JOURNAL OF THE BALKAN GEOPHYSICAL SOCIETY, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2010, p. 9-20, 13 figs.

3 tables

Performance of the finite element method for regional - residual

separation on gravity method
Ilknur Kaftan*, Mujgan alk, Cokun Sar
Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Geophysics, 35160, Buca-Izmir, TURKEY
(*) Corresponding author (ilknur.kaftan@deu.edu.tr)
(Received 14 May 2010; Accepted 20 August 2010)

Abstract: Separation of regional and residual anomalies in potential field applications has been studied
considerably for years. Computing regional anomaly is a critical step in modeling and inversion in the
gravity method. A number of techniques, both in space and frequency domains, have been developed for
regional-residual resolution. Finite element approach is relatively a recent and new technique to compute
the regional component. In this paper, data processing techniques, such as trend analysis, filtering, and
finite element method were applied on synthetic and field gravity data to separate regional and residual
gravity anomalies. In the synthetic applications,three structurally different models were used. Model I
consists of three blocks having different volumes, geometrical shapes and density contrasts. Model II and
Model III consist of two and three cubic blocks, respectively, having different volume and the same density
contrast. In the real data application, the field gravity data were observed on the well-known Aswaraopet
Fault (India). Basement depth of the Chintalpudi basin deduced from borehole information is
approximately 3 km. The obtained results for all applications were compared with the ones from
conventional data analysis methods such as the filtering and trend analysis. As a result, the Finite Elements
Method is more preferable with respect to the conventional ones.
Key words: Synthetic data, gravity, the finite element method, regional anomaly, residual anomaly
INTRODUCTION
Realizing the importance of the regionalresidual separation, attempts have been made
repeatedly during the past decades in order to
improve the techniques and algorithms for accurate
computation of the regional and residual fields.
Trend surface analysis, polynomial fitting and a
variety of filtering schemes are a few standard
techniques to compute the residual anomalies.
However, these approaches are often inadequate.
Contrarily, the regional field has been successfully
computed by finite element approach. The present
study provides a comparative performance of trend
surface and filtering techniques vis-a-vis finite
element technique.
Although, there are improvements in the
existing methods and algorithms to separate
regional and residual gravity anomalies, there is no
significant difference between polynomial fitting
and filtering techniques. High degree trend
analysis and filtering techniques are more effective
using high speed computing power. Recently
different techniques such as Finite Elements
(Mallick and Sharma, 1999; Kaftan, 2003 and
Kaftan et.al, 2005), wavelet transform and
spectrum analysis (Fedi and Quarta, 1998; Xu et.al,

2009), have been used to eliminate residual

anomaly effects from computed regional
anomalies. In this paper, synthetic gravity data are
first generated in order to study the performance of
the Finite Elements Method (FEM) and the
conventional data analysis methods. Random noise
(1 and 5%) is added to the synthetic data. Finally,
these methods are applied on the field gravity data
from Aswaraopet fault (India) (Chakravarthi,
2009).
REGIONAL FIELD CALCULATION BY THE
FINITE ELEMENTS METHOD (FEM)
The Finite Elements Method (FEM) is applied
by dividing a survey area into sub-segments. The
elements are usually isoparametric and the nodes
on these elements are defined (Mallick and
Sharma,
1999).
The
characteristics
of
isoparametric finite elements could be described by
the same level and the same interpolation functions
for every point position and displacement. An
eight-node rectangular iso-parametric element type
was used and the gravity values of these nodes
were computed by placing the rectangular element
over the precomputed anomaly map to compute the
regional gravity anomaly. This method can be

Kaftan et al.

easily applied to any scale anomaly map; therefore,

it is more useful than the other methods, such as
trend analysis (Davis, 1986) and filtering (Fuller,
1967).
Observed gravity data describe the total effect
of both deep and shallow structruces (Pawlowski,
1994):

g ( x, y ) = g s ( x, y ) + g d ( x , y )

(2)

i =1

where gs(x,y) represents the regional field, Ni(x,y)

represents the shape functions, and gi represents
the gravity values at the nodes. An eight node
quadrilateral element in the (x,y) plane is shown in
Fig. 1, where the real map space (xc,yc ) represents
the center of this element. The length of the sides
is 2a and 2b, respectively. Changing the existing
(x,y) coordinates to (,) coordinates, as illustrated
in Fig. 2, is a necessary step.
The new (,) coordinates can be expressed
(Mallick and Sharma, 1999) as:

x xc
a

y yc
b

node and zero at the other nodes, therefore

(3)

( , ) = 1

(4d)

The regional gravity is expressed in terms of

the shape functions (Mallick and Sharma,1999) as:
8

g ( , ) = N i ( , ) g i

(1)

where, g(x,y) are the observed gravity data, gs (x,y)

is the gravity effect of shallow structures, and gd
(x,y) is the gravity effect of deep structures. Apart
from the conventional data analysis methods, FEM
is also used for the separation of the regional and
the residual anomalies. This method has
advantages over the conventional data analysis
methods because only a few observation points on
a Bouguer gravity map are needed to compute the
regional gravity anomaly.
The regional anomaly is computed (Mallick
and Sharma, 1999; Sarma et al., 1993) by:

g s ( x, y ) = N i ( x, y ) g i

It should be noted that N i ( , ) = 1 at the ith

(5)

i =1

Based on the new reference plane, the new

coordinates could be given (Mallick and Sharma,
1999) as:
8

x( , ) = M i ( , ) xi

(6a)

i =1

y ( , ) = M i ( , ) y i

(6b)

i =1

where Mi(,) represents the shape functions, xi

and yi represent the new node coordinates.
These equations provide the tranformation of
the computed regional anomaly from the reference
(,) plane to the real (x,y) plane. In the equations
(5), (6a) and (6b), the coordinates of any given
point and field variable use the same shape
functions, that is, Ni (,) = Mi(,), called
isoparametric elements. This is one of the
important features of the isoparametric elements.
7

6
5

2b

10

(XC,YC)

2
2a

The shape functions for the nodes in Fig. 2 can

be expressed (Cheung and Yeo, 1979) as:

N i ( , ) =

(1 + i )(1 + i )( i + i 1)
4
(4a)

for i= 1,3,5 and 7 only

(1 2 )(1 + i )
N i ( , ) =
2

(4b)

for i= 2 and 6 only

N i ( , ) =
for i=4 and 8 only.

(1 + i )(1 2 )
2

(4c)

(0,0)

FIG. 1. Eight -node quadrilateral element in the xy plane (Mallick and Sharma, 1999).

Performance of the finite element method for regional residual separation on gravity method

applied to field data observed on the listric fault in

India.

(-1,1)
7

1
(-1,-1)

(1,1)
5

Model I

11

3
(1,-1)

FIG. 2. Eight - node quadrilateral element in the

nondimensional - plane (Mallick and Sharma,
1999).
APPLICATIONS
This filter technique was tested on synthetic
and field gravity data and compared with
conventional methods such as filtering and trend
analysis. The observed gravity data contain noise.
For this reason FEM and the conventional methods
were applied to noisy synthetic data to test the
performance. Gaussian noise 1% and 5% was
added to the synthetic gravity data. FEM was also

In the first scenario, the model consists of three

blocks (two cubic and a quadrilateral) having
different volume, depth, and density contrast. The
synthetic anomaly data were calculated using the
formula described in Grant and West (1965) (See
Appendix A). As shown in Figure 3, the first cubic
block is located at depth of 5 km, the quadrilateral
block, at depth of 15 km and the second cubic
block, at depth 50 km. The symbols 2a, 2b and 2c
in Figure 3 indicate the width of the block in the xdirection, the length of the block in the y-direction
and the thickness of the block in the z- direction,
respectively. The block size and the density
contrast are denoted in Figure 3. The gravity of the
deeper cubic block corresponds to the regional
effect, while the gravity of the shallow cubic and
quadrilateral bodies to the residual. The regional
and residual anomalies were separated by filtering
techniques, trend analysis, and finite element
methods (Figure 4a - g). The corresponding gravity
profiles along A-A' are also displayed in Figure 4h
and 4k.

FIG. 3. Model I.

A'

70

A'

A'

mGal

60

mGal

60

mGal

60

60

mGal

29
25

27
25

50

12

A'

50

12

50

50

21

23

4.6

21

13

40

30

30

11

3.4
30

2.8

20

40

Y(km)

13

30

Y(km)

Y(km)

15

17

40

17

Y(km)

19

40

0
20

20

20

2.2

3
1
10

10

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

A 0

10

20

30

X(km)

40

50

60

10

20

30

40

(b)

60

60

60

mGal
26

50

15

23
20

12

40

17

40

40

1.5

6
3

30

Y(km)

Y(km)

Y(km)

30

14
11

30

20

-3

20

20

-6

-1.5

10

-9
10

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

-1

10

A 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

A 0

X(km)

X(km)

(e)

10

20

30

Synthetic Gravity
Data

30

Trend Analysis

25

40

50

(g)
35
Synthetic Gravity
Data

30
25

High-pass Filtering

20
20

mGal

15
Low-pass
Filtering

15

Trend Analysis

10
5

10

Finite Element

A 0

-5
A'

A 0
0

(h)

60

X(km)

(f)

35

m Gal

20

40

60

Distance(km)

80

100

Deep Structure
Anomaly

A'
0

20

-10
-15

30

40

50

60

40

60

Distance (km)

(k)

12

80

Finite Element

100
Shallow Structures
Anomaly

FIG. 4.
(a) Synthetic gravity anomaly map
of Model I.
(b) Low-pass filtering (cut-off
frequency: 0.1 cycle/grid spacing).
(c) Third order regional trend
analysis.
(d) Regional anomaly derived by
FEM.
(e) High-pass filtering (cut-off
frequency: 0.1 cycle/grid spacing).
(f) Third order residual trend
analysis.
(g) The residual anomaly derived
by FEM.
(h) Regional profiles along A-A'
obtained by trend analysis, lowpass filtering and FEM.
(k) Residual profiles along A-A'
obtained by trend analysis, highpass filtering and FEM.

Kaftan et al.

4.5

20

(d)

18
50

10

A'

mGal

6
50

X(km)

A'

mGal

70

(c)

A'

60

50

X(km)

X(km)

(a)

1.6

10

10

-4

Performance of the finite element method for regional residual separation on gravity method
A'

mGal

60

28
50
24

20

40

16

Y(km)

The gravity field data contain noise. For this

reason, the performance of FEM was also tested by
adding Gaussian noise of 1% and 5% to the
previously presented noise-free synthetic gravity
data. Synthetic gravity anomaly maps with noise
are illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6. In the same
figures (Figs. 5b, 5c, 6b and 6c) the gravity profiles
are presented along A-A. Root Mean Square
Errors (RMSE) are given on Table 1. Even for 5%
noise level, FEM results have lower RMSE value
for both regional and residual anomalies.

13

30

12

8
20
4

0
10

A'

mGal

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

(a)

X(km)

29

35

50
25

30

Synthetic Gravity
Data

25

Trend Analysis

21
40

30

13

mGal

Y(km)

17

20
Low-pass Filtering
15
Finite Element

10

9
20
5

A 0

A'
0

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Deep Structure
Anomaly

(b)

Distance(km)

10

20

30

40

50

(a)

60

X(km)

35

Synthetic Gravity
Data

30
35

High-Pass
Filtering

25

Synthetic
Gravity Data

25

Trend Analysis

Trend Analysis
15
10

20

m G al

20
m G al

30

15

Low-pass
Filtering

10

Finite Element

Finite Element

A0
-5

A'
0

A'
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Deep Structure
Anomaly

70

(b)

Distance(km)

35
Synthetic Gravity
Data

30
25

30

40

20

High-pass
Filtering

15

Trend Analysis

70

Shallow
structures
Anamoly

(c)

Noise Level (%)

0
1
5

Finite Element

5
A'

A 0

-10

60

TABLE 1. RMSE values of for Model I.

10

-5

50

FIG. 6. (a) Synthetic gravity anomaly map with

5% level Gaussian additive noise. (b) Regional
profiles along A-A' obtained by trend analysis,
low-pass filtering and FEM. (c) Residual profiles
along A-A' obtained by trend analysis, high-pass
filtering and FEM.

10

20

30

Distance(km)

40

50

60

70

Shallow Structure
Anamoly

(c)

FIG. 5. (a) Synthetic gravity anomaly map with

1% level Gaussian additive noise. (b) Regional
profiles along A-A' obtained by trend analysis,
low-pass filtering and FEM. (c) Residual profiles
along A-A' obtained by trend analysis, high-pass
filtering and FEM.

RESIDUAL REGIONAL
ANOMALIES ANOMALIES
RMSE
RMSE

m G al

20

Distance (km)

10

Lowpass Filter

9.6

9.8

9.9

Trend Analysis

6.8

6.8

6.9

FEM

1.8

1.9

2.0

Highpass Filter

9.5

9.5

9.6

Trend Analysis

3.7

3.8

3.9

FEM

1.8

1.9

2.0

14

Kaftan et al.

Model II
In this model, two cubic blocks having
different volume and depth but the same density
contrast were used to compute synthetic gravity
anomaly. As shown in Figure 7, the first block is
located at depth of 5 km (residual field) and the
second block, at depth of 20 km (regional field)
under the first block. First and second cubic block
sizes are 6 km and 12 km, respectively. The
regional and residual anomalies were computed by
filtering techniques, trend analysis, and FEM and
the results are given in Figure 8a - 8g. The regional
and residual profiles along B-B' from the
conventional methods and FEM are shown in
Figure 8h and 8k. As in the previous synthetic
dataset, the additive Gaussian noise is 1% and 5%.
The anomaly maps with the noise are shown in
Figure 9a and Figure 10a. The corresponding
profiles along B-B' are displayed in Figure 9b-c
and Figure 10b-c. According to RMSE (Table 2),
the FEM reproduces more accurately the regional
and the residual anomalies, even for the anomalies
containing 5% Gaussian random noise.
Model III
In the last application on the synthetic data, the
model consists of three cubic blocks which have
the same density contrast although they have
different volumes, locations and depths. The

purpose of this application is to obtain the residual

effect (two shallow structures). As shown in Figure
11, the first cubic block is located at depth of 1 km,
the second cubic block, at 2 km and the third cubic
block, at 3km. The length of the cubic blocks in xy and z directions are 400, 600 and 800 m,
respectively.
All cubic blocks located at 1, 2 and 3 km depth
for the residual effect. Filtering techniques, trend
analysis, and FEM were applied to the synthetic
gravity data (Fig. 12a-d. The FEM separated the
residual anomalies more effectively even if they
were located closer each other. The residual
profiles along C-C' from these methods are shown
in Figure 12e. Table 3 summarizes the RMSE
values.
Field Data
The FEM and conventional methods were
applied to field gravity data from Chintalpudi
subbasin (India). The basin is bounded by
Aswaraopet fault to the east. The length of the fault
is over 20 km and strikes NNW-SSE. According to
borehole data in the basin, the depth of basement
was estimated 2935 km. The gravity map of the
region is shown in Figure 13a (Chakravarthi,
2009). The regional and residual field are shown in
Figure 13b-d and 13e-g, respectively. Gravity
profiles along A-B (Figure 13h and Figure 13k)
indicate that the FEM is more preferable.

FIG. 7. Model II.

B'

45

B'

50

B'

B'
45

45

mGal

45

mGal

mGal

40

40

38
34

40

18

34

35

mGal

21

40

35

10.5
35

35
15

18
20

20

Y(km)

22

25

Y(km)

Y(km)

22

16

9
25
6
20

14
15

15

15

10

10

0
25

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

X(km)

25

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

25

(a)

30

35

40

45

50

B 0

X(km)

X(km)

(b)
B'

(c)
45

mGal
40

40

29

18

4.8

16

35

4.2

26

35

35
23

14
3.6

25

17
25
14
20

20
1.2
0.6

15

8
15
5

-2

10
-0.6

11

20

2
15

20

10

Y(km)

2.4
1.8

10

10

-4

-1
5

5
0

B 0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

B 0

X(km)

X(km)

(e)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

X(km)

(f)

(g)
50

45
Synthetic Gravity
Data

40

Synthetic Gravity
Data

40

35
Trend Analysis

30

High-pass Filtering
30

20

Low-pass Filtering

15
10

Finite Element

mGal

25
m Gal

Y(km)

3
25

30

12

30

Y(km)

30

Trend Analysis

20
10

Finite Element

5
B 0

B'

-5 0

10

-10

(h)

20

30

Distance(km)

40

50

B 0
Deep Structure
Anomaly

B'
0

10

20

30

-10

(k)

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

(d)

mGal

40

10

B'

45

mGal

X(km)

B'

50

45

3.5

20

4.5

2.5

15

15

-6

10

6.5

10

10

7.5

20

-3

6
10

8.5

25

5.5

10

30

12

30

Y(km)

30

26
25

9.5

28

30

40

50

FIG. 8.
(a) Synthetic gravity anomaly map
of Model II.
(b) Low-pass filtering (cut-off
frequency: 0.1 cycle/grid spacing).
(c) Third order regional trend
analysis.
(d) Regional anomaly derived by
FEM.
(e) High-pass filtering (cut-off
frequency: 0.1 cycle/grid spacing).
(f) Third order residual trend
analysis.
(g) The residual anomaly derived
by FEM.
(h) Regional profiles along B-B'
obtained by trend analysis, lowpass filtering and FEM.
(k) Residual profiles along B-B'
obtained by trend analysis, highpass filtering and FEM.

Performance of the finite element method for regional residual separation on gravity method

30

Shallow structure
Anomaly

Distance(km)

15

Kaftan et al.

16
B'

B'

45

45

mGal

mGal
40

40

40

41

37

38
35

34

35

35

31

32
29
26
25

23

28
25

Y(km)

Y(km)

30

30

22
25

19

20
17

20

16
20

13

14
11

15

10
7

15

8
5

10

10

-2

2
5

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

X(km)

(a)

B 0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

(a)

X(km)
45

45

35

35

30

Trend Analysis

30

20

Low-pass Filtering

m G al

m G al

Trend Analysis

25

25

15

20

Low-pass Filtering

15
10

10

Finite Element

B0
-5

Synthetic Gravity
Data

40

Synthetic Gravity
Data

40

B 0

B'
0

10

20

30

40

50

-10

Finite Element

Deep Structure
Anomaly

-5

B'
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Deep Structure
Anomaly

Distance(km)

-10

(b)

(b)

Distance(km)

45

45
40

35

35

30

High-pass Filtering

m G al

25
Trend Analysis

20
15

High-pass Filtering

25
mG al

30

20

Trend Analysis

15
10

10

Finite Element

Finite Element

B 0

B 0
-5 0

Synthetic Gravity
Data

40

Synthetic Gravity
Data

B'
10

20

30

40

50

-10
Distance(km)

Shallow Structure
Anomaly

-5
-10

B'
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Distance(km)

Shallow Structure
Anomaly

(c)

(c)

FIG. 9. (a) Synthetic gravity anomaly map of

Model II with 1% Gaussian additive noise. (b)
Regional profiles along B-B' obtained by trend
analysis, low-pass filtering and FEM. (c) Residual
profiles along B-B' obtained by trend analysis,
high-pass filtering and FEM.

FIG. 10. (a) Synthetic gravity anomaly map of

Model II with 5% level Gaussian additive noise.
(b) Regional profiles along B-B' obtained by trend
analysis, low-pass filtering and FEM. (c) Residual
profiles along B-B' obtained by trend analysis,
high-pass filtering and FEM.

TABLE 2. RMSE values for Model II.

REGIONAL ANOMALIES RMSE
Noise
Level (%) Low-pass Filter Trend Analysis
FEM
7.4
4.2
3.2
0
7.4
4.2
3.2
1
7.5
4.4
3.9
5

RESIDUAL ANOMALIES RMSE

High-pass Filter Trend Analysis
6.9
4.2
6.9
4.2
7.1
4.5

FEM
3.2
3.3
3.9

Performance of the finite element method for regional residual separation on gravity method

17

TABLE 3. RMSE values for

Model III.
NOISE FREE RESIDUAL
ANOMALIES RMSE
High Trend
FEM
pass
Analysis
Filtering
0.16

FIG. 11. Model III.

C'

0.21

0.09
C'

mGal

mGal

0.22
7

0.34

0.19

0.3

0.16

0.26

Y(km)

0.13
5

0.22

0.1

0.18

0.07

0.14
3

0.04
3

0.1

0.01

0.06

-0.02

-0.05

0.02

C 0

X(km)

(a)

C 0

10

(b)

X(km)

C'

C'

mGal

mGal

0.22
8

0.3

0.19
0.16

0.26

0.22

0.13

Y(km)

0.1

0.18

0.07

0.14

4
0.04

0.1

0.01

0.06

-0.02

0.02

2
-0.05

-0.02
2

1
1

10

(c)

C 0

X(km)

0,4
0,35
Synthetic Gravity Data
0,3
0,25
mGal

0,2

High-pass Filtering

0,15
0,1
Trend Analysis

0,05
C

C'

0
-0,05
-0,1

10

Finite Element

Distance(km)

(e)

(d)

FIG. 12.
(a) Synthetic gravity anomaly map of
Model III.
(b) High-pass
filtering
(cut-off
frequency: 0.1 cycle/grid spacing).
(c) Third order residual trend analysis.
(d) Residual anomaly derived by FEM.
(e) Residual profiles along C-C'
obtained by trend analysis, high-pass
filtering and FEM.

Kaftan et al.

18

mGal
B

40

mGal

40

35

35

30

-3

30

25

-7

25

20

-11

20

-7.5

15

-15

15

-9

10

-19

10

-23

-27

-1.5
-3
-4.5
-6

-10.5
-12

(a)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

mGal
B

-15
0

10

(b)

40

-13.5

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

14

11
35

2.4

30

1.8

30

1.2

2
25

mGal

-1

0.6

20

-4
20

-7

-0.6

-10

15

10

-13

-1.2

-16

10

-1.8

-19
0

5
5

10

(c)

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

-2.4

-22

60

10

(d)

A
mGal

20

30

40

50

40

mGal
B

40

35

6
4

35

30

3
30

25

-2

0
-5
25

20

-3

-8
20

15

-11

-6
-14
15

10

-9

-12

-17
-20

10

-23

-15
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

(e)

60

10

15

(f)

mGal

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

-26

60

10
-1
30

-4

A 0

-7

mGal

-5

-10

20

Observed Gravity
Data

B
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Trend Analysis

-10

-13

-15

-16

-20

-19

-25

-22

-30

Low-pass Filtering

10

Finite Element

Distance (km)

-25
0

10

(g)

20

30

40

50

(h)

mGal

10
FIG. 13.
5
(a) Observed gravity anomaly map of the
A 0
Chintalpudi basin (Chakravarthi, 2009).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-5
(b) Low-pass filtering ( cut- off frequency:
-10
0.1 cycle/grid spacing).
-15
(c) Third order regional trend analysis.
-20
(d) Regional anomaly derived by FEM.
-25
(e) High-pass filtering (cut-offfrequency:
-30
0.1 cycle/grid spacing).
Distance(km)
(k)
(f) Third order residual trend analysis.
(g) The residual anomaly derived by FEM.
(h) Regional profiles along A-B obtained by trend analysis, low-pass filtering and FEM.
(k) Residual profiles along A-B obtained by trend analysis, high-pass filtering and FEM.

Observed
Gravity Data
B
40

High-pass
Filtering

Trend Analysis

Finite Element

Performance of the finite element method for regional residual separation on gravity method

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The validity of FEM is tested on synthetic data
with and without random noise as well as on field
gravity data. Filtering techniques, trend analysis,
and FEM were applied on synthetic gravity
anomalies computed for bodies having different
depth, geometry and density contrast. It was shown
that regional effects caused by deeper bodies could
be better separated with the FEM, according to
RMSE values. The field gravity data from
Aswaraopet fault in Chintalpudi subbasin (India)
were interpreted by FEM and the conventional
methods. The residual gravity anomaly of the
shallow structure (basin) is separated well from the
regional one using FEM.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are deeply grateful to Dr. K.
Mallick for his kindly assistance during all stages
of the study. We are also indebted to Prof. Dr. M.
Ergn for many illuminating discussions and
corrections on manuscript. We are thankful to Prof.
Dr. Antonis Vafidis, Editor-in-chief, and the
anonymous reviewers for their constructive
criticism, comments and excellent suggestions on
the manuscript. We are also grateful to Dr.
Vishnubhotla Chakravarthi for his keen interest
and valuable cooperation.
This research project was funded by the Dokuz
Eylul University Research Fund, Project Code:
03.KB.FEN.026.
REFERENCES
Chakravarthi, V., 2010, LSTRKFALTG-A forward
modelling program to compute theoretical
gravity anomalies of strike limited listric
fault structures with prescribed vertical

19

variation in density: Computers &

Geosciences, 36, 675-679.
Cheung, Y. K., and Yeo, M. F., 1979, A practical
introduction to finite element analysis:
Pitman.
Davis, J., 1986, Statistics and Data Analysis in
Geology.
Fedi, M. and Quarta, T., 1998, Wavelet analysis
for the regional-residual and local separation
of the potential field anomalies: Geophys.
Prospect. 46 50725.
Fuller, B.D., 1967, Two dimensional frequency
analysis and grid operators: Mining
Geophysics, 658 - 708.
Grant, F.S., and West, G.F., 1965, Interpretation
Theory in Applied Geophysics, New York,
Kaftan, I., 2003, Application of Finite Element
Method on gravity data in Western Anatolia,
Dokuz Eylul University The Graduate
School of Natural and Applied Sciences,
Izmir, Turkey ( M.Sc. Thesis, in Turkish).
Kaftan, I., alk, M., and Sar, C., 2005,
Application of the finite element method to
gravity data Case Study: Western Turkey:
Journal of Geodynamics, 39(5), 431-443.
Mallick, M., and Sharma, K.K., 1999, A finite
element method for computation of the
regional gravity anomaly: Geophysics,
64(2), 461-469.
Pawlowski, R.S., 1994. Greens equivalent-layer
concept in gravity band-pass filter design:
Geophysics, 59, 69-76.
Sarma, G.S., Gadhinglajkar, V.R., Mallick, K.,
1993. Finite element simulation of brightspot structures: J. Assoc. Expl. Geophys., 14,
43-47.
Xu, Y., Hao, T., Li, Z., Duan, Q., and Zhang, L.,
2009, Regional gravity anomaly separation
using wavelet transform and spectrum
analysis: J. Geophys. Eng. 6 (2009) 279
287.

Kaftan et al.

20

APPENDIX A
Synthetic Gravity Anomaly Computation
Cubic and quadrilateral blocks (Fig. A1) having different volume and density contrast were used to
compute theoretical gravity anomaly. 3-D gravity anomaly of such blocks is given by the equation:

B00 z 0
+ 3B20 (3Cos 2 1) z 03 + (5Sin 2 w Sin 2 2Cos 2 1) x 2 z 0
3
R
+ (5Cos 2 w Sin 2 2Cos 2 1) y 2 z 0 2Sinw Sin Cos ( x 3 + xy 2 4 xz02 )

g ( x, y) =

+ 2Cosw Sin Cos ( y 3 + x 2 y 4 yz02 ) 10Sinw Cos Sin 2 ( xyz0 ) ] / 2 R

+ B22 3Sin 2z 03 + (5Cos 2 w 5Sin 2 w Cos 2 + 2Sin 2 ) x 2 z 0

+ (5Sin 2 w 5Cos 2 w Cos 2 + 2Sin 2 ) y 2 z 0 + 2Cosw Sin Cos ( y 3 + x 2 y 4 yz02 )
2Sinw Sin Cos ( x 3 + xy 2 4 xz02 ) + 10Sinw Cosw(1 + Cos 2 ) xyz0 ] / R 7
where

R = ( x 2 + y 2 + z 02 )1 / 2

B00 = 8 Gabc
B00 (2c 2 a 2 b 2 )
B =
6
0
2

B22 =

B00 (a 2 b 2 )
12

and a, b and c is the half of the body size in x', y' and z' -direction, respectively (Fig. A2), is density
contrast, and z0 is the depth of block center.

FIG. A1.

FIG. A2.