**5. Field data**

A published field example over a salt dome anomaly is examined in order to thoroughly test the applicability of the established methodology. For a variety of reasons, this case was chosen. First, the residual gravity profile was created by a simple body that may be truthfully inferred. Second, the drilling information helps in estimating the density contrast of the underlying body. Knowing the density contrast, the radius can be calculated and the depth to the top also can be inferred by using the definition of the amplitude coefficient (**Table 1**). Moreover, the depth of the vertical cylinder model is measured to the top but the depth of a horizontal cylinder and sphere model is measured to the center of the body (**Figure 1**). Third, the gravity data was taken from an area with recognized drilling information, allowing the results obtained from the technique proposed here to be cross-validated against those received via drilling.

**Figure 9.**

*Model 2: Interference/neighboring effect with noise. (a) Analytic signal data (Figure 8c) subjected to the same interpretation, (b) Horizontal and vertical gradients of (a), (c) Analytic signal anomaly using the data of (b), and (d) 2-D mosaic of the R-parameter and the R-max values.*


#### **Table 5.**

*Model 2: Interference/neighboring effect with noise. Comparison between the model parameters estimated from the interpretation of using residual anomaly and analytic signal anomaly.*

*Gravity Anomaly Interpretation Using the R-Parameter Imaging Technique over a Salt Dome DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105092*
