GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 50, NO.3 (MARCH 1985); P. 473-480, 13 FIGS., 8 TABLES.
On the least-squares residual anomaly determination
Downloaded 03/20/15 to 147.188.128.74. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
E. M. Abdelrahman*, S. Riadt, E. Refai*, and Y. Amin*
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses an approach to determine the
least-squares optimum order of the regional surface
which, when subtracted from the Bouguer gravity
anomaly data, minimizes distortion of the residual com-
ponent of the field.
The least-squares method was applied to theoretical
composite gravity fields each consisting of a constant
residual component (sphere or vertical cylinder) and a
regional component of different order using successively
increasing orders of polynomial regionals for residual
determination. The overall similarity between each two
successive residual maps was determined by computing
the correlation factor between the mapped variables.
Similarity between residual maps of the lowest orders,
verified by good correlation, may generally be con-
sidered a criterion for determining the optimum order
of the regional surface and consequently the least distor-
ted residual component. The residual map of the lower
order in this well-correlated doublet is considered the
most plausible one and may be used for gravity inter-
pretation.
This approach was successfully applied to the Bou-
guer gravity of Abu Roash dome, located west of Cairo
in the Western Desert of Egypt.
INTRODUCTION
Use of the least-squares method in estimating the residual
component of Bouguer anomalies has drawn considerable at-
tention. An excellent review was given in Nettleton (1976). This
method consists of fitting a mathematical surface that approxi-
mates the regional component of the gravity data. In all cases,
the condition of the least-squares solution is
I R 2 = minimum,
where R denotes the residual component and is given as
R =!lg - Z,
where As is the observed gravity and Z is the regional surface.
Both orthogonal polynomials (Oldham and Sutherland,
1955; Grant, 1957; Van Voorhis and Davis, 1964) as well as
Manuscript received by the EditorOctober 10, 1983; revised manuscript received September 4,1984.
*Geophysics Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt.
tGeology Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Egypt.
© 1985 Society of Exploration Geophysicists. All rightsreserved.
nonorthogonal polynomials (Agocs, 1951; Fajklewicz, 1959;
and Coons et aI., 1964, 1967) have been used for least-squares
determination of residual anomalies. In the latter methods, the
regional surface is represented by the polynomial
p
Z(x, y) = I I an-so s xn-sy', (3)
n=O s=O
where the an - s , s are 1j2(p + l)(p + 2) coefficients and p is the
order of the two-dimensional (2-D) polynomial; x and yare the
coordinates.
Condition (1) is fulfilled when the partial derivatives with
respect to each of the an-s,s are zero. This gives
1j2(p + l)(p + 2) simultaneous linear equations from which the
1j2(p + l)(p + 2) different values of an-so s can be determined.
The least-squares method is known to produce both positive
and negative residuals even when the true residuals are only
positive (or only negative). The residual map is usually bal-
anced between positive and negative areas (Rao and Radhak-
rishnammurthy, 1965). However, to emphasize either positive
or negative anomalies, a constant bias may be added to the
regional field as described by El-Batroukh and Zentani (1980).
If only the locations and amplitudes of the least-squares re-
sidual anomalies are the principal objectives of the operation,
the method can still be quite effective(Nettleton, 1976).
While Agocs (1951) represented the entire regional field by a
uniform plane surface, Fajklewicz (1959) approximated the re-
gional gravity function by second-order polynomials. Fajke-
wicz considered that using higher order polynomials might
result in the inclusion of part of the residual field in the regional
picture. Examples of using higher orders were also given by
Coons et al. (1967), where the regional surfaces were repre-
sented by a series of mathematical surfaces ranging from sev-
enth to thirteenth order. It is evident from this brief review that
the least-squares method is not completely objective because
(1) the results depend to a considerable degree on the operator's
judgment in deciding which order of the regional surface to use.
It is well known that as the order becomes higher, residuals
(2) become sharper and smaller; the total relief of the anomalies, in
general, decreases (Nettleton, 1976). Higher orders emphasize
noise and errors in real data which further distort the true
residuals. Even when the order of the computed regional is
equal to that of the true regional, some distortion in computed
473
 474 Abdelrahman et al.

residuals should be expected because the regional is computed 3 •

from all input data points including the anomalous ones Z3(X,y)= L La._s.sx'-sy
,.=0 s=O
(Skeels, 1967). Our purpose here is to find an objective criterion
for selection of the optimum order of the regional surface (third-order surface). (6)
which, when subtracted from Bouguer anomalies, will produce
Values of the coefficientsused in each case are given in Table 1.
the least distorted residual component.
Each of these three regional components is added to the re-
Downloaded 03/20/15 to 147.188.128.74. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

sidual field R, to obtain three maps Ag1 , Ag 2 , and Ag3 repre-

SOLUTION BY CORRELATION FACTOR senting theoretical composite gravity fields of orders 1, 2, and 3,
DETERMINATION BETWEEN RESIDUALS respectively (Figures 2, 3, and 4).
Each map of the theoretical composite field Agj is subjected
We compute a theoretical gravity field consisting of the
to a separation technique using the least-squares method. In
combined effect of a fixed residual component and a regional each case, regional components of first, second, third, and
component of various orders at 441 points on a 20 x 20 km fourth orders are fitted to the input data. In this way four
square grid with spacing of 1 km. Following Agocs (1951), the residual maps are obtained for each input map (Figures 5-10).
residual component R, is represented by the gravity effect of a Coefficients of the regional components applied to input data
spherical mass with a density of 1 g/cm', radius of 0.5 km, and
center of (10, 10, 1) (i.e., depth to the center of the sphere is 1
km). The maximum effect of such a body is 34.9g.u. (3.49mGal)
(Figure 1). Table 1. Numerical values of coefficients used in theoretical regional
The regional component is represented successively by each gravity fields.
of the followingpolynomial surfaces (orders 1 to 3):
Coefficients First order Second order Third order
1 •
ZI(X, y) = L L a._s.sx'-sy 10.00 10.00 10.00
n=O s=O 10.00 0.50 0.10
10.00 0.50 0.10
(plane surface), (4) 0.25 0.10
2 • 0.20 0.20
Z2(X,y) = L La._s.sx'-sy 0.25 0.10
.=0 s=o 0.01
0.01
(second-order surface), (5) 0.01
0.01
and

oL - . . J2Km
x

FIG. 2. Composite gravity anomaly of a buried sphere and

FIG. 1. Residual gravity anomaly of a buried sphere R s • Con- first-order regional (Ag1 = R, + Z I)' Contour interval - 25 g.u,
tour interval - 5 g.u. (0.5 mGal). (2.5 mGal).
 Residual Anomaly Determination 475
Downloaded 03/20/15 to 147.188.128.74. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 3. Composite gravity anomaly of a buried sphere and FIG. 4. Composite gravity anomaly of a buried sphere and
second-order regional (Ag 2 = R, + Z2)' Contour interval -25 third-order regional (Ag 3 = R, + Z3)' Contour interval -25
g.u. (2.5 mGal). g.u. (2.5 mGal),

are determined and given in Tables 2, 3, and 4. The residual
maps (Figures 5-10) are designated Rij where i = I, 2, 3 is the
order of the true regional in the input data Ag; (Figures 2--4)
and j = I, 2, 3, 4 is the order of the output residual map (or
assumed regional).
Then we measure the overall similarity between each two
successive residual anomaly maps obtained. The simplest way
to compare two maps is to compute the correlation between the
mapped variables. Here the correlation factors between suc-
cessive residual maps were determined using a formula given by
Davis (1973). The correlation factors shown in Table 5 are
given to compare the degree of similarity between successive
residual maps. According to Davis, a value of correlation factor
higher than 0.7 indicates a good similarity between maps.
Finally, we substitute the gravity effect of a vertical cylindri-
cal mass [with a density contrast I g/cm", depth 1 km, radius
316.3 m, and the maximum gravity of 20.93 g.u. (2.1 mGal) at
point (10, 10, 0)] for the gravity field of the spherical body to
represent the fixed residual component R, in each of the com-
posite theoretical gravity fields Ag I , Ag 2 , and Ag 3 and perform
the same procedures. The results are presented only as corre-
lation factors between successive residual maps (Table 6).
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
The results of this study show:
(1) Least-squares residual maps Rij of orders j equal to

Table 2. Results of calculations in case of theoretical composite f1rst-order gravity map.

Order of fit

Coefficients First Second Third Fourth

aOO 10.4591198 8.7552415 8.7552420 11.8122821

a0 1 10.o00ooo0 10.2690334 10.2690333 8.8564078
alQ 10.00‫סס‬OO0 10.2690334 10.2690333 8.8564078
a 02 -0.0134517 -0.0134517 0.2229134
all 0.‫ס‬0ooooo 0.‫ס‬0ooooo 0.1675847
a20 -0.0134517 -0.0134517 0.2229136
a 03 -0.0000ooo -0.0165734
a 12 -0.‫ס‬0ooooo -0.0083792
a21 -0.‫ס‬0ooooo -0.0083792
a 30 -0.‫ס‬0ooooo -0.0165734
a 04 0.0004143
a 13 0.‫ס‬0ooooo
a 22 0.0004190
a 31 0.‫ס‬0ooooo
a 40 0.0004143
 476 Abdelrahman et al.

Table 3. Results of calculations in case of theoretical composite second-order gravity map.

Order of fit
Coefficients First Second Third Fourth
- 41.2075469 8.7552413 8.7552417 11.8122818
Downloaded 03/20/15 to 147.188.128.74. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

7.5000000 0.7690334 0.7690333 -0.6435928

7.500000o 0.7690334 0.7690333 -0.6435923
0.2365483 0.2365483 0.4729136
0.200000o 0.200000o 0.3675847
0.2365483 0.2365483 0.4729135
-0.00000oo -0.0165734
-0.00000oo -0.0083792
-0.0000000 -0.0083792
-0.000000o -0.0165734
0.0004143
0.0000000
0.0004190
0.0000000
0.0004143

Table 4. Results of calculations in case of theoretical composite third-order gravity map.

Order of fit
Coefficients First Second Third Fourth
-93.3675469 28.2619080 8.7552414 11.8122808
11.1246667 -4.6062999 0.3690334 -1.0435922
11.1246667 -4.6062999 0.3690335 -1.0435919
0.4865483 0.0865483 0.3229135
0.600000o 0.200000o 0.3675846
0.4865483 0.0865483 0.3229134
0.0100000 -0.0065734
0.0100000 0.0016208
0.0100000 0.0016208
0.0100000 -0.0065734
0.0004143
0.0000000
0.0004190
-0.00000oo
0.0004143

or higher than that of the actual components in the
input data i are generally similar to each other or
sometimes are identical (Figures 5, 6, and 7). Each
pair of successive maps of this series correlates well
(Tables 5 and 6). When compared to the true residual
(Figure 1),they are also the least distorted (Table 7).
(2) Residuals Rij of orders j less than the order i of the
regional components included in the input data are
quite different from each other and from the true
residual as well.Compare, for example, the first-order
residual maps (R 2 1 and R 3 1 ) shown in Figures 8 and
9 with the original anomaly map R, in Figure 1. This
series correlates poorly, as indicated in Tables 5 and
6. The residuals are generally highly distorted as a
result of the unremoved part of the regional (Table 7).
(3) Similarity between residual maps of the lowest orders
verified by good correlation may generally be con-
sidered as a criterion for determining the optimum
order of the regional surface and consequently the
least distorted residual component of the field. The
residual map of the lower order in this well-
correlated doublet is considered the most plausible
for gravity interpretation (Tables 5, 6, and 7).
(4) All the fourth-order residual maps (Figure 7) are
identical, irrespective of the order of the theoretical
regional present in the input data (first, second, or
third order). The same is true for all the third-order
residual maps (Figure 6), and the two second-order
residual maps obtained from the data of Figures 2
and 3. This indicates that residuals computed at high
orders depend largely on the order of the regional
used for the computation and not on the order of the
regional present in the input data (provided the
former order is equal to or higher than the latter).
(5) All residual maps obtained by applying the least-
squares method to any of the composite gravity fields
are more or less distorted as a result of the effects
described by Skeels (1967), Nettleton (1976), and/or
as a result of the effects given in item (2) of this
discussion. The least distorted map in these model
 Residual Anomaly Determination 477
Downloaded 03/20/15 to 147.188.128.74. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

o - ..-/

o
~Km

x x
FIG. 5. Least-squares residual anomaly obtained by applying FIG. 6. Least-squares residual anomaly obtained by applying
first-order fit to the data of Figure 2 (R 11)' Contour interval - 5 second-order fit to the data of Figures 2 and 3 (R 12 and R 2 2 )
g.u. (0.5 mGal). also obtained by applying third-order fit to the data of Figures
2, 3, and 4. (R 13 , R 23 , and R 33 ). Contour interval - 5 g.u. (0.5
mGal).

studies is the-first-order residual map R l l obtained
when the data of the composite gravity field included
the first-order regional (Table 7). In this particular
case, the plane of the regional is raised by a small
constant value everywhere above that of the regional
included in the input data. Compare first-order coef-
ficients in Tables 1 and 2.
(6) The third-order regional computed from the input
data of Figure 2 or Figure 3, !J.g 1 or !J.gz, is exactly
the same as the second-order regional computed in
Table 2 and also in Table 3. As a result, the second-
order residual map obtained is identical to the third-
order map r Z 3 = 1. This may not always be the case
when dealing with real data.
We again stress that these results are valid only for a single
mass point (sphere) or a single vertical line element source
(vertical cylinder) which could be taken as approximations of
some real geologic structures. This was mathematically verified
by Hammer (1977).
RESIDUALS AND DEPTH ESTIMATION
Depth estimation is a primary concern in gravity prospecting
and other geophysical work. In this section we show how depth
determination of a buried sphere or vertical cylinder from the
least-squares residual anomaly thus obtained would be af-
fected.

Table 5. Numerical values of correlation coefficients between successive

residual maps when the fixed residual component is represented by a
spherical body in the composite gravity fields. r . "+ 1 = correlation
i
factor betweenjth order residual Rij and the next hIgher order R i • j + 1 ,
for each order of input data i.
Table 6. Numerical values of the correlation coefficients between suc-
cessive residual maps when the fixed residual component is represented
by a vertical cylindrical body in the composite fields.

Order of the composite field (i) Order of the composite field (i)
Correlation First Second Third Correlation First Second Third
factor order order order factor order order order
"s. i+ 1 (i = 1) (i = 2) (i = 3) ri , i+ 1 (i = 1) (i = 2) (i = 3)

r 12(j=I) 0.9571 0.1541 0.1336 r12(j=I) 0.7311 0.1304 0.1304

r 23 (j = 2) 1.0 1.0 0.4841 r2 3 (j = 2) 1.0 1.0 0.4031
r3 4 (j = 3) 0.9420 0.9420 0.9420 r 34 (j = 3) 0.7660 0.7660 0.7660
 478 Abdelrahman et al.
Downloaded 03/20/15 to 147.188.128.74. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 7. Least-squares residual anomaly obtained by applying FIG. 8. Least-squares residual anomaly obtained by applying
fourth-order fit to the data of Figures 2, 3, and 4 (R 14 , R 2 4 , and first-order fit to the data of Figure 3 (R 2 1 ) . Contour interval - 5
R 3 4 ). Contour interval - 5 g.u. (0.5 mGal). g.u. (0.5 mGal).

Simple formulas to determine the approximate depth of a
buried structure from the residual gravity anomaly are based
on the half-Rma x rule (Nettleton, 1940, 1942; Telford et aI.,
1976). However, because these methods are highly subjective,
Gupta's method (Gupta, 1983) is used. The depth determi-
nation problem was transformed by Gupta into finding a solu-
tion of a nonlinear equation of the form f(z) = O. He derived
formulas for a sphere, vertical and horizontal cylinders, and a
vertical fault. There are many standard methods to solve the
equationf(z) = O. Here, it is first transformed into an equation
of the form z = f(z) and then solved by a simple iteration
method (Demidovich, 1973).
Depths determined from the least distorted residuals for the
sphere (Figures 5, 6, and 7) and the vertical cylinder using four
points around Rma x on a central profile are shown in Table 8.
Comparing the results obtained with the model depth in the
sphere and the vertical cylinder (1 km), it is verified numerically
that as the order of the least-squares regional becomes higher,
the residuals become sharper and smaller. The total relief of the
anomalies generally decreases; hence, the depth computed from
the least distorted residuals generally decreases with increasing
order of fit. Moreover, care must be taken in interpreting the
residuals of the vertical cylinder, since the percentage of error in
the computed depth is generally very high.
FIELD EXAMPLE
The method was applied to a gravity anomaly from the
northern Western Desert of Egypt associated with the Abu
Roash dome. The gravity anomaly, located west of Cairo, is
shown in Figure 11. The Bouguer anomaly map was compiled
in 1980 by the Egyptian General Petroleum Corp. using a
Bouguer density of 2.3 g/cm.'. This area, 625 km 2 forms an
11 x 11 square grid pattern with grid separation of 2.5 km.
Information about the structure is available from surface ge-
ology and drill hole data (Said, 1962).
With regard to the geology of the area, it suffices to note that
the basement rock (with its density higher than that of the

Table 7. Numerical values of the correlation coefficients between each residual map R' J and the true residual R s '

Order of the composite field (i)

First order Second order Third order
Correlation (i = 1) (i = 2) (i = 3)
factor
(r Rij. R) Sphere V. cylinder Sphere V. cylinder Sphere V. cylinder

rRi!. R, (j = 1) 1.0 1.0 -0.0902 -0.4508 -0.1433 -0.4354

r Ri2• R, (j = 2) 0.9571 0.7311 0.9571 0.7311 0.4634 0.2947
rRi], R, (j = 3) 0.9571 0.7311 0.9571 0.7311 0.9571 0.7311
rR '4. R, (j = 4) 0.9016 0.5600 0.9016 0.5600 0.9016 0.5600
 Residual Anomaly Determination 479
Downloaded 03/20/15 to 147.188.128.74. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 9. Least-squares residual anomaly obtained by applying FIG. 10. Least-squares residual anomaly obtained by applying
first-order fit to the data of Figure 4 (R 3 1). Contour interval second-order fit to the data of Figure 4 (Rd. Contour interval
-10 g.u. (1 mGal). - 5 g.u. (0.5 mGal).

overlying sedimentary cover) is uplifted due to compression in a observed gravity data, produces the least distorted residual
northwest direction as well as to subsidiary folding in a south- component of the field. The method presented is an attempt to
west direction (Said, 1962). Abu Roash dome exposes Cenoma- reach that goal.
nian clastics at its core followed by Turonian and Senonian
strata. There is an angular unconformity that separates this ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Cretaceous succession from the overlying Eocene sediments
(Beadnell, 1902; Faris, 1948; and Said, 1962). We wish to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers and
The Bouguer values were subjected to a separation technique the editors for their keen interest, valuable comments on the
using the least-squares method. Regional components of first, manuscript, and for their improvements to this work. Thanks
second, third, and fourth orders were fitted to the input data. are also due to Dr. Saad, Gulf Oil Exploration and Production
The correlation coefficients between successive residual maps Company, for his critical review of the manuscript.
were computed in order to determine the optimum order of the The authors are highly indebted to Prof. Dr. A. Bayoumi, Dr.
regional surface to be used. Results were r 12 = 0.4760, r23 = M. Hanfy, and to Abdel Monem, Faculty of Science, Cairo
0.9362, and r34 = 0.6160. Using the criterion established above, University, for their help and constant encouragement; to Dr.
the regional field in this particular area can be represented by a M. Moustafa, Nuclear Materials Corp.; and to S. Hafez and
second-order surface. The polynomial used is other colleagues of Suez Oil Company for their immense help
and suggestions.
Z(x, y) = - 32.6368 + 5.8238y + 3.2622x Finally, the authors sincerely acknowledge the Egyptian
- 0.2349y 2 - 0.337xy - 0.3169x 2 • General Petroleum Corp. for providing the Bouguer anomaly
The least-squares second-order residual and regional maps map of the Abu Roash area.
of the area, as determined by the present method, are shown in
Figures 12 and 13, respectively. Other lows and highs sur-
rounding the central high of Abu Roash dome which are not Table 8. Depths determined from the least distorted residuals.
known from surface geology are found on the residual map.
Sphere Vertical cylinder
CONCLUSION
Depth % of Depth % of
Order of fit (km) error (km) error
The results obtained here may be of interest in the field of
exploration geophysics, although further detailed examination First order 1.0 0.0 0.917 -8.3
and additional examples are required before the complete util- Second order 0.975 -2.5 0.739 -26.1
ity of the method is understood. Our aim is mainly to find an or
objective approach for determining the optimum order of the third order
Fourth order 0.941 -5.9 0.704 -29.6
least-squares regional surface which, when subtracted from the
 480 Abdelrahman et al.
o
Downloaded 03/20/15 to 147.188.128.74. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

FIG. 11.Observed Bouguer gravity anomaly map of Abu Roash FIG. 12. Second-order residual gravity anomaly map of Abu
dome, west Cairo, Egypt. Roash dome, west Cairo, Egypt as obtained by the present
method.

FIG. 13. Second-order regional gravity map of Abu Roash
dome, west Cairo, Egypt.
REFERENCES
Agocs, W. 8., 1951, Least-squares residual anomaly determination:
Geophysics, 16, 686-696.
Beadnell, H. J. L., 1902, The Cretaceous region of Abu Roash, near the
pyramids of Giza, Egypt; Survey Dept., Cairo, 48 p.
Coons, R. L., Mack, J. W., and Strange, W., 1964, Least squares
polynomial fitting of gravity and case histories, in Computers in the
mineral industries, pt. 2: Stanford Univ. Publ., 498-519.
Coons, R. L., Woollard, G. P., and Hershey, G., 1967, Structural
significance and analysis of mid-continent high: Bull., Am. Assn.
Petr. Geo!., 51, 2381-2399.
Davis, 1. C., 1973, Statistics and data analysis in geology: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Demidovich, B., 1973, Problems in mathematical analysis: Mir Pub!.
El-Batroukh, S. I., and Zentani, A. S., 1980, Gravity interpretation of
Raguba Field, Sirta basin, Libya: Geophysics, 45,1153-1163.
Fajklewicz, Z., 1959, The use of cracovian computation in estimating
the regional gravity: Geophysics, 24, 465-478.
Faris, M. I., 1948, Contributions to the stratigraphy of Abu Roash and
the history of the upper Cretaceous in Egypt: Bul!. Fac. Sci., Cairo
Univ., 27, 221-239.
Grant, F. S., 1957, A problem in the analysis of geophysical data:
Geophysics, 22, 309-344.
Gupta, O. P., 1983, A least-squares approach to depth determination
from gravity data: Geophysics, 48, 357-360.
Hammer, S., 1977, Graticule versus depth determination in gravity
interpretation; Geophysics, 42, 60-65.
Nettleton, L. L., 1940, Geophysical prospecting for oil: Mc-Graw Hill
Book Co.
- - 1942, Gravity and magnetics calculations: Geophysics, 7, 293-
310.
- - 1976, Gravity and magnetics in oil prospecting: Mc-Graw Hill
Book Co.
Oldham, C. H. G., and Sutherland, D. B., 1955, Orthogonal poly-
nomials, their use in estimating the regional effect: Geophysics, 20,
295-306.
Rao, R. S. 8., and Radhakrishnammurthy, 1965, Some remarks con-
cerning residuals and derivatives: Pure and Appl, Geophys., 61,
5-16.
Said, R., 1962, The geology of Egypt: Elsevier Pub!. Co.
Skeels, D. C, 1967, What is residual gravity?: Geophysics, 32, 872-876.
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., Sheriff, R. E., and Key, D. A., 1976,
Applied geophysics: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Van Voorhis, G. D., and Davis, T. M., 1964, Magnetic anomalies
North of Puerto Rico: Trend removal with orthogonal polynomials:
J. Geophys. Res., 69, 5363-5371.