The gravity method is often applied in mining-related scenarios such as geological and mineral exploration, detecting subsurface cavities and voids ("receptacles") that may become sinkholes, siting of surface structures, fault-mapping, and more. It is also widely applied in geotechnical engineering to map subsurface karst profiles and to detect subsurface cavities, such as can occur in open pit mines. While it is widely acknowledged that, compared with other available geophysical methods, this method is the most applicable to the karst profiling problem, survey geometries applied in the field are often far from optimal. The gravity surveying specifications prescribed in SANS 1936 omit some key requirements for optimal survey outcomes, and this paper is intended to fill those gaps. The authors have seen scopes of work that require only a few measurements over the footprint of a proposed structure, indicating a lack of understanding of the nature of the gravitational field. A single gravity measurement is subject to the camouflaging effects of several influences, many of which can be larger than the anomaly caused by the subsurface density variation itself. Papers in the body of literature show an awareness of the need to map the regional field so that it can be subtracted to unmask the residual gravity anomaly, but rarely do they examine how instrument sensitivity governs the size of detectable anomalies or discuss how a detailed terrain correction can be instrumental for isolating faint targets. This paper aims to explain how to apply the gravity method correctly to mining and geotechnical problems, specifically in the detection of subsurface cavities. It discusses various factors to assist with optimising the acquisition of gravity data and its processing so as to maximise the practical value of gravity surveys.
Linzer et al. (Fri,) studied this question.