Applied Geophysics

, Volume 15, Issue 3–4, pp 524–535 | Cite as

Three-dimensional gravity inversion based on sparse recovery iteration using approximate zero norm

  • Zhao-Hai MengEmail author
  • Xue-Chun Xu
  • Da-Nian Huang


This research proposes a novel three-dimensional gravity inversion based on sparse recovery in compress sensing. Zero norm is selected as the objective function, which is then iteratively solved by the approximate zero norm solution. The inversion approach mainly employs forward modeling; a depth weight function is introduced into the objective function of the zero norms. Sparse inversion results are obtained by the corresponding optimal mathematical method. To achieve the practical geophysical and geological significance of the results, penalty function is applied to constrain the density values. Results obtained by proposed provide clear boundary depth and density contrast distribution information. The method’s accuracy, validity, and reliability are verified by comparing its results with those of synthetic models. To further explain its reliability, a practical gravity data is obtained for a region in Texas, USA is applied. Inversion results for this region are compared with those of previous studies, including a research of logging data in the same area. The depth of salt dome obtained by the inversion method is 4.2 km, which is in good agreement with the 4.4 km value from the logging data. From this, the practicality of the inversion method is also validated.


Three-dimensional gravity inversion sparse recovery approximate zero norm iterative method density constraint penalty function 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors would like to thank reviewers Profs. Yao Changli, Jiang Puyu, and Luo Zhicai for their valuable comments and suggestions for the final paper, and also would like to extend their sincere thanks to Li Fengting, Geng Meixia, Qin Pengbo, et al. for the support of this research.


  1. Abdelrahman, E. M., 1991, A least–squares minimization approach to invert gravity data: Geophysics, 56(1), 115–118.Google Scholar
  2. Barbosa, V. C. F., and Silva, J. B., 1994, Generalized compact gravity inversion: Geophysics, 59(1), 57–68.Google Scholar
  3. Bertete–Aguirre, H., Cherkaev, E., and Oristaglio, M., 2002, Non–smooth gravity problem with total variation penalization functional: Geophysical Journal International, 149(2), 499–507.Google Scholar
  4. Blakely, R. J., 1996, Potential theory in gravity and magnetic applications: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bijani, R., Ponteneto, C. F., Carlos, D. U., and Silva Dias, F. J. S., 2015, Three–dimensional gravity inversion using graph theory to delineate the skeleton of homogeneous sources. Geophysics, 80(2), G53–G66.Google Scholar
  6. Candes, E. J., and Tao, T., 2005, Decoding by linear programming: IEEE Transactions on, Information Theory, 51(12), 4203–4215.Google Scholar
  7. Cardarelli, E., and Fischanger, F., 2006, 2d data modelling by electrical resistivity tomography for complex subsurface geology: Geophysical Prospecting, 54(2), 121–133.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, S. S., Donoho, D. L., and Saunders, M. A., 1998, Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit: SIAM J. Sei. Comput., 20(1), 33–61.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, S., Saunders, M. A., and Donoho, D. L., 2001, Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. Siam Review, 43(1), 129–159.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, G. X., Chen, S. C., and Wang, H. C., 2013, Geophysical data sparse reconstruction based on l0–norm minimization: Applied Geophysics, 10(2), 181–190.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, G. X., and Chen, S. C., 2014, Based on Lp norm sparse constrained regularization method of reconstruction of potential field data: Journal of Zhejiang University (Engineering Science) (4), 748–785.Google Scholar
  12. Cheng, X. L., Zheng, X., and Han, W. M., 2013, the sparse algorithm to solve the underdetermined linear equations: Applied Mathematics A Journal of Chinese Universities, No. 2, 235–248.Google Scholar
  13. Commer, M., 2011, Three–dimensional gravity modelling and focusing inversion using rectangular meshes: Geophysical Prospecting, 59(5), 966–979.Google Scholar
  14. Commer, M., and Newman, G. A., 2008, New advances in three–dimensional controlled–source electromagnetic inversion: Geophysical Journal International, 172(2), 513–535.Google Scholar
  15. Donoho, D. L., 2006, High–dimensional centrally symmetric polytopes with neighborliness proportional to dimension: Discrete & Computational Geometry, 35(4), 617–652.Google Scholar
  16. Donoho and David L., 2006, For most large underdetermined systems of linear equations the minimal $lsb l$–norm solution is also the sparsest solution. Comm: Pure Appl. Math, 59, 797–829.Google Scholar
  17. Elad, M., 2007, Optimized projections for compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 55(12), 5695–5702.Google Scholar
  18. Essa, K. S., 2007, Gravity data interpretation using the s–curves method: Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 4(2), 204.Google Scholar
  19. Farquharson, C. G., 2008, Constructing piecewiseconstant models in multidimensional minimum–structure inversions: Geophysics, 73(1), K1–K9.Google Scholar
  20. Fregoso, E., and Gallardo, L. A., 2009, Cross–gradients joint 3D inversion with applications to gravity and magnetic data: Geophysics, 74(4), L31–L42.Google Scholar
  21. Figueiredo, M. A., Nowak, R. D., and Wright, S. J. 2007, Gradient projection for sparse reconstruction: Application to compressed sensing and other inverse problems: IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal processing, 1(4), 586–597.Google Scholar
  22. Ghalehnoee, M. H., Ansari, A., and Ghorbani, A., 2017, Improving compact gravity inversion using new weighting functions: Geophysical Journal International, 208(2), 546–560.Google Scholar
  23. Gholami, A., and Siahkoohi, H. R., 2010, Regularization of linear and non–linear geophysical ill–posed problems with joint sparsity constraints: Geophysical Journal International, 180(2), 871–882.Google Scholar
  24. Guillen, A., and Menichetti, V., 1984, Gravity and magnetic inversion with minimization of a specific functional: Geophysics, 49(8), 1354–1360.Google Scholar
  25. Kim, H. J., Song, Y., & Lee, K. H., 1999, Inequality constraint in least–squares inversion of geophysical data: Earth Planets & Space, 51(4), 255–259.Google Scholar
  26. Last, B. J., and Kubik, K., 1983, Compact gravity inversion: Geophysics, 48(48), 713–721.Google Scholar
  27. Lelièvre, P. G., and Oldenburg, D. W., 2009, A comprehensive study of including structural orientation information in geophysical inversions: Geophysical Journal International, 178(178), 623–637.Google Scholar
  28. Li, Y., and Oldenburg, D. W., 1996, 3–D inversion of magnetic data: Geophysics, 61(2), 394–08.Google Scholar
  29. Li, Y, and Oldenburg, D. W., 1998, 3–D inversion of gravity data: Geophysics, 63(1), 109–119.Google Scholar
  30. Li, Y., Cichocki, A., and Amari, S. I., 2003, Sparse component analysis for blind source separation with less sensors than sources: Independent Component Analysis, 89–94.Google Scholar
  31. Ma, G. Q., Du, X. J., and Li, L. L., 2012, Comparison of the tensor local wavenumber method with the conventional local wavenumber method for interpretation of total tensor data of potential fields: Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 55(7), 2450–2461.Google Scholar
  32. Mallat, S. G., and Zhang, Z., 1993, Matching pursuits with time–frequency dictionaries: IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 41(12), 3397–3415.Google Scholar
  33. Mohan, N. L., Anandababu, L., and Rao, S. V. S., 1986, Gravity interpretation using the mellin transform: Digital Library Home, 51(1), 114–122.Google Scholar
  34. Mohimani, H., Babaie–Zadeh, M., & Jutten, C., 2009, A fast approach for overcomplete sparse decomposition based on smoothed 10, norm: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nettleton, L. L., 1976, Gravity and magnetics in oil prospecting. McGraw–Hill Companies.Google Scholar
  36. Oruç, B., 2010, Location and depth estimation of point–dipole and line of dipoles using analytic signals of the magnetic gradient tensor and magnitude of vector components: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 70(1), 27–37.Google Scholar
  37. Portniaguine, O., and Zhdanov, M. S., 1999, Focusing geophysical inversion images: Geophysics, 64(3), 874.Google Scholar
  38. Portniaguine, O., and Zhdanov, M. S., 2002, 3–D magnetic inversion with data compression and image focusing: Geophysics, 67(5), 1532–1541.Google Scholar
  39. Qi, G., Lv, Q. T., Yan, J. Y., Wu, M. A., and Liu, Y., 2012, Geologic constrained 3D gravity and magnetic modeling of Nihe Deposit–A case study: Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 55(12), 4194?206.Google Scholar
  40. Salem, A., Ravat, D., Mushayandebvu, M. F., and Ushijima, K., 2004, Linearized least–squares method for interpretation of potential–field data from sources of simple geometry: Geophysics, 69(3), 783–788.Google Scholar
  41. Shaw, R. K., and Agarwal, B. N. P., 1997, A generalized concept of resultant gradient to interpret potential field maps: Geophysical Prospecting, 45(6), 1003–1011.Google Scholar
  42. Silva Dias, F. J. S., Barbosa, V. C., and Silva, J. B. C., 2009, 3D gravity inversion through an adaptive–learning procedure: Geophysics, 74(3), I9–I21.Google Scholar
  43. Silva Dias, F. J. S., Barbosa, V. C. F., and Silva, J. B. C., 2011, Adaptive learning 3d gravity inversion for salt–body imaging: Geophysics, 76(3), 149–157.Google Scholar
  44. Silva, J. B. C., and Barbosa, V C. F., 2006, Gravity inversion of basement relief and estimation of density contrast variation with depth: Geophysics, 71, J51–J58.Google Scholar
  45. Tontini, F. C., Cocchi, L., and Carmisciano, C., 2009, Rapid 3–D forward model of potential fields with application to the Palinuro Seamount magnetic anomaly (southern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy): Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 114(B2).Google Scholar
  46. Tontini, F., Ronde, C. E. J., Yoerger, D., Kinsey, J., and Tivey, M., 2012, 3–D focused inversion of near–seafloor magnetic data with application to the Brothers volcano hydrothermal system, Southern Pacific Ocean, New Zealand: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 117(B10).Google Scholar
  47. Wang, T. H., Huang, D. N., Ma, G. Q., Meng, Z. H., and Li, Y., 2017, Improved preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm and application in 3D inversion of gravitygradiometry data: Applied Geophysics, 14(2), 301–313.Google Scholar
  48. Zhang, Y., Wu, Y., Yan, J., Wang, H., Rodriguez, J. A. P., and Qiu, Y., 2018, 3d inversion of full gravity gradient tensor data in spherical coordinate system using local northoriented frame: Earth Planets & Space, 70(1), 58.Google Scholar
  49. Zhdanov, M. S., Ellis, R., and Mukherjee, S., 2004, Threedimensional regularized focusing inversion of gravity gradient tensor component data: Geophysics, 69(4), 925–937.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Editorial Office of Applied Geophysics and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tianjin Navigation Instrument Research InstituteTianjinChina
  2. 2.College of Earth SciencesJilin UniversityChangchunChina
  3. 3.College of Instrumentation and Electrical EngineeringJilin UniversityChangchunChina
  4. 4.Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources ResearchInstitute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations