GRAVITY AND MAGNETIC DATA ANALYSIS TO DETECT THE BASEMENT

ROCK STRUCTURE AT SUNGAI PAHANG DELTA AREA

M. N. Khairul Arifin School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Mohd N. Nawawi, School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
T. H. Zuhar Zahir, Geosciences Program, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia

Abstract
The objective of this study is to model and establish a geological structure, mainly the basement rock,
using potential field analysis. Two potential field methods, i.e. gravitational field and magnetic field
were used in this study. The coastal margin sedimentary basin at Sungai Pahang Delta in Pekan, Pahang
was chosen as the study site. This is to identify the basement rock structure due to delta development
such as fault zone evolution, basement expansion and compaction. The data were interpreted both
qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative interpretation is based on anomalies on the contour
maps, and the quantitative interpretation is based on data modeling. There is good correlation between
the gravitational and the magnetic field methods since the same features are found at the same locations.
The result from the magnetic field method shows that the basement rock contains extended basalt
intrusion. However, the gravitational data show a more localized intrusion and the presence of a
metamorphism contact zone.

Introduction
The Pekan area consists of old Quaternary alluvium ranging from Pleistocene to Holocone in age
(Umar Hamzah et al., 1995). Based on Ali (2001), these deltaic areas are dipping to the east and infected
from a fault in the basement rock. This fault is the result of the igneous activity during the late
Cretaceous, which is the important faulting event in Peninsular Malaysia (Harun, 2002; Tjia, 1994;
Fitch, 1951; ESSO, 1985). The depth of basement rock is less than 200 meters (Saffeen Baharuddin,
1992, 1993). It is a metamorphic and granitic rock formation of Paleozoic to Mesozoic age, with the
granite to the north of Pekan and Metasediment to the south of Pekan.
There are fewer regional geophysical studies than there are geological studies of Peninsula
Malaysia (Chee, 2006; Zaid, 2005; Loke et al., 1983; Ryall, 1982; Loke, 1981; Agocs et al., 1958). Most
of the earlier studies are focused on regional crust and subsurface geological information, such as
lithology and sedimentation rather than on the basement structure that formed the basin itself. The
present study is important since the understanding of basement rock structure helps to elucidate the
entire process and evolution of the developed basin.
Our objective in this study was to delineate the internal structure of the basement rock based on
physical rock parameters such as density and magnetic susceptibility. Other examples of potential field
methods to describe basin structure include method purposed by West (1992).

275
 Methodology
Figure 1 show the study area in Pekan, Pahang situated in the eastern region of Peninsular
Malaysia. The survey transverses covered nearly the entire of Pekan province between latitudes 3.294°
N to 3.747° N and longitudes 103.097° E to 103.706° E. The region is near the coast of the South China
Sea and on the southern bank of the Pahang River. It is one of several coastal marginal basins in
Peninsular Malaysia. The gravity measurements were made with a Worden unstable gravity meter,
which is a temperature-compensated Scintrex CG-2 gravity meter. Magnetic measurements were made
with a portable proton precession magnetometer Geometric G-836 and G-856.

276
 Figure 1: Survey area coverage

Within the study area, fourteen gravity survey transverses and eight magnetic survey transverses
were made in 2005 and 2006 (Khairul Arifin, 2007). Data were taken from 403 gravity stations and 303
magnetic stations, including the gravity station used by Chee (2006). The survey transverses were made
along the federal road and secondary road and mostly oriented in N-S direction rather than in E-W
direction due to the lack of road network access. The station spacing along the transverses ranged from
0.25 to 2.0 km and measurement was carried out based on the principle of looping.
Locating benchmarks was difficult, so elevation control was not as good as anticipated.
Elevations were determined from the survey benchmarks shown on the topographic maps with scale
1:63, 360 and 1:50,000 miles with 50 feet contour interval (Direktorat Pemetaan Negara, 1973, 1993,
2002) and several were based on altimeter readings. The elevation remarks on maps were easily located
because the survey was made along roads. The survey stations were matched with topographic maps by
using a global positioning system (GPS) instrument.

Analysis
We analyzed the data by using two-dimensional extrapolation, followed by two-dimensional
smoothing of the noise introduced by the extrapolation, and then extracting one-dimensional profiles
from the smoothed two-dimensional contour maps.
Prior to data extrapolation, the entire data set was reduced by making fundamental corrections;
including drift, latitude, free-air, bouguer, and were synchronized to national reference values such as
International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) for magnetic data set and established gravity station
from Loke (1983) for gravity data set. Since the study area was approximately flat, the terrain
corrections were not necessary. The bouguer correction for the gravity survey and the drift correction
for the magnetic survey were then applied for extrapolation stage. Subsequently, the contours (two-
dimensional extrapolation result) for both methods were generated by using ‘Surfer 8’ software (Golden
Software Inc., Colorado, U.S., 2002). The contours were based on a geostatic gridding method called as
a Kringing (Cressie, 1991; Journel and Huijbregts, 1978).
The weighted moving average (m × n) technique was applied for two-dimensional smoothing,
where m and n is a weighted constant. This technique is a low-pass filter and also known as blurring
filters. By using this filter, the high frequency noise is removed resulting in a smoother grid output. The
constant of m=7 and n=7 were used in this study because it produced the best output compared to other
constant (Khairul Arifin, 2007).
A one-dimensional profile was extracted from the smoothed two-dimensional contour maps .
Within the smoothed two-dimensional results, three transverses for both methods were chosen for
modeling purpose (Figures 2, 3). The profile selection is based on the tendency of the anomaly pattern.
The forward modeling process for the gravity and magnetic data was conducted with ‘Grav2dc’ software
and ‘Mag2dc’ software (Cooper, 2003a, b) respectively. Both programs are based on the Talwani
algorithm to calculate anomalies (Talwani et al., 1959). Previous drilling data from Saffeen Baharuddin
(1992, 1993) were modeled to monitor the potential field model (Khairul Arifin, 2007). Model precision
for generated model from ‘Grav2dc’ software and ‘Mag2dc’ software was monitored by generating
another model with different software which is ‘Model Vision Pro 4’ (Encom Pty. Ltd, New South
Wales, Australia, 2004) as alternatives. Figure 4 shows the position evaluation for Model P1 and
Alternative model.

277
 Modeling
The forward modeling process with gravity and magnetic was conducted as described above.
The granite rock density of 2.65 gm cm-3 which is estimated from Ryall (1982) were used for all of the
gravity models in this study. For models P1, P2 and P3, the density for alluvial is 1.80 gm cm -3
(Jabatan Alam Sekitar Malaysia, 2002), 2.40 and 2.50 gm cm-3 for metasedimentary rock and 3.00 gm
cm-3 for basalt (Seigel, 2005). For the gravity alternative model, the parameters remained the same but
excluded the 2.5 gm cm-3 metasedimentary rock.
For magnetic modeling of the survey location, IGRF 41669 gammas, inclination of 11.2°,
declination of 0.1° and a reference height 0.0 m were used. This value was estimated based on ‘Potent
v.4.08.06’ software (Geophysical Software Solution Pty. Ltd., Australia, 2005). The rock susceptibility
for magnetic models P1, P2 and P3 in the present study was estimated based on the Melbourne
University (2007) observed value, i. e., is 0.003 cgs for alluvial, 0.124 cgs for granite, 0.08 cgs for
metasediment and 0.27 cgs for basalt. For the magnetic alternative model, metasediment and granite
were 36.4x10-6 cgs and 10.0x10-6 cgs (Lim, 1979), and basalt was 155.0x10-6 cgs (Khairul Arifin, 2007).

Qualitative Interpretation
The interpretation is based on anomaly tendency pattern and shape resulted from two-
dimensional contour maps and one-dimensional profile. The high gravity value regions usually were
located at the center of the survey route (Figure 2). Both contour maps (Figures 2, 3) identified three
main features ranging above 20 mgals and 41650 gammas. The first feature is two areas with high field
peak values in circular form that are located in the northern and the southern parts of the survey route.
There is a drastic drop of field value between the first two features near Kuala Sungai Pahang Tua
(Figure 1). The third feature is a zone with unstable gravity and magnetic field variation near the center
of the survey route oriented in NW-SE direction.
Saxov (1956) found an anomalous circular feature with low potential field value in a Danish
sedimentary basin which is interpreted as a salt dome. However, in our study the observed circular
features arise as a high potential field value. Based on the geological record at Kuantan (Tjia, 1999), this
area is dominated by granite basement rock with basaltic intrusions. The first feature observed in both
contour maps was assumed as a high density basaltic intrusion, i.e. the inverse of a low density of salt
dome, and the second feature resulted from the interference between two granite bodies.
There are two kinds of dominant basement rock in Pekan, granite on the northern side and
metasediment on the southern side (Saffeen Baharuddin, 1992, 1993). The two large depositions are
filled with Premian clastic marine sequence to the south of the Lepar fault zone and by metasedimentary
rocks of similar origin and of dominantly Carboniferous age to the north of the fault zone (Geological
Survey of Malaysia, 1985). Thus, the metasedimentary rocks at Pekan are an extension from the Lepar
fault zone. The contact between the granite rocks extending from Kuantan and the metasedimetary
rocks extending from Lepar occurs beneath the Pekan region. This intersection could result in the
occurrence of the third feature of this study, which is assumed to be a contact zone between granite from
the north and metasediment from the south.

278
 3rd feature
1st feature

2nd feature

Modeled Gravity Stations

Figure 2: Smoothed gravity contour maps with 1 milligal contour intervals and predicted features
locality. Note: selected modeling profile and station noticeable as P1, P2 and P3.

279
 2nd feature
1st feature

3rd feature

Modeled Magnetic Stations

Figure 3: Smoothed magnetic contour maps with 50 gamma contour intervals and predicted features
locality. Note: selected modeling profile and station noticeable as P1, P2 and P3.

280
 Figure 4: Locality of the Alternative Model due to Model P1

To compare the gravity and magnetic anomalies at the modeling stage, the cross sections for
each method remained unchanged. The variation in the contours may be affected by superposition of
noise. This variation usually increases the size of the anomaly. Generally, large source body has a
smooth contour concentration and covers a large area. Overlapping concentrations will camouflage the
regional character and result as noise from the diminutive residual character, which is known as the
residual anomaly. To monitor this camouflaged effect from the modeled profile in the quantitative
interpretation, the linear regional and residual separations were applied as depth estimation purpose.

Quantitative Interpretation
As for the qualitative approach, the interpretation is based on anomaly forward modeling
conducted as describe before. Models P1, P2, P3 and the alternative model are consistent with each
other (Khairul Arifin, 2007). From both the gravity and the magnetic data, the positive and dominant
anomaly corresponds to bodies with density values of 3.0 gm cm-3 and susceptibility values of 0.27 cgs,
which probably are basalt intrusions. This basalt intrusion occurs in large quantity in both models for all
profiles. The observed basalt in the models is not in the form of a vertical cylinder. Instead it arises as
tabular or angled polygons in the gravity models and in a spherical form in the magnetic alternative
model. The models are consistent with the drilling data, which found that the northern part of the
surveyed area is dominated by granite basement rock. The metasedimentary rock detected by the gravity
model occurs at the end of model P1 (Figure 5) and near the center of the gravity and magnetic models
P3.

281
 N S

Contact
zone

Figure 5: Combination of potential field anomaly, modeling result and appropriate borehole data for
Model P1.

282
 W E

??
Contact
zone

Figure 6: Combination of potential field anomaly, modeling result and appropriate borehole data for
Model P3.

283
 The ‘V’ shape of the large contact structure arising from gravity model P1 (Figure 5) can be
determined. This structure may correspond to granitic and basaltic intrusion into the metasedimentary
basement rock. This structure can be referred to as a contact zone or burning zone (Manson, 1986).
Thus, we presumed that the structure detected was a contact metamorphism zone which commonly
creates hornfels. However, this contact metamorphism zone has relatively low potential field values.
The value of hornfels for Peninsular Malaysia ranges from 2.75 to 3.02 gm cm-3 (Loke, 1981) and
20.0x10-6 to 50.0x10-6 cgs (Agocs et al., 1958). The contact metamorphism process with high
metasomatise will reduce the mineral quantity termed as ‘Skarn’ (Manson, 1986).
Thus, the contact zone cannot be referred to as hornfels but may be restricted to metasedimentary
rock with low density and magnetic mineral composition. The precise location of the contact zone can
be determined only by using a gravity model. Magnetic models have decreasing magnetic value due to
the contact between the granite and metasedimentary structures. Alluvial sedimentary deposits do not
affect either the gravity or the magnetic model (Khairul Arifin, 2007).
As a comparison, the gravity model is easier to interpret than the magnetic model. The gravity
models depend solely on the single parameter, density. Magnetic anomalies are not always related to the
features of the anomalous body (Abdul Rahim Samsudin, 1990). Therefore, models based on magnetic
data show the extension of the intrusion zone while the models based on gravity data show more of
individual intrusions and can detect the specific location of the metamorphism contact zone. All of the
models were consistent with the drilling data.

Conclusions
Correlation between qualitative and quantitative interpretations shows that there are three main
anomalous features corresponding to basaltic intrusions and contact metamorphism. The basalt
intrusions presumably resulted from an expansion from the Kuantan region in the same form. Basalt
intrusion in Kuantan is a non vertical cylinder intrusion (Raj et al., 1998; Geological Survey of
Malaysia, 1985). The contact metamorphism phenomenon presumably resulted from the granite
intrusion into the metasediment basement and consists of low density metasedimentary rock. There is a
mixed occurrence of basaltic intrusion in the southern part of the surveyed area. The overlaying
metasedimentary layer could react to the temperature to compensate for the slow heat loss (Mohd Hasni
Mohd Hashim, 1984). Results from the present study suggest that the Pekan costal marginal
sedimentary basin is affected by granite and basalt activities in metasedimentary basement rock.
Indirectly, the results are consistent with those for Penyu Basin (Tjia, 1994; ESSO, 1985), where the
contour depth dips steeply at the north of Pekan rather than its south (Khairul Arifin, 2007). Thus, the
north side of Pekan has undergone an uplifted event that we interpret as a granite and basalt intrusion.

References
Abdul Rahim Samsudin, 1990. Geofizik, Konsep dan Penggunaan. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka,
Malaysia.

Agocs, W.B., Patron, J.R., and Alexander, J.B., 1958. Extract from the Colombo plan report on Airbone
Magnetometer and Scintillation. Counter Survey over parts of Kedah and Perlis (Area 6). Geol, Sur.
Economic Bulletin 1.6, p. 59

284
Ali, C. A., 2001. Evolusi Delta Sungai Pahang: Bukti-bukti permukaan dan bawah tanah. Proc. Geol.
Soc. Malaysia Ann. Geol. Conf. 2001, 27-32.

Chee, K. H., 2006. Survei graviti di Pekan, Pahang. B.Sc. Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau
Pinang.

Cooper, G.R.J., (2003a). Grav2dc, V.2.10 for Microsoft windows. School of Geosciences University of
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa [Online]. [Accessed 19th August 2006].
www.cooperg@geosciences.witz.ac.za

Cooper, G.R.J., (2003b). Mag2dc, V.2.10 for Microsoft windows. School of Geosciences University of
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa [Online]. [Accessed 19th August 2006].
www.cooperg@geosciences.witz.ac.za

Cressie Noel, 1991. Statistic for Spatial Data. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Direktorat Pemetaan Negara, Malaysia, 1973. Peta Topografi Malaysia Barat: Pekan. Lembar 92, Siri
L7010, Edisi 4-PPNM, skala 1: 63,360. Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Direktorat Pemetaan Negara, Malaysia, 1992. Peta Topografi Malaysia (Semenanjung): Tasik Cini.
Lembar 4258, Siri L7030, Edisi 1-PPNM, skala 1: 50,000. Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan Malaysia, Kuala
Lumpur.

Direktorat Pemetaan Negara, Malaysia, 2002. Peta Topografi Malaysia (Semenanjung): Kuala Pahang.
Lembar 4359, Siri L7030, Edisi 2-PPNM, skala 1: 50,000. Jabatan Ukur dan Pemetaan Malaysia, Kuala
Lumpur.

Esso, 1985. Petroleum Geology of the Malay Basin. Unpublish Report. Esso Production Malaysia Inc.

Fitch, F. H., 1951. The Geology and Mineral Resources of the Neighbourhood of Kuantan, Pahang.
Geol. Survey Dept., Fed. Of Malaya, Mem. 6 (New Series).

Geological Survey of Malaysia, 1985. Geological Maps of Peninsular Malaysia 8th (ed), scale 1:
500000. Geological Survey of Malaysia, Ipoh.

Harun, Z., 2002. Late Mesozoic-Early Tertiary faults of Peninsular Malaysia. Proc. Geol. Soc. Malaysia
Ann. Geol. Conf. 2002, 117-122.

Jabatan Alam Sekitar Malaysia, 2002. Site investigation, drilling and installing monitoring observation
wells – kajian kesan terhadap alam sekitar akibat daripada aktiviti kolam memancing ikan air masin dan
aktiviti mengepam air tanah untuk akuakultur.

Journel, A.G., and Huijbregts, C., 1978. Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press. 600.

Khairul Arifin, M. N., 2007. Analisis Data Graviti dan Magnet bagi mengesan struktur batuan dasar di
Delta Sungai Pahang. M.Sc. thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.

285
Lim, B. K, 1979. Detail geological study and ground magnetic survey of the Kedah Peak (Rest House)
area, Kedah. Unpubl. UM B.Sc. Hons. Thesis.

Loke, M. H., 1981. Regional gravity survey across Peninsular Malaysia to study crustal structure. Msc.
thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.

Loke, M. H., Lee, C. Y. and van Klinken, G., 1983. Interpretation of regional gravity and magnetic data
in Peninsular Malaysia. Bull. Geol. Soc. Malaysia, 16, 1-22.

Manson, R., 1986. Petrology of Metamorphic Rock. George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Model Vision Pro 4 (2004). Geophysical Modelling and Interpretation. Exploration Software. Encom
Pty. Ltd, New South Wales, Australia. www.encom.com.au

Mohd Hasni Mohd Hashim, 1984. Interpretasi data graviti regional dari Kuantan ke Kota Baharu. Deg.
thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.

Potent v. 4.08.06 (2005). Geophysical Software Solution Pty. Ltd., Australia, 2005. [Online].[Accessed
1st March 2006]. ralmond@geoss.com.au, www.geoss.com.au

Raj, J. K., Abdul Hadi Abdul Rahman and Mustaffa Kamal Shuib, 1998. Tertiary basins of inland
Peninsular Malaysia: Review and tectonic evolution. In Geological Society of Malaysia, Seminar
publication on Tertiary basins of Peninsular Malaysia and its adjacent offshore areas, Kual Lumpur 21-
21 February 1998, 1.1-1.21.

Ryall, P.J.C., 1982. Gravity traverse across Peninsular Malaysia – results of gravity traverse. Bull. Geol.
Soc. Malaysia, 15, 9-18.

Saffeen Baharuddin, 1992. Hidrogeologi dan Prospek Air Tanah kawasan Aluvium Kuantan-Pekan,
Pahang. Jabatan Penyiasatan Kaji Bumi Malaysia, Kementerian Perusahaan Utama, Kuala Lumpur.

Saffeen Baharuddin, 1993. Hidrogeologi dan Prospek Air Tanah kawasan Aluvium Pekan-Nenasi,
Pahang. Jabatan Penyiasatan Kaji Bumi Malaysia, Kementerian Perusahaan Utama, Kuala Lumpur.

Saxov, S., 1956. Some gravity measurement in Thy, Mors and Vendsyssel. Geodet. Inst. Skrifter. Sr.3,
25, 46.

Seigel, H. O., 2005. A Guide to High Precision Land Gravimeter Surveys. Scintrex limited, Ontario,
Canada.

Surfer(R) Version 8.02 (2002). User guide: Contouring and 3D Surface Mapping for Scientist and
Engineers. Golden Software, Inc., Colorado, U.S.A.

Melbourne University (2007). Susceptibilities of Rocks and Minerals [Online], [Accessed 20th February
2007]. www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au

286
Talwani, M, Worzel, JL, and Landisman, M., 1959. Rapid Gravity Computations for Two-Dimensional
Bodies with Application to the Mendocino Submarine Fracture Zone, Journal of geophysical Research,
64, 49-61.

Tjia, H. D., 1994. Origin and Tectonic Development of Malay-Penyu-West Natuna Basins. In
PETRONAS Research & Scientific Services “Research for Business Excellent Seminar” Kuala Lumpur,
20-21 June 1994 (limited distribution).

Tjia, H. D., 1999. Geological Setting of Peninsular Malaysia. The Petroleum Geology and Resource of
Malaysia. Petroluem Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS), Kuala Lumpur.

Umar Hamzah, Abdul Rahim Samsudin, and Abdul Ghani Rafek, 1995. Shallow reflection seismic at
the Pekan Quaternary deposits. Warta Geologi, 21, No.2, Mar-April.

West, R.E., 1992, Gravity: The land exploration method, in Van Blaircom, R., Ed., Practical geophysics
II for the exploration geologist, Northwest Mining Association.

Zaid, N., 2005. Tinjauan geofizik bagi kaedah graviti di Pekan, Pahang. B.Sc. Thesis, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.

Aknowledgements
We thank PETRONAS, Orogenic Group of Companies and WinPower Corporation (M) Sdn.
Bhd. for funding this project and the geophysics laboratory staff from School of Physics, Universiti
Sains Malaysia for their assistance in collecting the data.

287