International Journal Geology and Mining IJGM

Vol. 4(1), pp. 151-155, March, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Research Article

A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical

Gradient for Density Determination Used in a Mine at
Barberton City of Ohio, United States
BAUMGRATZ, Leonardo Lucas
Fundação Agência das Bacias Hidrográficas dos Rios Piracicaba, Capivari e Jundiaí
E-mail: expansaoescalar@gmail.com; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9546-4956; Tel: 55 19 996022040

Underground Gravity Vertical Gradient is an important practice for prospecting underground

densities, although in most cases it does not match the densities obtained directly in the
laboratory from rock samples representative of the location. The densities of the laboratory
samples were systematically lower when compared to the densities calculated by gravimetric
determination suggesting some kind of systematic error. Several researchers propose different
sources to explain these systematic errors including an anomalous value of the free-air vertical
gradient. The anomalous value was admitted for the free-air vertical gradient in this paper to
reinterpret the densities determination research made in a mine at Barberton, Ohio, in 1950, by
gravimetric measurements and by laboratory rock samples. The results of both approaches
reached similar densities agreeing with the free-air vertical gradient proposed.

Keywords: Gravimetry, Underground gravity, Free-air vertical gradient, Anomalous vertical gradient.

INTRODUCTION
Gravimetric prospecting methods depend fundamentally
on the density of the adjacent underground, which can be
achieved by two different processes. It can be measured
directly in the laboratory using a set of samples
representing the region of interest, or it can be calculated
by the variation of gravity on a vertical profile, which is the
method for determining density by the Underground
Gravity Vertical Gradient (UGVG).
A lot of practical works done in deep mines show that in
most cases the densities obtained by the two processes
are discordant, as mentioned by Hammer (1950) whose
research investigated carefully the underground densities
in a mine 2,246.60 feet deep by means of gravimetric
methods. To check the results, measurements of the
density of several rock samples representing the profile in
the laboratory were made. Each sample was selected
carefully to be as representative as possible of the 5-foot
interval depth. The densities of the samples presented a
large discordance with the gravimeter results. He reported
that the laboratory samples have a clear and systematic
tendency to have low-density values when compared to
densities determined by gravimetry, and the conclusion
was that "...the main suspect of causing this systematic
error could be an anomalous value of the free-air vertical
gradient caused by local or regional anomalies of gravity
in the mine vicinity.” Later, he studied local and regional
maps of Bouguer anomalies trying to explain this anomaly
but did not find any evidence that could justify it. It is
interesting to note that Hammer (1950) suggested as the
main cause of the error an anomalous value of the free-air
vertical gradient.
His work was so precise and highlighted an issue so
important that several authors such as Rogers (1952) and
Fajklewicz et al. (1982) cited him.
Problems with the free-air vertical gradient are very old.
They were detected in the nineteenth century according to
the list of researchers cited by Thyssen-Bornemisza and
Stachler (1956), shown in Table 1.

A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density Determination used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio of United States
Baumgratz LL. 152

Table 1: Experimental values of the free-air vertical gradient and its deviation from the standard value of -0.3086 mGal,
according to Thyssen-Bornemisza and Stachler (1956).
Free-air vertical gradient observed Deviation from normal
Authors Year Height (ft)
(mGal/m) value
Jolly 1881 68.913 -0.295 -0.0136
M.Thiesen 1890 37.660 -0.303 -0.0056
Scheel and Diesselhorst 1895 97.541 -0.289 -0.0196
Richarz and Kriegar-Menzel 1898 7.424 -0.285 -0.0236

By studying this list of authors, it is possible to see that the
mean gradient value is -0.293 mGal/m. According to the
concepts proposed by Baumgratz (2003), the free-air
vertical gradient could be -0.2922 mGal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Gravimetric determination of underground densities is
based on the correct interpretation of the gravimetric
variations. It is the methodology normally used in UGVG
studies. In this context, the free-air vertical gradient is of
fundamental importance.
Hammer (1950) investigated the underground densities in
a mine by laboratory measurements of a set of samples
representing the region and by UGVG method. The
laboratory samples mean density was 2.562 g/cm and
standard deviation of 0.127. This author admitted for F the
standard value of -0.3086 mGal.
Using this new value of F=-0.2922 is the main change to
reinterpret Hammer (1950) in the calculations of the
underground density by gravimetric determination. The
method for calculating the underground density applied in
this paper is the same that was used by Hammer (1950) in
his work. The only modification made here was in relation
to the free-air vertical gradient that became -0.2922 mGal.
RESULTS
Determination of the Mean Density by Regression
Analysis
The data gathered by Hammer (1950), which are
respectively depth (H) and gravity observed (∆g0) are in
Column 1 and 2 of Table 2. The regression function is the
Eq. (1):
g 0  0.0323  0.023918 H Equation (1)
The angular coefficient dg0/dH expresses gravity variation
per unit of depth. The correlation coefficient is 0.999, so is
valid the relation:
0.023918  g / H  g 0 / H Equation (2)
It is known that in an underground vertical profile the
difference in gravity between two stations makes it
possible to calculate the density through the well-known
expressions (Hammer, 1950):
g  F  4    G     H  T Equation (3)
Eq. (3) may be solved directly for the density giving:
F ( g  T )
  Equation (4)
4   G 4    G .H
The density σ can be calculated by Eq. 4 where F is the
free-air vertical gradient, G is the gravitational constant,
and Δg/ΔH is the angular coefficient dg0/dH obtained by
regression analysis. The term ΔT represents the variation
of the Terrain Correction over the elevation interval ΔH,
and this term is ordinarily so small that no appreciate error
is introduced by using an assumed value of the density for
it (Hammer, 1950). This author admitted for F the standard
value of -0.3086, and then Eq. (4) resulted in:
  3.687  39.201 ( g  T ) / H Equation (5)
For H given in foot, which explains the value 39.201. The
solution showed a high density of 2.75 g/cm3, diverging
from the mean density of the laboratory samples that was
2.562 g/cm3 (Hammer, 1950).
When adjusting F = -0.2922 the solution for Eq. (4) is:
  3.4861  39.201 ( g  T ) / H    2.548
Equation (6)
In this case, the regression analysis shows a profile's
mean density of 2.548 g/cm³ compatible with laboratory
samples (2.562 g/cm³) obtained by Hammer (1950).
If density was calculated by Eq. 4 adopting F=-0.293 (this
value was obtained from Table 1), the result would be
2.564 g/cm³; it is very close to the laboratory samples
density.
Determination of Density for Each Depth Based on the
Bouguer Anomaly
These equations above apply to determine the profile's
mean density. These cannot be used to highlight the small
variations in density that occur naturally underground
because to do this it would be necessary to consider
Bouguer anomalies. The “normal” gravity (∆gN) is a
theoretical value calculated by regression analyses and its
correct interpretation depends on field studies. According
to Hammer (1950), there are no external gravity anomalies
interfering in the system under study; it can be assumed
that the difference between the “observed” and “normal”
gravity is caused by local variations of densities. Table 2
 Int. J. Geol. Min. 153

(from Column 1 to 11) shows the calculations of the depth
densities through the anomalous free-air vertical gradient
proposed here. Columns 1, 2 and 5 are the data gathered
by Hammer (1950), which are respectively depth, gravity
observed and Terrestrial Correction.
The normal gravity results are in Column 3. It is noteworthy
that these should be the gravity values that the profile
would have if its density was constant, it was calculated by
Eq. (1). This is a purely theoretical concept and the theory
must be confirmed by practice. The results found for
gravity observed should be equal to normal gravity, but
they are different as shown in Column 4. Terrestrial
Correction (TC) (topographical and internal corrections of
the mine) was obtained from the tables made by Hammer
(1939). The difference between observed and normal
gravity summed to TC can be interpreted and studied as a
Bouguer Anomaly; their values are in Column 6. The
variations presented by the Bouguer anomaly and
identified as ∆B make it possible to calculate how much
the density varies between two stations.

Table 2: Reinterpretation of the Hammer (1950) based on new gravity vertical gradient*.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
H ∆g0 Normal ΔgN TC Bouger Anomaly ΔB ΔH (ΔB/ΔH) x 104 ΔϬ Ϭ**
(2) - (3) (4) + (5) (7)/(8)
Feet mGal mGal mGal mGal mGal feet g/cm³ g/cm³
Surface 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 -0.15 204 -7.31 0.029 2.577
204 4.9 4.88 0.02 -0.14 -0.12 0.07 192 3.53 -0.014 2.534
396 9.63 9.46 0.16 -0.21 -0.05 0.04 208 1.69 -0.007 2.541
604 14.65 14.45 0.20 -0.22 -0.02 -0.02 192 -1.16 0.005 2.553
796 19.20 19.04 0.16 -0.20 -0.04 -0.03 208 -1.68 0.007 2.555
1004 24.09 24.01 0.08 -0.15 -0.07 -0.18 192 -9.49 0.037 2.585
1196 28.46 28.61 -0.15 -0.11 -0.26 0.00 208 -0.24 0.001 2.549
1404 33.38 33.58 -0.20 -0.06 -0.26 -0.14 192 -7.41 0.029 2.577
1596 37.78 38.17 -0.39 -0.01 -0.40 0.42 208 19.96 -0.078 2.470
1804 43.12 43.15 -0.03 0.04 0.01 0.22 192 11.34 -0.044 2.504
1996 47.88 47.74 0.14 0.09 0.23 -0.05 206 -2.28 0.009 2.557
2202 52.70 52.67 0.03 0.15 0.18 -0.01 44.6 -1.51 0.006 2.554
2246,6 54.13 53.73 0.40 -0.22 0.18
*For assumed F= -0.2922 mGal.
**For assumed "normal" density 2.548 g/cm³

Column 7 shows the Bouguer variations and Column 8 the
depth variation. These data give the variation of density by
Eq. (7) and shown in Column 10.
  39.201 ( B / H ) Equation (7)
The density of each station (Column 11) is the mean
density of 2.548 summed to density variation, Eq. (8)
  2.548   Equation (8)
DISCUSSION
The densities obtained by Hammer (1950) in the
laboratory and by gravimetric determination show
a significant difference, and most of the density results of
gravity determination exceeded the standard deviation of
mean laboratory samples, only at 1596 and 2202 feet
depth they did not exceed. According to this author, the
densities, calculated by the UGVG method, in some depth
intervals exceeded the density of all individual laboratory
samples in the respective interval. He discussed the
sources of errors in his work; errors in the gravity readings;
A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density Determination used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio of United States
errors in elevation interval; errors in reductions and, lastly,
in anomalous vertical gradient. He concluded the main
suspect of causing this systematic error would be an
anomalous value of the free-air vertical gradient caused by
local or regional gravity anomalies in the vicinity of the
mine.
Table 3 and Figure 1 make it possible to compare the three
results of densities, which are the laboratory samples in
Column 2, calculated by Hammer (1950) in Column 3 and
calculated to free-air anomalous value proposed in
Column 4. The density difference between laboratory
samples and free-air proposed has never exceeded the
standard deviation in all depths. This can be easily seen in
Figure 1, its curves practically intertwined and it shows
more clearly how these two densities are next to each
other.
The curve of free-air proposed keeps the same curvature
of the free-air standard because the same method was
used for the booth. A lot of practical works done in deep
mines show that in most cases the densities obtained by
the two processes are discordant. So; further studies
should be done to investigate this anomalous value of free-
air in a vicinity of the mine (i.e Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.) to
Baumgratz LL. 154

Table 3 Underground densities (g/cm3) in a vertical profile calculated by different methods.

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Density obtained through UGVG
Depth Density of laboratory samples Calculated by Hammer (1950) Calculated through Free-air proposed
F= -0.3086 F= -0.2922
0 2.450 2.779 2.577
204 2.544 2.734 2.534
396 2.543 2.745 2.541
604 2.545 2.752 2.553
796 2.577 2.757 2.555
1004 2.521 2.785 2.585
1196 2.626 2.752 2.549
1404 2.649 2.777 2.577
1596 2.588 2.673 2.470
1804 2.545 2.703 2.504
1996 2.579 2.759 2.557
2202 2.640 2.750 2.554
Mean 2.562* 2.747 2.546
* It is the mean of all laboratory samples in Hammer (1950), and its standard deviation is 0.127.

understand if this anomalous value is only in this place, or CONCLUSION

whether it is generalized value as proposed by Baumgratz
(2003).
It needs to consider that value of free-air= -0.2922 mGal is
not a mere supposition, it has a mathematical and
conceptual basis developed in respect to the principles of
mechanics, and it has already been applied to the works
of Bullen (1953) and Götze et al. (1988) satisfactorily
explaining the anomalies they pointed out according to
Baumgratz (2003, 2013).
If the anomalous value of free-air will be correct in this
specific case, the densities determination of a finite interval
of underground rocks in a place with the gravimeter is so
accuracy like as laboratory measurements of rock
samples. Anomalous value of the free-air vertical gradient
can be the main cause of systematic error found by
Hammer (1950).
A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density Determination used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio of United States
In this specific case, the anomalous value of free-air
vertical gradient of -0.2922 mGal justifies the density
results found by Hammer (1950) at Barberton, Ohio,
United States.
REFERENCES
Baumgratz LL (2003). Os Padrões em um Universo
Surrealista: Uma introdução à teoria da expansão.
Piracicaba, Br: Editora Degaspari Ltda, 162 p.
Baumgratz LL (2013) Scalar Expansion the universe in
inflation. Available in:
http://www.academia.edu/33282759/Scalar_Expansion_-
_The_Universe_in_Inflation Accessed: October 7, 2013.
Bullen KE (1953). An Introduction to the Theory of
Seismology. Cambridge at the University Press,
Cambridge, 499 p.
 Int. J. Geol. Min. 155

Fajklewicz Z, Glinski A & Sliz J (1982). Some applications Accepted 23 February 2018
of the underground tower gravity vertical gradient.
Geophysics 47:1688-1692. Citation: Baumgratz LL (2018). A Study of Anomalous
Götze HJ, Lahmeyer B, Schmidt S. Strunk S (1988). Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density
Aplicaciones de gravimetria en geología: curso de Determination Used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio,
postgrado. Universidad Nacional de Salta, Argentina, United States. International Journal Geology and Mining
pp. 51-65. 4(1): 151-155.
Hammer S (1939). Terrain corrections for gravimeter
stations. Geophysics, 4:184-194.
Hammer S (1950) Density determinations by underground
gravity measurements. Geophysics, 15: 637-651.
Copyright: © 2018. Baumgratz LL. This is an open-access
Rogers GR (1952). Subsurface gravity measurements.
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Geophysics, 17: 365-377.
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
Thyssen-Bornemisza S, Stackler WF (1956). Observation
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
of the vertical gradient of gravity in the field.
Geophysics, 21: 771-779. provided the original author and source are cited.

A Study of Anomalous Value of Free-Air Vertical Gradient for Density Determination used in a Mine at Barberton City of Ohio of United States