ARTICLE IN PRESS

Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475

www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

Spatial estimation model of porosity

B. Tutmeza,, Z. Hatipoglub
a
Inonu University, Department of Mining Engineering, 44280 Malatya, Turkey
b
- iftlikköy, 33342 Mersin, Turkey
Mersin University, Department of Geological Engineering, C
Received 25 April 2006; received in revised form 10 July 2006; accepted 18 July 2006

Abstract

This paper addresses a spatial estimation model which uses fuzzy clustering algorithm and assesses the aquifer porosity
based on point cumulative semimadogram (PCSM) measure. In order to obtain the estimated porosity values, the model
employs standard regional dependence function (SRDF) which provides weights for different regional locations depending
on the distances from the reference site. The proposed methodology has three stages: (1) structure identification; (2) spatial
dependence measure; and (3) interpolation. The model has been tested using a real data set which was taken from an
aquifer in Turkey. The performance evaluations indicate that the new methodology can be applied in geological based
domains.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aquifer porosity; Fuzzy clustering; Point semimadogram; Standard weighting

1. Introduction also be represented in percent terms by multiplying

The acquisition of groundwater requires expen-
sive operations. For that reason determination of
the most productive drilling location and depth is
important to reduce cost. The productivity of wells
depends upon mainly porosity and hydraulic con-
ductivity of aquifer materials. Porosity indicates the
storage groundwater capacity and hydraulic con-
ductivity determines groundwater flow capacity of
aquifer. These two properties reveal the water
production of aquifer. Porosity is defined the ratio
of the non-solid volume to the total volume of the
material and its value ranges between 0 and 1. It can
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 422 3410010;
fax: +90 422 3410046.
E-mail address: btutmez@inonu.edu.tr (B. Tutmez).
the fraction by 100%. There are several ways to
determine porosity. It can be measured by using
argon or mercury porosimeter in the laboratory,
which is a widely used technique, or pressure tests or
geophysical well logs (Taud et al., 2005). Porosity is
also determined by means of X-ray computerized
tomography (Akin et al., 2000; Clausnitzer and
Hopmans, 1999).
In general, geological systems have unisotropic
and heterogeneous characteristics due to their
natural occurrences. These properties show difficul-
ties for spatial modelling of regionalized variables.
Heterogeneity is a qualitative characteristic denot-
ing that the properties observed at different sites do
not have the same value (S- en, 1998). Although the
classical semivariogram technique provides a mea-
sure of spatial dependence among a multitude of

0098-3004/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2006.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
466 B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475
locations, it has practical difficulties in heteroge-
neous systems as discussed by S- en (1989). In order
to eliminate the drawbacks of classical semivario-
gram, S- en (1989) proposed a new measure which is
the point cumulative semivariogram (PCSV) and it
has been applied in different areas (S- en, 1998; S- en
and Habib, 1998; S- en and Habib, 2000; Tarawneh
and S- ahin, 2003).
According to this technique, the PCSV for a
reference (pivot) location is obtained by ranking the
squared differences and then taking summations.
In the present paper, we study the modelling of
aquifer porosity using fuzzy clustering based point
cumulative semimadogram (PCSM) measure which
is a new spatial estimation approach. Use of fuzzy
set theory in engineering systems obtains many
advantages. Fuzzy systems provide the possibility of
integrating (logical) information processing with the
attractive mathematical properties of general func-
tion approximators (Tutmez et al., 2006). The most
attractive characteristic of fuzzy algorithms is able
to describe complex multivariable problems in a
transparent effective way (Setnes et al., 1998). Due
to these superiorities of fuzzy algorithms, we used
the fuzzy clustering in the first step for grouping
data and identifying the model structure. Thus,
information taken from the clustering application
has been directly used in spatial measure and
interpolation.
The proposed model consists of three main
stages: (1) structure identification (2) measuring
the spatial variability; and (3) standard weighted
interpolation. The model is developed by using real-
world data regarding the water sources in Mersin
region of southern Turkey. The performance
evaluations showed that the proposed model is very
transparent and it has a high prediction capacity.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2
describes how porosity is modelled based on
weighting function. Section 3 gives comprehensive
information on the proposed spatial model. Section
4 presents the case study for estimating the aquifer
porosity values from the spatial coordinates. In
addition, the performance evaluation of the model
is given in the last part of this section. Section 5
concludes the paper.
2. Problem and estimation method
The true value of the aquifer parameters is mostly
unknown until it has been measured. For example,
the determination of the porosity is often difficult
and requires extreme cautions and laboratory work.
Therefore, it is estimated using the available data.
The problem of spatial estimation considered in this
study can simply be formulated as follows: given a
region sampled at n locations xi with values of
porosity p(xi ), i ¼ 1,y,n, what are the values p(xk)
at unsampled locations xk, k ¼ 1,y, N?
In any optimization method, the main concept is
that the estimation at any location is considered as a
weighted average of the measured values at the site.
The weighting factor is related to the distance
between pivot (reference) and each location in
addition to the porosity values measured at the
locations. There is a reverse relation between the
weighting factor and distance. As a general hypoth-
esis, if the distance between data values is small, the
data values are close to each other. On the other
hand, great distance implies dissimilar data values.
The main interest of the paper is evaluating the
regional dependence of porosity. For regional
prediction, consider n irregularly scattered measure-
ment locations with a point a, where the regional
estimation of the porosity is desired. Supposing that
the measurements at different locations are denoted
by Pi (i ¼ 1,2,3,y,n)and the reference site under
investigation by Pr, then the following weighting
average expression as
Pn
W ðd i;k ÞPi
Pr ¼ Pi¼1 n , (1)
i¼1 W ðd i;k Þ
where W(di,k) is the weighting factor between the
location at i and the reference location at k that
corresponds to the distance di,k and Pi is the
porosity value at i. In order to reflect the spatial
dependence behavior of the phenomenon, regional
covariance and semivariogram functions are among
the early alternatives for the weighting functions
that take into account the spatial correlation of the
phomenon considered (S- en and S- ahin, 2001). The
regional covariance function requires a set of
assumptions such as the Gaussian distribution of
the regionalized variable. Similarly, the semivario-
gram function does not always yield a clear pattern
of the regional correlation structure. In order to
eliminate these drawbacks, the cumulative semivar-
iogram function has been proposed by S- en (1989).
3. A spatial model for porosity estimation
The construction of the proposed estimation
model proceeds in three main stages: (1) structure
identification (fuzzy clustering); (2) measuring the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the proposed model.
spatial variability (cumulative semimadogram ana-
lysis); and (3) standard weighting and interpolation
(Fig. 1).
3.1. Structure identification
Data clustering is a method which can be employed
for describing the adjacent sites. By this method, data
are classified and adjacent locations used for the
estimations are determined. Clustering algorithms are
used extensively not only to organize and categorize
data, but are also useful for data compression and
model construction. For numerical data one assumes
that the members of each cluster bear more
mathematical similarity to each other than to
members of other clusters. One of the simplest
similarity measures is distance between pairs of
feature vectors in the feature space. If one can
determine a suitable distance measure and compute
the distance between all pairs of observations, then
one may expect that the distance between points in
the same cluster will be considerably less than the
distance between points in different clusters (Ross,
2004). Clustering techniques are validated on the
basis of the following assumptions (Jang et al., 1997):
 similar inputs to the target system to be modelled
should produce similar outputs;
 these similar input–outputs pairs are bundled
into clusters in the training data set.
Assessment of quantity of an aquifer is an
uncertain process. As a soft computing technique,
467
fuzzy set methodology provides a systematic basis
for quantifying the uncertainties which resulting
from vagueness. Therefore, the fuzzy c-means
(FCM) clustering technique (Bezdek et al., 1984),
which is the most popular fuzzy clustering algo-
rithm, was used to identify the structure.
Fuzzy clustering is used to partition sample
points into subgroups which are characterized by
cluster centers. Each data point belongs to a cluster
center with a degree which is determined by the
membership grade. First the input and output
variables of the fuzzy model are chosen. Second, a
regression matrix X and an output vector y are
constructed from the data set
X ¼ ½x1 ; . . . ; xn T ,
y ¼ ½y1 ; . . . ; yn T . ð2Þ
Following the parameter selection, data set is
partitioned in the Cartesian product space X  y by
using FCM clustering. In the clustering algorithm,
both data coordinates and its measured value
(porosity) should be represented and clustering
must be carried out in the three dimensional space.
This point is very important because the variables
used in porosity estimation are characterized by
their spatial distribution. The FCM clustering
algorithm partitions 3-dimensional vectors into c
fuzzy clusters. The algorithm minimizes an objective
function based on distance measures between
cluster centers and data points. The fuzzy partition
matrix satisfies probabilistic property as
X
c
mik ¼ 1; 8k ¼ 1; . . . ; N. (3)
i¼1
For partitioning a collection of N data points into
c classes, we define an objective function Jm for a
fuzzy c-partition,
N X
X c
J m ðU; vÞ ¼ ðmik Þm ðd ik Þ2 , (4)
k¼1 i¼1
where, mA[1,N] is a weighting exponent, mik is the
membership of the kth data point in the ith
class. The term, dik is a Euclidean distance measure
(in 3-dimensional feature space, R3) between
the k th sample data xk and ith cluster center vi,
given by
" #1=2
X
3
d ik ¼ dðxk  vi Þ ¼ jjxk  vi jj ¼ ðxkj  vij Þ2 .
j¼1
(5)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
468 B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475

Cluster means (prototypes) and elements of range parameter (Deutsch and Journel, 1998). The
membership matrix are computed as follows: point semimadogram (PSM) has been proposed by
PN m Tutmez (2005). This function is similar to the PSV;
mik xk
ci ¼ Pk¼1N m
, (6) instead of squaring the difference between Zm and
k¼1 mik Zm+h, the absolute difference is taken. If the
and experimental variogram includes the outlier values,
the PSM is more convenient than the point
1 semivariogram (PSV) due to the advantages of
mik ¼ Pc 2=ðm1Þ
. (7)
p¼1 ðd ik =d pk Þ absolute difference measure Tutmez (2005). The
PCSM measure can be obtained from data by
executing the following steps:
3.2. Point cumulative semimadogram
(a) calculate distance between the concerned loca-
Earth science data have spatial correlation that
tion and the remaining locations. If there are N
cannot be handled with classical statistical techni-
locations, the number of different distances
ques. The spatial variability in any phenomenon
N1, hi(i ¼ 1,y, N1).
within an area can be measured by comparing the
(b) for each pair (pivot and any other location), find
relative change between two locations. Two numer-
the half of absolute differences between data
ical values z(x) and z(x+h) at two points x and
values, in this case the porosity values. By this
x+h separated by the vector h are spatially
way, each distance will have its half of absolute
correlated. As the distance between these values
value.
increases, one would expect that the spatial correla-
(c) plot distances versus corresponding successive
tion decreases and vice versa. This correlation
cumulative sums of half of absolute differences.
modelled by the squared-difference, V(d), represents
By using this procedure, a non-decreasing
the relative change in the best possible way:
function which is the sample PCSM at the pivot
V ðdÞ ¼ ðZðxÞ  Zðx þ hÞÞ2 . (8) location is obtained. Its mathematical expres-
sion is given as
In general, variance and correlation techniques
which are used to quantify the degree of regional 1NX1

variability cannot account correctly for regional gðhi Þ ¼ jZc  Z i j, (10)

2 i¼1
dependence caused by either irregularity of sam-
pling positions or non-normal distribution func-
tions. In order to eliminate these drawbacks, the where g(hi)is the PCSM value; Zc and Zi are the
semivariogram measure was proposed. The semi- porosity values at pivot location and other
variogram function is effective especially for regular adjacent locations, respectively.
data points. However, in practice, measurement (d) apply previous steps by considering different
locations are mostly irregulary spaced. pivot locations, to give N sample PCSMs.
On the other hand, cumulative experimental
semivariogram (CESV) is a simple but effective
3.3. Standard weighting and estimation
way of assessing the regional heterogeneous beha-
viours proposed by S- en (1989) as an extension of
It is mentioned in Section 3.2 that calculation of a
classical semivariogram. The CESV technique is the
sample PCSM leads to a non-decreasing function
successive summation of the semivariograms for
with distance. In this section, the standard regional
irregularly spaced distances. The CESV function is
dependence function (SRDF) (S- en and S- ahin, 2001;
expressed as follows:
Tarawneh and S- ahin, 2003) is applied. The SRDF
1 X provides weights for different regional locations
NðhÞ
gðhÞ ¼ ½ZðxÞ  Zðx þ hÞ2 , (9) depending on the distance from the pivot location.
2NðhÞ i¼1
This function value is calculated using the following
where g(h) is the CESV value at distance h, N(h) is steps:
the total number of equally spaced observations.
For this study, the PCSM function is used.  find the maximum PCSM value, (gm)which is
Madograms are particularly useful for establishing taken at the greatest distance, (dm),
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475
 divide all the PCSM values by(gm). The result
appears as a scaled form of the sample,
 PCSM values within limits of zero and one, and
 subtract the dimensionless PCSM values from
one at each distance. The resulting non-decreas-
ing function is named as the SRDF.
In the final stage, each porosity value is multiplied
by the corresponding standard weight and contribu-
tions for each location are calculated. For a pivot
location, estimated porosity value is taken from
dividing the total contributions by the total
standard weights.
4. Case study
In this section, in order to evaluate a regional and
functional dependence of aquifer porosity, fuzzy
clustering based PCSM analysis is employed to
examine the structural and spatial distribution of
the process. In addition, performance of the
proposed methodology is compared with perfor-
mance of an established model (PCSV) in literature.
4.1. Geological and hydrogeological setting
The basin fill took place from the Carboniferous
to Quaternary. Outcrops of the Karahamzausagi
Fig. 2. Locality map of study area (Tutmez et al., 2006).
469
Formation occur with a small surface area to the
northwest of the Tarsus (Fig. 2). Ophiolitic rock
which contains limestone blocks is situated north-
west of Mersin and it appears in valleys. The
prevaling rock type is the sedimentary rock belong-
ing to the Tertiary age. Karaisali, Guvenc, Kuzgun
and Handere Formations deposited in this age
include the intercalation of sandstones, siltstones,
conglomerates, limestones, claystones, marl and
gypsum (Senol et al., 1998). Lying above all is
caliche and secondary calcium carbonate deposi-
tion. These formations form the low productive
Hillside Aquifer (Hatipoglu, 2004). Study area is
located on the south coast of this basin and it is
comprised of Neogene sediments of a fan-delta type
alluvial deposition system. It is characterized as a
flat or gentle surface and it forms the most
productive Coastal Aquifer in the area.
4.2. Study area and sampling
In this study, the coastal area between Mersin and
Tarsus cities is investigated. This area is located in
Southern part of Turkey and it contains agricultur-
al, industrial and settlement areas. Groundwater is
used as a main source of water in this region.
Because groundwater is widely used for water
supplies, efficient groundwater management is im-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
470 B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475
portant for this area, and requires understanding of
groundwater storage capacity.
In order to estimate porosity distribution of the
area, 32 well logs were used. These wells were drilled
by General Directorate of State Hydraulic
Works and General Directorate of Rural Services
between 1957 and 1997. Location of the wells
was measured with Garmin Etrex GPS (Fig. 3). In
our study well logs were split into 1 m depth
and according to the description of the unit
on well logs, effective porosity (pe) values are
designated to these units from Spitz and Moreno
(1996). Some (pe) values used in the data set are
given in Table 1. To estimate the effective porosity
distribution of the aquifer between 0 and 20 m
elevation, the average porosity value was calculated
for this depth.
4.3. Data clustering
In the first stage of the application, data set was
partitioned by using the FCM clustering algorithm
In pattern recognition, it is often suggested that the
data should be appropriately normalized before
clustering (Jain and Dubes, 1988). The values were
scaled by using a linear transformation between 0.03
and 0.3. The data set Z to be clustered is formed by
combining X and p
Z ¼ ½X ; pT , (11)
where, T denotes the transpose of the matrix, X is
the input matrix (x,y), and p is the porosity vector.
Fig. 3. Map of study area showing location of wells.
Determination of the optimal number of clusters is
an important step in clustering. If the number of
clusters is unknown, various methods (Pal and
Bezdek, 1995; Kaymak and Babuska, 1995) might
be employed to find a suitable number of clusters. In
this study, a novel cluster validity approach which
has been proposed by Tutmez (2005) especially for
evaluating the geological data is used. It is based on
reproducing the variability of the sample data in the
value of cluster centers with minimum number of
clusters as follows:
Minimize nc under Std½pðxÞ  Std½pðcÞ, (12)
where nc is the optimal number of cluster, Std. is the
standard deviation of porosity. The number of
clusters was determined experimentally by using the
FCM clustering under (12). The appropriate num-
ber of clusters resulted to be three (Fig. 4). Fig. 5
shows the outcome of this operation.
4.4. Measuring the spatial dependence
In this stage, the spatial variability is modelled
by PSM function. Functional analyses were
Table 1
pe ranges in Spitz an d Moreno ( 1996) and pe values in data set
Unit pe value (Spitz and Moreno, 1996) Using pe value
Gravel 0–15–0.37 0.30
Sand 0.08–0.4 0.35
Silt 0.004–0.05 0.04
Clay 0.007–0.05 0.03
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475
Fig. 4. Cluster validity application.
Fig. 5. Clustered data set.
carried out based on the distance measures between
pivot locations and other locations within the same
clusters. The calculated distances for each cluster
were summarized in Tables 2–4. The PCSM values
were calculated using the porosity values at the
corresponding distances indicated in Tables 2–4.
Fig. 6 shows experimental PCSM and PCSV
structures for location no: 25. PCSM graph has
more smooth structure than PCSV. In addition,
contrary to PCSV figure, there is no drastic change
in PCSM figure.
4.5. Weights and estimations
In the last step, the weights for different regional
locations depending on the distance from the pivot
location have been calculated by the SRDF. Use of
this algorithm, for example, provided that the
471
SRDF is appraised for the location no: 25, the
other location weightings with respect to the pivot
location (no: 25) can be obtained easily. The sixth
column in Table 5 includes the SRDF weighting for
location no 25, which can also be taken from the
graph in Fig. 7.
Both of the graphs shown in Fig. 7 explain the
spatial dependence in terms of distance. In Fig. 7,
the closest location to the pivot contributes the
highest weight, and the furthest ones relatively
contribute the least weights. SRDF graph of the
PCSM has more smooth structure than of the PCSV
due to absolute values. In other words, the PCSM
function is more suitable approximation tool than
PCSV for this application.
In order to obtain the estimated values, spatial
interpolations have been carried out for each
location using Eq. (1). The seventh column in Table
5 is the porosity contribution which was calculated
multiplying the porosity by the SRDF values as
weights. For location no 25, substitution of these
values in Eq. (1) leads to the estimation of porosity
as 0.418/7.004 ¼ 0.060 (see Table 5).
The same methodology was applied to PCSV and
outcomes of this application have been presented in
Table 6. As can be noticed from Table 6, PSCV
model with extreme values (0.113 and 0.146) has
been resulted in a drastic increase in contri-
bution. On the other hand, the effects of these
extreme values in proposed model were more
limited due to absolute differences. Note that
extreme porosity value (0.300) on location 14, the
furthest location from the pivot, has a negative
effects on the estimations carried out by PSCV
due to squared differences. As an example
of this; although the location no. 31 is one of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
472 B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475

Table 2
Dimensionless distances for cluster 1

No. x y 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 15 21 24 30 32

1 0.114 0.132 0.000 0.082 0.066 0.031 0.108 0.103 0.139 0.071 0.083 0.055 0.132 0.056
2 0.104 0.061 0.082 0.000 0.047 0.065 0.067 0.116 0.146 0.032 0.091 0.050 0.109 0.103
8 0.075 0.079 0.066 0.047 0.000 0.056 0.043 0.090 0.117 0.065 0.066 0.069 0.079 0.100
9 0.124 0.103 0.031 0.065 0.056 0.000 0.092 0.083 0.121 0.052 0.061 0.054 0.115 0.081
10 0.055 0.042 0.108 0.067 0.043 0.092 0.000 0.092 0.107 0.092 0.074 0.106 0.048 0.142
11 0.104 0.065 0.103 0.116 0.090 0.083 0.092 0.000 0.039 0.116 0.025 0.133 0.074 0.158
12 0.085 0.045 0.139 0.146 0.117 0.121 0.107 0.039 0.000 0.151 0.061 0.169 0.071 0.194
15 0.133 0.073 0.071 0.032 0.065 0.052 0.092 0.116 0.151 0.000 0.092 0.037 0.128 0.093
21 0.102 0.069 0.083 0.091 0.066 0.061 0.074 0.025 0.061 0.092 0.000 0.109 0.068 0.137
24 0.123 0.106 0.055 0.050 0.069 0.054 0.106 0.133 0.169 0.037 0.109 0.000 0.145 0.058
30 0.046 0.030 0.132 0.109 0.079 0.115 0.048 0.074 0.071 0.128 0.068 0.145 0.000 0.176
32 0.111 0.163 0.056 0.103 0.100 0.081 0.142 0.158 0.194 0.093 0.137 0.058 0.176 0.000

Table 3
Dimensionless distances for cluster 2

No. x y 3 4 5 14 17 18 20 25 27 31

3 0.192 0.193 0.000 0.085 0.136 0.245 0.151 0.160 0.108 0.145 0.160 0.150
4 0.169 0.116 0.085 0.000 0.065 0.281 0.153 0.099 0.128 0.081 0.099 0.220
5 0.189 0.057 0.136 0.065 0.000 0.274 0.131 0.056 0.126 0.022 0.055 0.265
14 0.258 0.162 0.245 0.281 0.274 0.000 0.202 0.294 0.158 0.272 0.295 0.305
17 0.300 0.098 0.151 0.153 0.131 0.202 0.000 0.117 0.082 0.117 0.118 0.219
18 0.237 0.044 0.160 0.099 0.056 0.294 0.117 0.000 0.146 0.039 0.002 0.261
20 0.234 0.134 0.108 0.128 0.126 0.158 0.082 0.146 0.000 0.125 0.147 0.210
25 0.209 0.049 0.145 0.081 0.022 0.272 0.117 0.039 0.125 0.000 0.038 0.265
27 0.235 0.043 0.160 0.099 0.055 0.295 0.118 0.002 0.147 0.038 0.000 0.263
31 0.290 0.300 0.150 0.220 0.265 0.305 0.219 0.261 0.210 0.265 0.263 0.000

Table 4
Dimensionless distances for cluster 3

No. x y 6 7 13 16 19 22 23 26 28 29

6 0.059 0.048 0.000 0.004 0.012 0.072 0.011 0.096 0.065 0.067 0.028 0.096
7 0.059 0.051 0.004 0.000 0.010 0.068 0.012 0.093 0.062 0.064 0.026 0.092
13 0.057 0.047 0.012 0.010 0.000 0.072 0.013 0.083 0.053 0.065 0.018 0.094
16 0.078 0.116 0.072 0.068 0.072 0.000 0.077 0.114 0.096 0.030 0.081 0.031
19 0.048 0.046 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.077 0.000 0.092 0.059 0.074 0.021 0.099
22 0.042 0.046 0.096 0.093 0.083 0.114 0.092 0.000 0.038 0.099 0.072 0.114
23 0.030 0.047 0.065 0.062 0.053 0.096 0.059 0.038 0.000 0.087 0.038 0.102
26 0.095 0.097 0.067 0.064 0.065 0.030 0.074 0.099 0.087 0.000 0.075 0.049
28 0.042 0.044 0.028 0.026 0.018 0.081 0.021 0.072 0.038 0.075 0.000 0.098
29 0.068 0.138 0.096 0.092 0.094 0.031 0.099 0.114 0.102 0.049 0.098 0.000

furthest location from the pivot, weight 4.6. Performance evaluation

of the location no 31 was found to be very high
(0.812). However, it is expected that the weighting In order to evaluate the performance of the
factor calculated at the location no 31 should be identified spatial model, we have plotted the measured
lower. porosity values versus the estimated porosity values
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475 473

(Fig. 8). The large determination coefficient indicates

that the model has good prediction capability.
We have also compared the performance of the
presented spatial model against the performance of
the PCSV model (Fig. 9).
In addition to determination coefficient, perfor-
mances of the models have been compared each
other using the following performance indexes
namely, the root mean square error (RMSE) and
the variance account for (VAF).
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N
u1 X
RMSE ¼ t ðp  p̄i Þ2 , (14)
N i¼1 i

Fig. 6. Experimental PCSV and PCSM for location no: 25. Fig. 7. SRDF graphs for location no: 25.

Table 5
Porosity estimation for location no: 25 by proposed model

Location Porosity PCSM Scaled distance Distance ratio SRDF weighting Contribution Estimation

25 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.058 0.058

5 0.057 0.001 0.022 0.079 0.998 0.057
27 0.031 0.014 0.038 0.140 0.944 0.029
18 0.031 0.028 0.039 0.144 0.889 0.028
4 0.037 0.038 0.081 0.298 0.847 0.031
17 0.113 0.066 0.117 0.431 0.736 0.083
20 0.146 0.110 0.125 0.460 0.559 0.082
3 0.066 0.114 0.145 0.535 0.543 0.036
31 0.030 0.128 0.265 0.977 0.487 0.015
14 0.300 0.249 0.272 1.000 0.000 0.000
7.004 0.418 0.060
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
474 B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475

Table 6
Porosity estimation for location no: 25 by PCSV

Location Porosity PCSV Scaled distance Distance ratio SRDF weighting Contribution Estimation

25 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.058 0.058

5 0.057 0.000 0.022 0.079 1.000 0.057
27 0.031 0.000 0.038 0.140 0.990 0.031
18 0.031 0.001 0.039 0.144 0.980 0.030
4 0.037 0.001 0.081 0.298 0.974 0.036
17 0.113 0.002 0.117 0.431 0.932 0.105
20 0.146 0.006 0.125 0.460 0.824 0.120
3 0.066 0.006 0.145 0.535 0.823 0.054
31 0.030 0.007 0.265 0.977 0.812 0.024
14 0.300 0.036 0.272 1.000 0.000 0.000
8.334 0.516 0.062

Fig. 8. Scatter plot of measured and estimated values for spatial

Fig. 9. Scatter plot of measured and estimated values for PCSV
model.
model.

 
varðp  p̄Þ Table 7
VAF ¼ 1  100%, (15) Performance indices
varðpÞ
Estimation model VAF (%) RMSE
where pi is the measured, and p̄i is the estimated
porosity value, respectively. Var denotes the Proposed spatial model 81.22 0.034
variance and N is the number of experiments. PCSV 68.37 0.043
The results are presented in Table 7. Performance
evaluation shows that the spatial model outper-
forms the PCSV model. This also indicates a
good generalization capability for the proposed 5. Conclusions
spatial estimation model. On the other hand, it
should be borne in mind that there are similar We have presented a spatial model which employs
drawbacks for both PCSM and PCSV. For exam- the fuzzy clustering and estimates the aquifer
ple, there are two separate scatter groups occurred porosity based on PCSM and SRDF. This method
for both models. provides detailed information about porosity at and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Tutmez, Z. Hatipoglu / Computers & Geosciences 33 (2007) 465–475
near the measurement locations as well as among
the locations. Fuzzy clustering based point mado-
gram method is easy to formulate and can be
applied to heterogeneous systems without requiring
substantial computing. Use of this approach with
the SRDF in the same algorithm has been resulted
in successful estimations.
It has been observed that the proposed spatial
model outperforms more PCSV. In addition to the
numerical prediction power, another attractive
property of the spatial model is its transparency.
In the future, the proposed method may be applied
successfully for assessing the electrical conductivity
of groundwater.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank to anonymous
referees due to their valuable comments and
contributions.
References
Akin, S., Schembre, J.M., Bhat, S.K., Kovscek, A.R., 2000.
Spontaneous imbibition characteristics of diatomite. Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering 25, 149–165.
Bezdek, J.C., Ehrlich, R., Full, W., 1984. FCM: the fuzzy c-
means clustering algorithm. Computers & Geosciences 10
(2–3), 191–203.
Clausnitzer, V., Hopmans, J.W., 1999. Determination of phase-
volume fractions from tomographic measurements in two-
phase systems. Advances in Water Resources 22 (6), 577–584.
Deutsch, C.V., Journel, A.G., 1998. GSLIB: Geostatistical
Software Library and User’s Guide, second ed. New York,
Oxford University Press, 340pp.
Hatipoglu Z., 2004. Hydrogeochemistry of Mersin-Tarsus Coast-
al Aquifer. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara,
142 pp. (in Turkish).
Jain, A., Dubes, R., 1988. Algorithms for Clustering Data.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 320pp.
Jang, J.-S.R., Sun, C.T., Mizutani, E., 1997. Neuro-Fuzzy and
Soft Computing: A Computational Approach to Learning
475
and Machine Intelligence. Prentice-Hall International (UK)
Limited, London, 614 pp.
Kaymak, U., Babuska, R., 1995. Compatible cluster merging for
fuzzy modeling. In: Proceedings FUZZ-IEEE/IFES’95, Yo-
kohama, Japan, 897–904.
Pal, N.R., Bezdek, J.C., 1995. On cluster validity for the fuzzy c-
means model. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 3 (3),
370–379.
Ross, T.J., 2004. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications,
second ed. Wiley, Canada Ltd., 650 pp.
S- en, Z., 1989. Cumulative semivariogram model of regionalized
variables. Mathematical Geology 21, 891–903.
S- en, Z., 1998. Point cumulative semivariogram for identification
of heterogeneities in regional seismicity of Turkey. Mathe-
matical Geology 30 (7), 767–787.
S- en, Z., Habib, Z., 1998. Point cumulative semivariogram of
areal precipitation in mountainous regions. Journal of
Hydrology 205, 81–91.
S- en, Z., Habib, Z., 2000. Spatial precipitation assessment with
elevation bu using point cumulative semivariogram technique.
Water Resources Management 14, 311–325.
S- en, Z., S- ahin, A.D., 2001. Spatial interpolation and estimation
of solar irradiation by cumulative semivariograms. Solar
Energy 71, 11–21.
Senol, M., Sahin, S., Duman, T.Y., 1998. The geological
investigation of Mersin Region. General Directorate of
Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey, (Unpublished
Report), Ankara, 46pp. ( in Turkish).
Setnes, M., Babuska, R., Verbruggen, H.B., 1998. Transparent
fuzzy modelling. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies 49, 159–179.
Spitz, K., Moreno, J., 1996. A Practical Guide To Groundwater
and Solute Transport Modeling. Wiley, New York, 461pp.
Tarawneh, Q.Y., S- ahin, A.D., 2003. Regional wind energy
assessment technique with applications. Energy Conversion
and Management 44, 1563–1574.
Taud, H., Martinez-Angeles, Parrot, J.F., Hemandez-Escobedo,
2005. Porosity estimation method by X-ray computed
tomography. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
47, 209–217.
Tutmez, B., 2005. Reserve estimation using fuzzy set theory.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Turkey ( in
Turkish).
Tutmez, B., Hatipoglu, Z., Kaymak, U., 2006. Modeling
electrical conductivity of groundwater using an adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system. Computers & Geosciences 32
(4), 421–433.