*3.1.3 Interpretation of data results*

From **Table 8**, it was found that the range of formations thicknesses' (minimum to maximum) varying along the profile direction AA' (**Figure 10**), as follows:


## **Table 9.**

*The depths of formations thickness 'along profile AA' in biometers (*Z *= Σz(*i*),*i *= 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), Abu Roash dome area.*

**Figure 10.** *The resulted inversion formation' thicknesses along profile AA' of Bouguer map (Figure 7).*


*New Semi-Inversion Method of Bouguer Gravity Anomalies Separation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101593*

**Figure 11.** *The resulted inversion basement rock along profile AA' of Bouguer map (Figure 7).*


From **Table 7**, the basement depth along the profile line AA' (**Figure 11**), was determined as follows:

The maximum value of average depth (last column in **Table 9**), equal to 2.1034 km, corresponds to the Bouguer anomaly value of about 9.8743 m. Gal, and the minimum value of the last column, equal to 0.7116 km, corresponds to the Bouguer anomaly value of about 3.3385 m. Gal. Therefore, the average basement depth value is 1.40728 km, corresponds to the average Bouguer anomaly 6.6064, this is comparable with depth 1.916 km corresponds to Bouguer anomaly 5.5 m. Gal according to [23]. The calculated basement depths along profile line AA', showed more or fewer values than actual drilled depth (1.902 km), which may be attributed to the lithologic change in the basement rocks, the above overlying sediment thicknesses, and the local faults are indicated as noses on the depths' curve (**Figure 11**).

The Abu Roash Dome depth of value about 2.1 km is obtained by proposed method, that was to some extent agrees with the results obtained from drilling information (1.9 km; after [23], and a S-Curves method of depth determination (1.91 km; after [24]).
