CIM Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucim20

Dynamic anisotropy: difficult to say, harder to get

right

J. Lunnon & R. Pressacco

To cite this article: J. Lunnon & R. Pressacco (2023): Dynamic anisotropy: difficult to say, harder
to get right, CIM Journal, DOI: 10.1080/19236026.2023.2192603

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19236026.2023.2192603

Published online: 24 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 73

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucim20
CIM JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/19236026.2023.2192603

GEOLOGY

Dynamic anisotropy: difficult to say, harder to get right

a b
J. Lunnon and R. Pressacco
a
La Mancha Resource Capital, London, UK; bOakville, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Dynamic anisotropy (DA) is a tool practitioners can employ to reflect localized variations in Dynamic anisotropy (DA),
mineralization orientation observed in nature in a block model. DA adjusts the orientation of the Euler angles, Locally varying
search ellipsoid on a block-by-block basis, rather than using a static search ellipsoid. These anisotropy (LVA), Major axis
transformation, Reference
block-by-block DA angles can be generated from several sources and surfaces that are tailored
surface, Search ellipsoid,
to suit the desired level of “smoothness.” The angles can then be coded into the model in Trend surface
several ways that balance the time availability and potential sources of human error such as
averaging dip angles across the 0°/360° change or applying a static plunge to a varying MOTS-CLÉS
azimuth/dip. Further corrections are required if the practitioner wishes to apply a default plunge angles d’Euler, anisotropie
to a constantly varying search ellipsoid. Although DA can be used to properly optimize a model dynamique (AD), anisotropie
and fine-tune the estimation, when used incorrectly, it will result in a model containing localement variable (LVA),
ellipsoïde de recherche,
significant fatal flaws. This paper outlines the most common approaches to DA, potential pitfalls,
surface de référence, surface
and corrections for applying a plunge to the search. It also highlights the most important step of de tendance, transformation
undertaking a thorough visual and statistical validation on both the input parameters and the de l’axe principal
final model.
RÉSUMÉ
L’anisotropie dynamique (AD) est un outil que les praticiens peuvent utiliser pour refléter dans un
modèle de bloc les variations localisées de l’orientation de la minéralisation observées dans la
nature. L’anisotropie dynamique ajuste l’orientation de l’ellipsoïde de recherche bloc par bloc,
plutôt que d’utiliser un ellipsoïde de recherche statique. Ces angles AD bloc par bloc peuvent être
générés à partir de plusieurs sources et surfaces adaptées au niveau de « douceur » souhaité. Les
angles peuvent ensuite être codés dans le modèle de plusieurs manières qui tiennent compte du
temps disponible et des sources potentielles d’erreur humaine, comme le calcul de la moyenne des
angles de pendage sur le changement 0°/360° ou l’application d’un plongement statique à un
azimut/ pendage variable. D’autres corrections sont nécessaires si le praticien souhaite appliquer
une plongée par défaut à un ellipsoïde de recherche qui varie constamment. Bien que l’AD puisse
être utilisée pour optimiser correctement un modèle et affiner l’estimation, lorsqu’elle est utilisée
de manière incorrecte, elle aboutira à un modèle contenant d’importantes failles fatales. Cet article
présente les approches les plus courantes de l’AD, les pièges potentiels et les corrections à apporter
à l’application d’une plongée à la recherche. Il met également l’accent sur l’étape la plus impor­
tante, qui consiste à entreprendre une validation visuelle et statistique approfondie des paramètres
d’entrée et du modèle final.

REVIEW OF THE CONCEPT Although DA is a powerful tool to help practitioners

The ability to alter the orientation of a search ellipsoid
locally during estimation is not a new concept. Dynamic
anisotropy (DA), also known as locally varying aniso­
tropy, or variable orientation has been available in geo­
modeling software packages for many years. DA is the
process of altering the orientation of the search ellipsoid,
typically for grade estimation on a block-by-block basis.
The availability and use of the DA method on a routine
basis have significantly increased over the last few years
due to improvements in computing power and wire­
framing methods, which have made the method quicker
and easier to implement.
produce models that better reflect the natural, local-scale
variations observed in mineral deposits, it also intro­
duces sources of potential errors that practitioners may
overlook as a result of time constraints that often accom­
pany resource updates. Common sources of errors are
selection of the wrong type of input surface or incor­
rectly flagging the angles to the model by averaging
angles that are orientated similarly (e.g., 355° and 10°)
but differ greatly numerically. As with many areas of
resource modeling these days, the process of incorporat­
ing DA into a modeling workflow is becoming more
easily executed. Although it may provide a quick way

CONTACT J. Lunnon jack.lunnon@lamancha.com

© 2023 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
2 J. LUNNON AND R. PRESSACCO
to make it appear that the accuracy of the estimate at the
local scale has been improved, it can leave the practi­
tioner not understanding how potential errors may
occur and how to identify them.
The goals of this paper are to: (1) provide
a description of the generally accepted workflows that
are in common use for preparing a DA grade estimate,
(2) describe some of the common pitfalls that are
encountered, and (3) share some solutions for com­
monly encountered errors. Additional information is
provided in Glacken, Blackney, Gray, and Fogden
(2014).
DESCRIPTION OF WORKFLOW
The traditional approach for completing a grade estima­
tion with a search ellipse is to provide the software with
three orientations to represent the strike, dip, and plunge
that the practitioner wishes to use to model the continuity
of an anisotropic attribute, such as grade within a volume
or block model. Although a static ellipsoid orientation can
be used for a given estimation domain, the individual
ellipse orientations can be varied for different estimation
domains where significant differences in the direction of
the mineralization exist (e.g., a set of steeply dipping veins
and a mineralized colluvium body). Domains that change
their orientation significantly along the strike or dip can be
further sub-domained for grade estimation purposes using
fixed search ellipses that reflect the local-scale geometries.
The data informing the estimate would not necessarily be
sub-domained to avoid the creation of estimation artifacts.
This sub-domaining approach can provide acceptable
results in mineralized bodies that have only occasional
“bends” along the strike. In nature, however, the orien­
tations of many deposits such as shear or vein-hosted
deposits, can vary significantly, even within the same
general trend. In addition, there may be a high-grade
contact on the footwall/hanging wall or a high-grade
core, which should be preserved in the model by ensur­
ing these samples are highly correlated during the inter­
polation. The ability to alter the search ellipsoid
orientation on a detailed block-by-block scale would
therefore help maintain the high-grade mineralization
proximal to the contact, reduce lateral grade smearing,
and avoid samples being missed entirely during search
estimation. Once a practitioner is familiar with using
DA in their modeling package, the setup is often quicker
than creating unique sub-domains and modifying inter­
polation scripts to alter the search orientation, especially
when dealing with a large number of domains and/or
variables.
The practitioner should collect sufficient data and
conduct quality control of the data to provide an
adequate understanding of the variability of orientation
of the mineralization grades within a deposit. There is
no “sweet spot” for the correct quantity of input data:
they will be deposit specific, and the practitioner will be
required to make a decision based upon their judgment,
experience, and knowledge of the deposit.
In an example of a simple “kinked” vein that changes
significantly in orientation locally, the static search ellip­
soid (Figure 1a) honors the majority of the deposit but
does not reflect the orientation where this localized
deformation occurs. These localized deformations can
be associated with significant variations in grade. Thus,
ensuring that the search ellipsoid is correctly oriented
here is critical to improving the accuracy of the esti­
mated grade at this local scale. In the sub-domained
example (Figure 1b), there is a better reflection of this
varying orientation; however, the changes between the
sub-domains are often abrupt and may poorly honor the
orientation in these transition zones, which are observed
as estimation artifacts in the model. The DA example
(Figure 1c) illustrates the search ellipse orientation that
follows a trend surface and changes its orientation at
each sample location. In so doing, the estimated grades
can better reflect the local distribution of the grades
within the vein at all locations.
SOURCE OF SURFACES
To carry out DA, as a minimum, a dip and dip-direction
(or strike) are sampled at multiple locations to provide
input for the search ellipsoid during grade interpolation.
These sampled locations are often provided by extracting
the dip and dip directions of individual triangles from
a wireframe surface that reflects spatial variations in
mineralization on a local scale. To provide a reasonable
outcome, the informing wireframe surface must be of
sufficient resolution (i.e., have a sufficient number of
triangles) to allow for these changes in direction to be
described in a smoothly transitioning manner. The use of
large wireframe triangles is generally not preferred
because they may have significant and rapid changes of
orientation between them, which can produce unwanted
or unacceptable results or might not reflect shorter-scale
localized changes desired by the practitioner
Some examples of input surfaces that can be used to
extract the triangle angles are described in the following
sections.
Hanging wall and footwall surfaces
Hanging wall and footwall surfaces are often selected
because they have been generated to constrain the block
model during the estimation workflow. However, they
 DYNAMIC ANISOTROPY: DIFFICULT TO SAY, HARDER TO GET RIGHT
Figure 1. (a) Static search ellipsoid within a varying orientation vein, (b) sub-domained search ellipsoid, and (c) dynamic anisotropy-
controlled search ellipsoid in varying orientation vein
can often be a poor choice as input parameters because
one or both of these surfaces can significantly change
direction: they may pinch and swell on a highly localized
scale as a result of small-scale changes in intersection
width, down-hole grade smearing, down-hole survey
issues, nuggety deposits, or wireframe construction
issues (Figure 2a). Whereas localized issues with pinch
and swelling can to some extent be reduced by using
both hanging wall and footwall surfaces as inputs, other
issues can also occur through using multiple surfaces,
which are covered later in this paper. In addition, the
combination of different data sources such as historic
data, grade control data, and underground channel sam­
ple data can exacerbate this issue, particularly if the data
are clustered.
Potential solutions include increasing the resolution
of the triangles or filtering some of these input data,
although the impact of either solution should be con­
sidered. If the estimation uses hanging wall or footwall
surfaces, it may cause the search ellipsoid to be angled
incorrectly when this is a very localized issue and not
reflected by the general orientation of the mineraliza­
tion. These changes are often pronounced where edge
crinkling of wireframes occurs or if a hanging wall/
footwall intersects another surface. If these surfaces
are being used as an input to DA, is often better to
extract the surfaces before any clipping/Boolean opera­
tion (e.g., clipping of intrusions/topographic surfaces).
However, the use of a hanging wall or footwall surface
3
may reflect the practitioners goals if there are high
grades associated with one of the contacts, or one
surface is a flat contact such as a hanging wall in an
erosional nickel deposit, and the practitioner wishes to
not have the continuity impacted by post-
mineralization changes.
Reference surface
A reference surface (referred to as a trend surface or
viewing plane in some software packages) is sometimes
generated by modeling software to provide as a “guide
trend” for the algorithm to join together selected inter­
vals during automated wireframe construction. This
reference surface can then be manually edited by the
practitioner to better reflect their understanding of the
geology and any mapping.
If the reference surface is automatically generated by
the software, it provides an easy source as an input to
DA; however, the practitioner must be aware that it
represents a generalized trend of mineralization used
for wireframing. Therefore, where data are more closely
spaced and vary significantly (e.g., grade control data),
the reference surface may “wander” outside of the hang­
ing wall and footwall (Figure 2b). The practitioner must
consider whether this is acceptable if they wish to have
a general orientation change or whether they want to
capture more localized trends.
4 J. LUNNON AND R. PRESSACCO

Figure 2. Surfaces available for dynamic anisotropy: (a) trend following hanging wall surface; (b) reference surface following the
general mineralization trend; (c) center surface following interval midpoints; and (d) pole intersections surface following intersection
midpoints
 DYNAMIC ANISOTROPY: DIFFICULT TO SAY, HARDER TO GET RIGHT
Center surface
An alternative to the reference surface is the use of
a center surface (best-fit plane) that reflects the middle
of the mineralized domain. The benefit of a center sur­
face is that it will always reflect the varying orientation
locally around a drill hole, although many software
packages will not automatically generate these surfaces.
If a manual center surface is required, it can be created
by extracting full-width composite mid-points and gen­
erating a surface from them.
Although a center surface will better reflect the loca­
lized changes in orientation in some instances (e.g., broad
orientation changes that have been interpreted between
widely spaced drill holes), a center surface process could
produce a wireframe that may still crosscut the hanging
wall or footwall (Figure 2c). In all cases, the practitioner
must review the input points and resulting surfaces to
ensure that they reasonably represent the data.
Pole intersection
If the practitioner requires a center surface that exactly
follows the mid-point between drill holes (e.g., if there is
a high-grade core that the practitioner wants to ensure
remains in the center of the domain between the drill
holes), then a pole intersection surface can be created
(Figure 2d).
This surface is generated from a series of poles that
traverse across the entire mineralization perpendicu­
larly, typically on a regular spacing. The intersection
of the polylines with the hanging wall and footwall can
then be converted into points, and the mid-point
generated as half the distance (in three-dimensional
space) between the footwall and hanging wall contact
points. This pole midpoint is combined with the drill-
hole midpoints, and a surface is generated with them.
The spacing between the poles can be adjusted down­
wards if a higher resolution surface is required to
better honor the center of the modeled mineralization.
This surface would not be suitable where one surface
is a flat contact and the other is undulating, such as an
erosional nickel deposit.
Manual trend surface
A manual trend surface can be created by the practi­
tioner, typically on sectional interpretations, which
can be used as the reference surface. While manually
created trend surfaces have the benefit of exactly
reflecting the practitioner’s geological knowledge
and desired input, they may require a significant
5
amount of time to be of sufficient quality to be
used reliably.
When manual wireframes are generated on sectional
interpretations that are joined using explicit wireframes,
the orientation change between neighboring wireframe
triangle angles can be very significant, which would
cause abrupt orientation changes in the resulting model.
In these instances, it may be beneficial to generate interim
sectional and/or plan interpretations in some areas to
reduce the orientation change between neighboring tri­
angles, although care must be given if modeling in two
planes because interfering triangles can occur.
When undertaking DA with wireframes that have
been generated using implicit modeling methods (such
as grade shell or indicator modeling), a manual trend
surface may be required because the mineralization sur­
faces may not be appropriate to use as a source due to
the pinching and swelling of the domains, and they will
be affected by many of the parameters used by the
geologist to create them (e.g., probability and range).
This pinching and swelling may cause undesirable vec­
tors that do not reflect the mineralization trend.
Use of a series of trend strings rather than a surface is
not recommended because they will only provide
a reflection of the orientation on the sections and not
any orientation changes that may be present between the
section lines.
Summary
All of the surfaces discussed above can be used as inputs
for a DA estimate. It is up to the practitioner to judge
which surface will provide the optimal input and
whether the additional time to improve a surface or
manually generate a surface is warranted. It is highly
recommended that practitioners review their choice of
surface in both sectional/plan view and three dimen­
sions before using its information for estimation pur­
poses. In addition, some software packages allow the
user to visualize the trend orientation as a three-
dimensional disc or triangle that can be visually com­
pared with the input data. If the domain is faulted, the
practitioner should ensure that these surfaces are gener­
ated and flagged to the model separately for each faulted
domain because a single surface that crosses the fault
would likely cause erroneous directions around the
contact.
An alternative approach to using a surface is to gen­
erate a structural control model using a series of points,
which have come from structural measurements and/or
interpretations. This approach is not covered here
because a structural trend will be subject to many para­
meters and decisions on such items as trend decay. In
6 J. LUNNON AND R. PRESSACCO
Figure 3. Change in an observed azimuth as a result of applying a plunge within a dipped plane
the authors’ experience, these have been infrequently
used to date, but they are seeing more use alongside
implicit modeling approaches.
PLUNGE ESTIMATE
Up to this point in the paper, only changes in the strike
and dip of the mineralization have been considered.
However, many deposits display a measurable plunge,
which should be reflected in the orientation of the search
ellipsoid. If the plunge of the mineralization is observed
to be either horizontal (0°) or vertical (90°) or if there is
no observed plunge, that is, there is equal anisotropy in
both the major and semi-major direction (a pancake-
shaped search), then it is safe to select a default plunge
value because the search ellipsoid is likely to have the
same radius in both directions. Depending on the soft­
ware, these default plunges either need to be coded
directly to the block model or they can be used as default
values as input parameters during the grade estimation
process.
The issue with using a plunge arises from a single
plunge value being measured despite the fact that the
azimuth and dip angles are constantly changing with
the DA surface. Since plunge values are applied to the
search ellipsoid within the dipped surface, this will
result in the azimuth being modified. Figure 3 illus­
trates an example, where an arrow oriented north
(labeled 1) is on a 45° dipped plane. When a plunge is
applied to the arrow, it is applied within the dipped
plane. Therefore the resulting observed azimuth rotates
away from the north (labeled 2). This change in the DA
Table 1. Major axis transformation of the input orientation to correct for the azimuth change with a dip applied; see Figure 4 for
ellipsoid descriptions
Axis (m)
Ellipsoid 1 2 3 Azimuth Angle (°)
Orange (pre-transformation) 100 50 10
Blue (post-transformation) 10 100 50
angles as a result of applying a plunge must therefore be
corrected at all informing surface nodes (or at each
block within the model) before using the empty
model in a grade estimation. The two main methods
the authors have used to account for the plunge are to
transform the major axis and adjust the Euler angle
rotation axes, as outlined below.
At this junction, the practitioner must remember that
the plunging value should be measured in the plane of
the dipping surface (i.e., in a longitudinal section that is
angled so that it is perpendicular to both the strike and
the dip of the mineralization), otherwise an apparent
plunge would be measured. When used as the input,
the apparent plunge would result in a sub-optimal
search.
Transforming major axis
One way to add a static plunge to a DA angle is to
recalculate the azimuth, plunge, and rotation from the
dip and dip direction using the following workflow:
Rotation = IF ([Dip direction] < 180) THEN [Plunge]
ELSE [Plunge] × –1
Plunge = [Dip] –90
Azimuth = [Dip direction]
The major direction then becomes axis 2, the semi-
major direction is axis 3, and the minor direction is
axis 1. For example, if the search ellipsoid was 100 m ×
50 m × 10 m in axis 1/2/3, it would now become 10 m ×
100 m × 50 m (Table 1).
Dip/Rotation Angle (°) Plunge Angle (°)
270 82 50
180 −50 −8
 DYNAMIC ANISOTROPY: DIFFICULT TO SAY, HARDER TO GET RIGHT 7

Figure 4. (a) Two-dimensional slice and (b) sectional projections of a wireframe surface dipping 82° south illustrating transformed
(blue) and untransformed (orange) ellipsoids in-plane described by the strike and dip looking north

Figure 4 illustrates an example where two search
ellipsoids have been generated from the same input
surface (dip 82° and dip direction 180°). The orange
ellipsoid uses the static dip and dip direction with
a 50° plunge, whereas the blue ellipsoid has been
modified as above using the major axis transformation
to produce new inputs. The result is that the blue
ellipsoid replicates the static ellipsoid anisotropy
while reflecting the local trend represented by
a wireframed surface. The blue ellipsoid correctly
applies the 50° plunge through all undulations or
bends of the surface. The result is 9.4° net difference
in the dip direction, which if not corrected, would
counter the effort put in to generate the most appro­
priate surface type discussed earlier and may misalign
samples during estimation and thus affect the grade
continuity that may be crucial for the deposit type.
Adjusting Euler angle rotation axes
Another option to account for plunge is to use rotation
matrices to change the plunge from being applied within
the Z plane to being applied around its own plane (Y)
once the azimuth (Z) and dip of the plane (X) have been
set. The conversion of angles using Euler rotations fol­
lows the following steps:
(1) Convert the expected plunge using: New plunge
= 90 – Plunge.
(2) Convert the dip, dip direction, and new plunge
angles into Euler radians.
(3) Transform the Euler radians to a rotation matrix
around axes ZXZ (static or intrinsic rotation).
(4) Back-transform the rotation matrix to Euler radians
around axes ZXY (static or intrinsic rotation).
(5) Back-convert the dip, dip direction, and new
plunge radians to degrees.
(6) Use the newly converted degrees as input for
flagging.
The key to the above process is converting the rotation
matrix from being around a ZXZ rotation (a static
proper Euler angle) to a ZXY rotation (a static Tait–
Bryan angle). Essentially, this converts the plunge from
being a rotation around the Z-axis to being an inde­
pendent rotation around the Y-axis after the first two
angles (Z and X) have been applied (referred to as an
intrinsic rotation).
8 J. LUNNON AND R. PRESSACCO
This conversion is typically well handled using
python scripting, along with the NumPy (2022) and
Transforms3D (2016) libraries. The setup of this is far
beyond the scope of this paper. Additional information
is provided by Diebel (2006) and Slabaugh (1999).
The benefit of using this conversion is that the updated
azimuth, dip, and plunges can be directly used as inputs
without adjusting the major, semi-major, and minor axis as
required by major axis transformation. However, it typi­
cally requires a knowledge of advanced scripting and/or
python to be a workable option. Therefore, the major axis
transformation is often preferred because it can be used
directly within many geological software packages.
CODING THE DA ANGLES TO THE BLOCK MODEL
If a surface has been generated for use as inputs to a DA
estimation run, the orientations and XYZ coordinates of
the individual triangles can be extracted to a table by the
geological software so they can be read during grade esti­
mation, and any plunge corrections required can be
performed.
Depending on the requirements of the practitioner’s
geological software, the dip-directions may need to be
converted into azimuths. The exact input types, rotation
convention, and if a dip is expected to be negative/
positive can depend on the software. Therefore, it is
highly recommended that the practitioner undertake
background reading to understand their software’s rota­
tion convention, particularly if they will be swapping
between different software packages.
Most geological software codes read the DA angles
directly from the block model on a block-by-block basis.
Thus, the extracted DA angles need to be flagged to the
block model prior to executing a DA grade estimate.
Nearest neighbor or inverse distance interpolation are typi­
cally used to assign point angle information to the model.
Nearest neighbor
By far the simplest out of these two methods is the nearest
neighbor method, which simply writes the DA angle infor­
mation to each block based on the sample that is located
closest to the block centroid in question. The advantage of
using a nearest neighbor estimation is that there are fewer
opportunities for human error to occur because there are
fewer input values required. However, a disadvantage is
that if the input information is widely spaced (e.g., large
triangles or widely spaced trend surfaces) or multiple sur­
faces are used (e.g., both hanging wall and footwall), then
there can be abrupt changes in orientation between neigh­
boring blocks.
Inverse distance
To provide a level of “smoothing” between the data
points, inverse distance weighting to a relatively low
power can be used. The search ellipsoid orientation is
generally set to the average strike/dip/plunge for the
domain. Care and additional visual validation should
be used where there are strong variations in domain
orientation. When properly performed, the inverse dis­
tance method will provide a smooth variation in the
estimated values, particularly where there are few
informing DA data points. However, when mistakes
occur, such as averaging similar azimuths of 359° and
1° resulting in an incorrect value of 180°, the resultant
search orientation can be wildly incorrect. Validation of
the results after each estimation run is critical to com­
pleting a successful DA estimation run.
Typically, these issues arise from averaging dips or
dip directions that are computationally considered as
discrete values rather than as angles that have limits on
their minimum and maximum values. Figure 5 illus­
trates an example where data from a NNE trending
surface are extracted into a series of data points having
azimuths generally between 0° and 10°. However, due to
a local variation, one point has an azimuth of 359°. If one
averages the azimuths at the estimated location (ignor­
ing the distance component of inversed distance for
simplicity), then the large value overpowers the remain­
der, and an average angle of 76.6° is returned (calcula­
tion B), which is oblique to the trend surface and is
incorrect. It is necessary to correct for this large azimuth
value to ensure that the average azimuth comes out at
the correct value of 4.6° (calculation A). One correction
method is to apply a logic statement to convert dip
directions/azimuths so that the angles are continuous.
The example in Figure 5 converts the 359° azimuth
reading to −1° for the purpose of grade interpolation.
A variation of this issue commonly occurs when
a deposit consists of steeply dipping mineralized zones
that might overturn their dips past the vertical, which
effectively flips the dip direction. This can be corrected by
converting the azimuths into one direction and increasing
the dip angle through −90° to compensate (e.g., a −85° dip
toward NE045° becomes −95° dip toward SW225).
Any corrections undertaken should be checked in the
resultant model and azimuth angles above 360° or below
0° and dips greater than −90° corrected in the final
model to be within the expected range.
Another source of potential error is when an input
wireframe is clipped against another wireframe, causing
an abrupt angle change that is an artifact rather than
a change in the mineralization orientation. If the practi­
tioner is sure that the orientation is not outside a certain
 DYNAMIC ANISOTROPY: DIFFICULT TO SAY, HARDER TO GET RIGHT
Figure 5. Estimating an average azimuth at an unknown location with no correction (A) and an azimuth correction (B)
range (e.g., the deposits dip is always between −85° and
−60°), then a filter can be applied to ignore all values
outside this range.
Several correction steps may be required when selecting
inverse distance as the estimation method of coding the DA
angle information from the informing data points to the
block model. Due to these challenges, it is often more
simple and time-efficient to use a nearest neighbor estimate
to code the DA information into the block model, filter the
input data to an expected range of values, and reduce the
wireframe triangle size to provide a better “smoothing” of
orientations. Whereas increasing the number of points
used in the estimate could help reduce the impact of an
incorrect input datum, this approach should be taken care­
fully because often there is a cluster of incorrect data that
significantly influences a larger area if several input values
are used.
Summary
The use of nearest neighbor or inverse distance methods to
flag the DA angles to the block model typically requires that
the practitioner ensures they are correctly setting up their
search window for interpolation of these angles, including
selecting a reasonable ellipsoid/spheroid size and potential
orientation. When there are multiple domains, each with its
own informing surfaces, these must be coded in such a way
that each domain is only being informed by the correct DA
angles for that domain.
Some software packages have the functionality to read
the DA orientation information directly from a surface
during the grade estimation procedure, rather than reading
the information from a block model. It is strongly
9
recommended that the DA angles are still flagged to the
model to facilitate internal validation efforts and internal/
external peer reviews or audits.
AXIS ORIENTATION
Unfortunately, rotation conventions differ among geo­
logical software packages, and detailing them is outside
of the scope of this paper. It is important to review the
software manuals and the accompanying Help sections
to ensure that the rotation conventions are being imple­
mented correctly. This is especially true when some of
the analysis (such as variogram modeling) is being
undertaken in a software package other than the one
being used for DA/grade estimation. Further informa­
tion on axis orientations is provided by Deutsch (2015)
and Reid (2017).
VARIOGRAPHY
Directional variograms model the similarity between
paired data points in a particular direction. Therefore,
when using DA, this relationship should be considered
when the orientation of the mineralization is changing
along with the deposit. A misaligned variogram will result
in higher variance and shorter ranges, which will give
a higher weighting to the local mean rather than the
individual data points. This runs counter to the intention
of localizing the model using DA. The orientation of the
variography should be carefully considered in three dimen­
sions, and the angle tolerance and bandwidth should be
manipulated to provide optimum results.
10 J. LUNNON AND R. PRESSACCO
If there are marked changes in the variogram model
along the length of the deposit, variograms will often be
modeled in several locations and the corresponding
models applied locally to reflect the mineralization in
that location.
If the practitioner chooses to manipulate the data
before undertaking the variography, it is worth consid­
ering the following:
(1) The data are likely being estimated in nontrans­
formed space, so longer ranges may not be justi­
fied because, although a transformed variogram
may indicate a range of 250 m (for example), if
DA is being used rather than unfolding, the
change in domain orientation may mean that
samples are not selected by the search ellipsoid
at this distance.
(2) Transforming the data to a single plane to create
the variogram could be an additional source of
error if it is undertaken incorrectly, and the
resulting variograms should be compared to
ones generated in the nontransformed space to
ensure they make sense.
(3) The most influential parts of the variogram are the
nugget, range, and sill of the first part of the vario­
gram (likely corresponding to the first structure)
because the majority of the sample weight is applied
here. Additional effort to extend the range (particu­
larly when above 90% of the sill) may not be war­
ranted because the weighting on those samples may
be minimal, and the search ellipsoid may not
require those data to fill the block.
A further step could be employed to locally adjust the
variography orientation on a block-by-block basis to
fully optimize the weighting of the samples in each
individually interpolated block. Significant care is
required by the practitioner because this could be an
additional source of error, and the net result of making
this change could be negligible, depending on a number
of factors such as:
● the degree of orientation variation;
● the nugget and range of the variogram;
● the relative position of the selected input samples
for the estimation; and
● additional restrictions, such as number of samples
per drill hole.
VALIDATION OF DA ANGLES
The most crucial step in the DA process is validating the
final angles coded into the block model. It is therefore
very important that the DA information within the
block model is retained in a copy of the original model
for peer review/auditing purposes if the final output
model file is required to be as small a file size as possible
with minimal fields. As with grade estimation, the vali­
dation methods are both statistical and visual.
Statistical validation methods
Several basic checks can be taken on the DA angles
directly on the orientation point file and the resulting
block model. These include:
● checks on azimuths/dip directions below 0° or
above 360°;
● checks on positive or negative dips (software-
dependent);
● loading values onto stereonet or histograms to
check for clusters of anomalous orientations (e.g.,
many low angle dips present in a steeply dipping
body, or an azimuth that is oblique to the main
orientation, Figure 6);
● calculating the variance between the DA angles on
neighboring blocks to highlight where a significant
change occurs; and
● calculating the standard deviation, variance, skewness
and kurtosis between the model interpolated using
DA and a standard search (Ruskov et al., 2020).
Visual validation methods
A visual review of the data is a very important step in the
validation process. One technique is to cut sections and
plans of the block centroids loaded as a point file that is
displayed as an arrow orientated using the azimuth
flagged into the block. The trend surfaces can then be
loaded in the same view and compared for compatibility
and any abrupt changes. This should also be repeated for
dip angles in sectional view.
A second way of visually reviewing the orientation in
sections and plan is to color the block model by the dip
direction/azimuth and then look for any colors in unex­
pected orientations. The practitioner should consider the
choice of color scheme and of gradational or discrete color
changes between value bins as well as the impact of a dip
passing through −90° and effectively changing the azimuth.
All of these may either hide issues or overemphasize very
small changes.
Figure 7 illustrates an example of these visual valida­
tions. Both images present a plan section of a steeply
dipping body with a generally southerly azimuth repre­
sented by the green arrows. However, two DA informing
points have dipped past vertical, so the corresponding
azimuth is now northerly at these locations. Because the
 DYNAMIC ANISOTROPY: DIFFICULT TO SAY, HARDER TO GET RIGHT
Figure 6. Illustration of a stereonet plot of a single domain with an unexpected cluster of azimuths indicating a potential error
model has been estimated using inverse distance weight­
ing with no correction, these validations highlight that at
the transition between the points (indicated by 1), the
blocks are colored yellow, and a review of the centroid
arrows show that the azimuths are pointing east.
Therefore, a search ellipsoid in this location would be
oblique to the major mineralization orientation, result­
ing in incorrect grade estimations.
GRADE ESTIMATION AND VALIDATION
Once DA angles have been flagged to the block model,
the model can have grades estimated into it. At this
point, it is important to ensure that the parameters
selected for DA (e.g., azimuth over dip-direction)
match the inputs and orientation convention required
by the software.
11
Visual validation of the estimated grades should be
undertaken after grade estimation is complete. The prac­
titioner should review the continuity of the grade within
the block model and compare it to the informing compo­
site and assay samples and the practitioners understand­
ing of the deposit. The practitioner should question
whether the grade distribution reflects what they expect
of the model and whether there is any smearing/mixing of
grade as a result of misaligned search ellipsoids that
should be rectified through improving the DA or through
better domaining/sub-domaining.
ALTERNATIVES TO DA
The two main alternative techniques to DA for reflecting
variable grade orientations in the input data are sub-
domaining and unfolding.
12 J. LUNNON AND R. PRESSACCO
Figure 7. Block model (a) colored by azimuth showing incorrect block azimuths and (b) centroid illustrated by icons orientated along
block azimuth. DA: dynamic anisotropy
Sub-domaining
As outlined above, a deposit can be sub-domained during
estimation. Along with careful application of soft boundaries
between sub-domains, separate search ellipses orientations
are applied to these sub-domains. If the deposit is not
a continuous body, and the change in orientations is well
defined and not continuous (e.g., there is a series of offset
faults or jogs with the mineralization continuing in
a uniform manner between them), then this procedure
may be appropriate. The benefits are that it is easier to
implement, and there are fewer areas where procedural
errors may occur. The disadvantage is that the performance
of this technique is compromised where there is either
a gradual change in the orientation (e.g., a ring structure
or contact mineralization around intrusive bodies) or where
there is higher deformation (such as at the axis of a fold) and
the mineralization shallows or steepens the down dip.
Unfolding/unfaulting
Several geological software packages have the ability to
unfold the deposit into a single plane prior to
estimation. Typically, this is undertaken by transform­
ing the coordinates of the composite samples and block
model using a surface (often a hanging wall and foot­
wall) so that the folds are “straightened out” (Garrido,
Navarro, Ortiz, & Moreira, 2016; Heriawan, Indarto,
Widayat, & Perdana, 2014). Data analysis and estima­
tion are then performed in the new unfolded coordi­
nate system before returning the data to the original
coordinates for further analysis.
This unfolding technique tends to be more appropriate
for sedimentary deposits that have undergone tectonic
deformation because it can be assumed that the continuity
and characteristics of the deposit were fairly symmetrical
before deformation. This technique could also be consid­
ered where the model has been interpreted to be very
tightly folded and the drilling is typically wider spaced;
thus using DA will not be possible to line one drill hole
from a limb to another. However, this type of deposit
comes with unique substantial geological/modeling risks,
and any resultant model would likely have low confidence.
A positive feature of this approach is that data analy­
sis, such as variography, will likely have longer ranges
that represent the true nature of the deposit, rather than
 DYNAMIC ANISOTROPY: DIFFICULT TO SAY, HARDER TO GET RIGHT
being limited by changes in orientation and variogram
controls, such as angle tolerance and bandwidth.
Disadvantages to using this technique where there are
high levels of deformation or local changes are that it can
be time consuming and highly susceptible to the input
surfaces, which on a sedimentary bed are likely fairly
good. However, a pinching and swelling or nuggety gold
deposit can make the hanging wall and/or footwall sur­
faces unreliable for this purpose. In addition, unfolding
is not appropriate where the deformation is the reason
the mineralization is concentrated in that zone.
CONCLUSIONS
DA is a very powerful tool at the practitioner’s disposal
that, when used correctly, can significantly improve the
local accuracy of a mineral resource model.
The most significant downsides of DA compared to
the traditional approach of static search ellipsoids is the
increased time required for setup and the opportunity
for errors to occur. At best, these errors may provide
non-optimum orientations of the search ellipsoid. At
worst, they may produce an unreliable mineral resource
model. However, if the practitioner performs the appro­
priate due diligence on their models, this risk can be
largely mitigated, and the time required may be shorter
than that required to individually set up orientated
search ellipsoids on multiple sub-domains. At mini­
mum, this due diligence should consider:
(1) whether the deposit style is appropriate for DA;
(2) the quality of the input mineralization wireframes
and grade data, including whether the geological
modeling is of sufficient resolution to infer con­
nectivity based upon drill hole spacing;
(3) the most appropriate type of input surface for DA;
(4) whether the flagging/interpolation of DA angles
into the block model scripts have been constructed
correctly;
(5) whether a plunge is evident and if it needs to be
corrected in the DA angles;
(6) outcomes of the visual and statistical review of
the resulting DA angles within the block model;
(7) whether the grade interpolation setup has been
configured to correctly read the DA angles;
(8) outcomes of the visual review of the grade esti­
mation in comparison to the input data; and
(9) outcome of stringent peer review by an experi­
enced practitioner on any final models.
The authors highlight that the process of visual and
statistical reviews is critical and is the point at which
13
most significant errors can be caught. It is important to
ensure that such visual reviews are undertaken in cross-
section, long-section, and plan views.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Sean
Horan (SLR Consulting—Canada) for his assistance on Euler
rotations and Donald Cameron (Cameron Resource
Consulting LLC) for his input on major axis transformation
and pole intersection surfaces.
The authors also wish to thank the two CIM Journal peer
reviewers, whose comments and suggestions have greatly
improved this paper.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
J. Lunnon http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4427-9691
R. Pressacco http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9286-5498
REVIEW STATEMENT
Paper reviewed and approved for publication by the
Geological Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Jack Lunnon (MGeol, CGeol) is a VP—Geology with La
Mancha Resource Capital in London and has over 12 years’
experience in the industry, primarily for RPA/SLR Consulting.
He focuses on resource estimation and due diligence studies
and has a Citation in Geostatistics from the University of
Alberta. jack.lunnon@lamancha.com
Reno Pressacco (MSc(A), PGeo) is a Consulting Geologist
with more than 35 years of experience in industry, govern­
ment, and consulting. He is a contributing author to the CIM
Mineral Exploration Best Practices Guidelines and the CIM
Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best
Practices Guidelines. In 2020 he received the Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Robert Elver
Award for mineral economics.
REFERENCES
Deutsch, M. (2015). The angle specification for GSLIB
software. www.geostatisticslessons.com/lessons/
anglespecification
Diebel, J. (2006). Representing attitude: Euler angles, unit
quaternions, and rotation vectors. www.researchgate.
net/publication/215458871_Representing_Attitude_
Euler_Angles_Unit_Quaternions_and_Rotation_
Vectors
14 J. LUNNON AND R. PRESSACCO
Garrido, M., Navarro, F., Ortiz, J., & Moreira, J. (2016).
Resource assessment with unfolding methodology: A case
study. Minin2016 Conference Paper. www.researchgate.net/
publication/314034839_Resource_assessment_with_unfold
ing_methodology_a_case_study
Glacken, I., Blackney, P., Gray, D., & Fogden, N. (2014).
Resource estimation in folded deposits – A review of prac­
tice and case studies. In Mineral resource and ore reserve
estimation. The AusIMM guide to good practice (2nd ed., pp.
351–361). Monograph 30.
Heriawan, M. N., Indarto, A., Widayat, A. H., & Perdana, A.
(2014). Optimizing the resources model of “horse shoe” Cu-
Au porphyritic deposit using unfolding geostatistical meth­
ods. International Symposium on Earth Science and
Technology.
NumPy. (2022). NumPy reference (release 1.24). www.numpy.
org/doc/stable/reference
Reid, R. (2017). What is it with rotation conventions and
mining software providers? https://wantokgeoscience.
blogspot.com/2017/11/rotation-madness-and-estimation-
screw.html
Ruskov, K., Marinov, I., & Popov, K. (2020). Application of
dynamic anisotropy for the resource estimation improve­
ment in Pisani Skali ore occurrence, Bulgaria. Review of the
Bulgarian Geological Society, 81(3), 172–174.
Slabaugh, G. (1999). Computing Euler angles from a rotation
matrix. http://eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~gslabaugh/publications/euler.
pdf
Transforms3D. (2016). Defining rotation. www.matthew-brett.
github.io/transforms3d/reference/transforms3d.euler.html