsequently subtracted.
Distant relief
Computation of the Bouguer correction and associated ter-
rain corrections are generally made out to a standard dis-
tance of 166.735 km. In certain circumstances, the
gravity effect of topography beyond this distance can be
significant (e.g., surveys in areas of high topography and
continental- and global-scale studies: LaFehr, 1991a;
Mikuka et al., 2006). Users of gravity data should be
aware of these distant relief effects and consider them if
necessary.
Efforts to include the effects of whole-Earth topogra-
phy are emerging. For example, Kuhn et al. (2009) present
a grid of terrain corrections for the Australian continent
that considers topography globally and Tenzer et al.
(2009) computed gravity anomalies for the entire Earth
that incorporate corrections for global topography.
The geophysical indirect effect
The formulation for anomalous gravity described here
(Equation 2) is the most logical way in which to think of
gravity anomalies for geophysical applications. However,
the process of anomaly computation is often described as
a reduction of gP to the sea level datum. While this process
is useful in geodesy, it is not strictly correct in geophysical
applications (Hackney and Featherstone, 2003).
The misconception that gravity anomaly computation
for geophysical purposes involves reducing gravity mea-
surements to the geoid (or sea level) is partly related to
the measurement of elevation. Before the advent of GPS
(see GPS, Data Acquisition and Analysis), elevations were
normally determined by leveling over long traverses from
reference tide gauges at the coastline (see Geodesy,
Ground Positioning and Leveling). Leveling thus pro-
vided heights relative to sea level, or the geoid. However,
normal gravity is derived from a mathematically defined
529
body, the reference ellipsoid, which does not coincide
exactly with the geoid.
The reference ellipsoid is generally chosen to best fit the
geoid either regionally or globally, but the ellipsoid never
perfectly matches the geoid. This means that if heights rel-
ative to sea level are used to compute anomalous gravity,
then the corrections applied will either be an under- or
over-correction, depending on whether the ellipsoid is
above or below the geoid (Figure 3). The magnitude of this
under- or overcorrection is referred to as the geophysical
indirect effect (e.g., Hackney and Featherstone, 2003).
Globally, the geoidellipsoid separation is about #100
m at most, meaning that the geophysical indirect
effect varies by about #30 10!5 m"s!2. This variation
can induce long-wavelength errors in gravity data, espe-
cially in areas of high geoid gradient. For more regional sur-
veys, the effect is generally minor and, in many cases,
essentially constant. For regional surveys, the geophysical
indirect effect is a bias that will often be accounted for dur-
ing regionalresidual field separation.
With the advent of GPS, elevations tied directly to the
WGS84 ellipsoid became readily available. Because the
differences in the dimensions of the WGS84 and GRS80
ellipsoids are minor, anomalous gravity can be computed
directly from the heights measured by GPS. However,
care is required in order to ensure that consistent heights
are used for both older and newer datasets. Updated proce-
dures adopted in some countries recognize the need to use
heights tied to the reference ellipsoid (e.g., Hinze et al.,
2005; Tracey et al., 2007).
Gravity anomalies for geodetic purposes
This entry focuses on the geophysical approach to compu-
tation of gravity anomalies, but it is worth outlining the
ways in which gravity anomalies are computed for geo-
detic purposes. In geodesy (see Geodesy, Physical and
Geoid, Computational Method), gravity anomalies are
used to determine the shape of the Earth using either
a classical or modern approach (e.g., Hofmann-
Wellenhof and Moritz, 2006). In the classical approach,
the geoid is determined using gravity anomalies computed
from the difference between surface gravity measure-
ments reduced (downward) to the geoid and normal grav-
ity on the reference ellipsoid. The modern approach leads
to the computation of a surface referred to as the telluroid
and requires gravity anomalies computed from the differ-
ence between surface gravity and normal gravity corrected
(upward) to the telluroid. The separation between the
telluroid and the surface (the height anomaly) can then
be used to determine a geoid-proxy referred to as the
quasigeoid.
Computation example: the Central Andes
The Central Andes in South America are an ideal region to
illustrate the process of computing anomalous gravity for
geophysical purposes. This is because the high topogra-
phy and associated thick crust lead to large corrections
530 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES

N > 0, under-correction N < 0, over-correction

Correction level

P P
Surface Surface

gP gP

H h
Correction level
H
h
Geoid Ellipsoid

N N g

Ellipsoid Geoid

Gravity, Data to Anomalies, Figure 3 Illustration of the under- or over-correction of model predicted gravity that results when the
free-air and Bouguer corrections are computed using heights relative to mean sea level (geoid) rather than relative to the
reference ellipsoid. N is defined by Equation 1.

and high-amplitude gravity anomalies. Observed gravity
and the different types of corrections, model values, and
anomalies for the Central Andes are illustrated in Figure 4.
The gridded data shown in Figure 4 are based on a dataset
that contains more than 4,000 surface gravity measure-
ments (Schmidt and Gtze, 2006) (Figure 4a). Figure 4b
shows the observed (measured) values of gravity, gP,
that are tied to reference stations linked to the IGSN71
gravity datum. Observed gravity values are large
(9.7739.796 m s!2) and the highest parts of the Central
Andes are associated with the lowest measured gravity.
This is due mostly to the pronounced decrease in gravity
with elevation, but the mass deficit associated with the
thick, low density crust (with respect to the underlying
mantle) also contributes to the decreased gravity in the
mountainous areas.
Normal gravity on the GRS80 reference ellipsoid
(Equation 4 and Figure 4c) shows a north-to-south increas-
ing trend that reflects the pole-ward increase in gravity
related to the shape and rotation of the reference ellipsoid.
To derive a model value directly at each of the data points
shown in Figure 4a, free-air (Equation 6) and Bouguer
(Equation 7 or 8) corrections are applied to normal gravity.
The magnitude of the free-air correction, dgF, is shown in
Figure 4d the correction is largest where topography is
highest. The free-air correction is subtracted from normal
gravity to account for the decrease in normal gravity with
elevation above the reference ellipsoid. The free-air anom-
aly results when the height-corrected normal gravity is
subtracted from observed gravity (Figure 4g). Compared
to observed gravity, the amplitude range of the free-air
anomaly is significantly reduced ("300 # 10!5 m s!2).
A map of free-air anomalies (Figure 4g) is difficult to
interpret geologically because it retains a strong correla-
tion with topography. This correlation is modified when
the gravity effect of the rock between the surface and
the reference ellipsoid is accounted for using the
Bouguer correction (Figure 4e). The Bouguer correction
is added to normal gravity (because normal gravity does
not include the gravity effect of the rocks) and, together
with the addition of the free-air correction, results in
a model value, gP, that resembles the observed gravity
(Figure 4f). When this model value is subtracted from
the observed gravity, the Bouguer anomaly results
(Figure 4h). The Bouguer anomaly of the Central Andes
is large and negative (minimum values reach about
!450 # 10!5 m s!2), which reflects the thick crustal root
beneath the Central Andes.
An isostatic residual gravity map is shown for the Cen-
tral Andes in Figure 4i. The regional field (inset between
Figure 4h, i) is computed by assuming regional isostatic
compensation of topography using an effective elastic
thickness of 20 km (see Isostasy). Crustal thickness is
computed for this model and then the gravity effect of
the isostatic Moho is estimated and subtracted from the
Bouguer anomaly. The Central Andean isostatic residual
field has a vastly reduced amplitude (!150 to + 60 #
10!5 m s!2) and bears a closer resemblance to surface
geology, particularly the location of active volcanoes.
The coincidence between active volcanoes and negative
isostatic residual anomalies suggests the presence of
low-density material within the crust or that the assump-
tion of regional isostatic compensation is not applicable
to the volcanic chain.
 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES 531

0 5,000 9.77 9.78 9.79 9.80 9.77 9.78 9.79 9.80

m ms2 ms2

Topography gP g
21S

24S

27S

a b c
0 600 1,200 0 600 1,200 9.77 9.78 9.79 9.80
105 ms2 105 ms2 ms2

dg dg g dgF + dgB
F B
21S

24S

27S

d e f
250 0 250 250 0 250 250 0 250
105 ms2 105 ms2 105 ms2

gF = gP (g dg ) gB = gP (g dg + dg ) g I
F F B
21S

24S

27S

69W 66W 69W 66W 69W 66W

g h i

Gravity, Data to Anomalies, Figure 4 Illustration of the various components of anomalous gravity for the Central Andes in South
America. (a) Topography from the GTOPO30 global digital elevation model points show the location of gravity measurements
(Schmidt and Gotze, 2006) where the various corrections are computed and gridded using a cell size of one arc minute; (b) observed
gravity; (c) normal gravity on the surface of the GRS80 reference ellipsoid computed using Equation 4 note the latitudinal variation;
(d) the magnitude of the free-air correction that is subtracted from normal gravity to account for the reduction in normal gravity
above the reference ellipsoid; (e) the Bouguer correction that represents the gravity effect of the mass of rock between the surface
and the reference ellipsoid; (f) model value for gravity at the surface that is subtracted from the observed gravity shown in b to
produce the Bouguer anomaly; (g) the free-air anomaly; (h) the Bouguer anomaly (map in b minus map in f); (i) isostatic residual
anomaly, dgI, computed by subtracting from the Bouguer anomaly an isostatic regional field (inset between h and i) computed by
assuming regional isostatic compensation of Andean topography with an elastic thickness of 20 km. The triangles in (i) show active
volcanoes (Trumbull et al., 2006). Note that the Bouguer anomaly in (h) does not incorporate a terrain correction, but when plotted at
this scale, the effect of the terrain correction is not evident.
532 GRAVITY, DATA TO ANOMALIES
Summary
From a geophysical perspective, a gravity anomaly is best
thought of as the difference between measured gravity and
a model value, at the same point, that accounts for large-
scale, non-geological effects that mask anomalies related
to subsurface geology. The model gravity value is derived
by correcting normal gravity for the effects of height
above the reference ellipsoid (free-air correction) and the
mass of rock between the reference ellipsoid and the mea-
surement point (Bouguer correction). Additional correc-
tions (terrain and atmospheric corrections, indirect
effect) improve on the relatively straightforward free-air
and Bouguer corrections. Since the earliest use of gravity
data, our ability to compute the corrections to normal
gravity has improved to the point where simplistic appli-
cation of the corrections is giving way to procedures that
consider global influences.
Depending on the application, long-wavelength field
components remaining in the Bouguer anomaly may also
be removed (isostatic correction or regionalresidual field
separation). Gravity anomalies can then be used to con-
strain geological interpretations of relatively shallow
crustal features (e.g., basins, ore bodies, or even
archeological sites), or be used to examine crustal struc-
ture and isostatic state.
Bibliography
Argast, D., Bacchin, M., and Tracey, R., 2009. An extension of the
closed-form solution for the gravity curvature (Bullard B) cor-
rection in the marine and airborne cases. ASEG Extended
Abstracts, 2009(1), 6, doi:10.1071/ASEG2009ab129.
Bullard, E. C., 1936. Gravity measurements in East Africa. Philo-
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 235,
486497.
Featherstone, W. E., and Dentith, M. C., 1997. A geodetic approach
to gravity data reduction. Computers and Geosciences, 23(10),
10631070.
Hackney, R. I., and Featherstone, W. E., 2003. Geodetic versus geo-
physical perspectives of the gravity anomaly. Geophysical
Journal International, 154, 3543. see also: Erratum, 2003.
Geophysical Journal International, 154: 596; Corrigendum,
2006. Geophysical Journal International, 167: 585.
Hammer, S., 1939. Terrain corrections for gravimeter stations. Geo-
physics, 4, 184194.
Hinze, W. J., 2003. Bouguer reduction density, why 2.67? Geophys-
ics, 68(5), 15591560.
Hinze, W. J., Aiken, C., Brozena, J., Coakley, B., Dater, D., Flana-
gan, G., Forsberg, R., Hildenbrand, T., Keller, G. R., Kellogg,
J., Kucks, R., Li, X., Mainville, A., Morin, R., Pilkington, M.,
Plouff, D., Ravat, D., Roman, D., Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J.,
Vronneau, M., Webring, M., and Winester, D., 2005. New stan-
dards for reducing gravity data: the North American gravity data-
base. Geophysics, 70(4), J25J32, doi:10.1190/1.1988183.
Hofmann-Wellenhof, B., and Moritz, H., 2006. Physical Geodesy.
Vienna: Springer.
Kuhn, M., Featherstone, W. E., and Kirby, J. F., 2009. Complete
spherical Bouguer anomalies over Australia. Australian Journal
of Earth Sciences, 56(2), 213223, doi:10.1080/
08120090802547041.
LaFehr, T. R., 1991a. Standardization in gravity reduction. Geo-
physics, 56(8), 11701178.
LaFehr, T. R., 1991b. An exact solution for the gravity curvature
(Bullard B) correction. Geophysics, 56(8), 11791184.
Li, X., and Gtze, H.-J., 2001. Ellipsoid, geoid, gravity, geodesy,
and geophysics. Geophysics, 66(6), 16601668.
Mikuka, J., Pateka, R., and Maruiak, I., 2006. Estimation of dis-
tant relief effect in gravimetry. Geophysics, 71(6), J59J69,
doi:10.1190/1.2338333.
Morelli, C., Ganter, C., Hankasalo, T., McConnell, R. K., Tanner,
J. B., Szabo, B., Uotila, U., and Whalen, C. T., 1974. The Inter-
national Gravity Standardization net 1971. International Associ-
ation of Geodesy. Special publication number, 4, International
Association of Geodesy, Paris.
Moritz, H., 2000. Geodetic Reference System 1980. Journal of
Geodesy, 74(1), 128162, doi:10.1007/s001900050278.
Nabighian, M. N., Ander, M. E., Grauch, V. J. S., Hansen, R. O.,
LaFehr, T. R., Li, Y., Pearson, W. C., Peirce, J. W., Phillips,
J. D., and Rude, M. E., 2005. Historical development of the grav-
ity method in exploration. Geophysics, 70(6), 63ND89ND,
doi:10.1190/1.2133785.
Nowell, D. A. G., 1999. Gravity terrain corrections an overview.
Journal of Applied Geophysics, 42, 117134.
Schmidt, S., and Gtze, H.-J., 2006. Bouguer and isostatic maps of
the Central Andes. In Oncken, O., Chong, G., Franz, G., Giese,
P., Gtzte, H.-J., Ramos, V. A., Strecker, M. R., and Wigger, P.
(eds.), The Andes: Active Subduction Orogeny. Berlin/Heidel-
berg: Springer. Frontiers in Earth Science, Vol. 1, pp. 559562.
Tenzer, R., Hamayun, K., and Vajda, P., 2009. Global maps of the
CRUST 2.0 crustal components stripped gravity disturbances.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, B05408, doi:10.1029/
2008JB006016.
Tracey, R., Bacchin, M., and Wynne, P., 2007. AAGD07: a new
absolute gravity datum for Australian gravity and new standards
for the Australian National Gravity Database. ASEG Extended
Abstracts, 2007(1), 3, doi:10.1071/ASEG2007ab149.
Trumbull, R. B., Riller, U., Oncken, O., Scheuber, E., Munier, K.,
and Hongn, F., 2006. The time space distribution of Cenozoic
volcanism in the Central Andes: a new data compilation and
some tectonic implications. In Oncken, O., Chong, G., Franz,
G., Giese, P., Gtzte, H.-J., Ramos, V. A., Strecker, M. R., and
Wigger, P. (eds.), The Andes: Active Subduction Orogeny. Ber-
lin/Heidelberg: Springer. Frontiers in Earth Science, Vol. 1, pp.
2943.
Wenzel, H., 1985. Hochauflosende Kugelfunktionsmodelle fur des
Gravitationspotential der Erde [1]. Wissenschaftliche arbeiten
der Fachrichtung Vermessungswesen der Universitat Hannover,
137.
Cross-references
Earth Rotation
Earth Tides
Earth, Density Distribution
Geodesy, Figure of the Earth
Geodesy, Ground Positioning and Leveling
Geodesy, Physical
Geoid Determination, Theory and Principles
Geoid, Computational Method
GPS, Data Acquisition and Analysis
Gravimeters
Gravity Anomalies, Interpretation
Gravity Data, Advanced Processing
Gravity Data, Regional Residual Separation
Gravity Field of the Earth
Gravity Measurements, Absolute
Gravity Method, Airborne
Gravity Method, Principles
Gravity Method, Satellite