Luis P. Braga (UFRJ) Francisco J. Da Silva (UFRRJ) Claudio G. Porto (UFRJ) Cassio Freitas (IBGE)

Modeling of mineral deposits using
geostatistics and experimental design

Luis P. Braga(UFRJ)
Francisco J. da Silva(UFRRJ)
Claudio G. Porto(UFRJ)
Cassio Freitas(IBGE)
lpbraga@geologia.ufrj.br
http://www.slideshare.net/bragaprof/stanford-2009-1872654
Eight International Geostatisti
1
International Association forcsMathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Chile Stanford, USA, 23-28 August 2009
Goal: Improve the mineral resources

evaluation of a deposit in the initial
stages of exploration.
2
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
How: Through experimental design

techniques applied to variogram
based estimation methods.
3
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Outline of the presentation

a)Creating a synthetic study case: Simulate the grade on a
regular 3D mesh based on data of a lateritic Ni deposit and
calculate the amount of resources.
b)Applying designed experiments: Varying the values of the four
main parameters of the semivariogram, according to an
experimental design.
c)Testing the method with kriging: Using a sample, estimate the
total resources with kriging by changing the semivariogram
parameters values, according to an experimental design.
Calculate the different resource totals and compare with a).
d)Testing the method with simulation: Repeat c) with simulation as
an interpolator.
e)Discussion.

4
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
a) Simulate the grade on a regular 3D mesh based on

a sample of a lateritic Ni deposit, and calculate the
amount of resources.
Figure 1
5
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
a)The data consists of 76 drillholes, located in a grid of

100mx100m having in total 2021 drillholes samples
which were collected downhole at 1m interval. The
experimental and the adjusted semivariogram in the
principal directions were obtained by a geologist .
Figure 2 a
Figure 2 b
Figure 2 cGeostatisti
Eight International
6
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
a) The central values(0) of a spherical

semivariogram model parameters, as well as,
the minimum(-) and maximum(+) acceptable
values to the geologist are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Range(NS)
Range(EW)
Range(vertical)
Sill
Nugget effect
Minimum(-)
180
280
7,5
0,119
0,000
Central(0)
200
300
9
0,139
0,01
Maximum(+)
240
340
10,5
0,149
0,030

7
International Association forcs
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Chile Stanford, USA, 23-28 August, 2009
a) A three dimensional model of the selected

region of the deposit, shown in Figure 1, was built
using the Gauss Simulation algorithm as
implemented in the package GSTAT of the R
environment. It consists of 5400 blocks with
support 10m x 20m x 5m. The semivariogram
used in the simulation was the one with the central
values, as in Table 1.

8
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,

9
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
a) In the Figure 3 it is depicted the vertical section

of the simulated deposit. In figures 4 to 6 it is
shown horizontal sections at different depths.
Figure 3
10
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Horizontal Section
Figure 4
11
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Horizontal Section
Figure 5

12
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Horizontal Section
Figure 6
13
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,

14
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,

15
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
b)For each interpolator the sequence presented in

Table 2 was applied, obtaining different resources
values. For each range and level an average of the
resources obtained are calculated, as shown in the
next slide, leading to the average effect table.

16
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
N-S range(-)

17
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Table 3 Average Effect Table

18
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
b)From Table 3 we build the average effect plots that

indicate the best combination regarding the estimation
of the resources.
We are not proceeding the full designed experiments
phases, that is, the regression between the variable
with its factors, but only keeping the factors levels
assignment strategy.

19
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
c) The first experiment was done with ordinary kriging

to generate a three dimensional model of the deposit
with the same dimensions, that is 5400 blocks with
support 10m x 20m x 5m. In the sequence we can see
horizontal sections for some levels obtained from run
1 for variable Ni. We have obtained all levels for every
run, but for sake of conciseness, just a few are shown.

20
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Horizontal Section

21
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Horizontal Section
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

22
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Horizontal Section

23
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
c) Next, we show the same level for different runs.

Although, the difference between the same levels,
from the different runs, are less visible, there may
be large discrepancies for the total volumes, with
some up to 2,500 Kg. ! In the Table 4 we show the
total amount of Ni as calculated for each run.

24
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Figure 10 (a) Run 2
Figure 10 (b) Run 9
Figure 10 (c) Run 19

25
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Table 4
R[1]
30500.94
R[10]
30549.52
R[19]
30686.57
R[2]
30591.69
R[11]
30547.45
R[20]
30346.11
R[3]
30594.60
R[12]
30811.65
R[21]
30912.85
R[4]
30846.89
R[13]
30809.97
R[22]
30579.27
R[5]
30669.34
R[14]
30612.68
R[23]
30525.41
R[6]
30660.73
R[15]
30277.72
R[24]
30522.38
R[7]
28159.78
R[16]
30712.45
R[25]
30610.49
R[8]
30328.81
R[17]
30379.65
R[26]
30608.18
R[9]
30558.84
R[18]
30558.84
R[27]
30558.84
Resources 9, 18 and 27 are equal because they correspond to the same

choice of parameters - central values.

26
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
c) As mentioned before we calculate the average of the
Resources for each set of runs, as arranged by type of

parameter and its value. It will allow us to build the so
called average effect plot. For each row we calculate the
average of the corresponding Resources indicated by its
run number. That is, for N-S RANGE(-) we take the
average between R[1], R[2], R[10], R[11], R[19] and R[20],
that happens to be 30,539Kg. The same procedure is
repeated for each row, generating a designed average.

27
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Table 3 Average Effect Table

28
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
true value = 31365

29
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
true value = 31365

30
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
true value = 31365

31
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
true value = 31365

32
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,

33
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,

34
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,

35
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
The combined estimation was superior to the

ordinary kriging alone. For example, a natural
choice would be the central values for every
semivariogram parameter, that is, run 9 with
30,558 Kg which is poorer than the former average
(30,625 Kg), as the true value is 31,365 Kg.
run
9
N-S range
E-W range
Vert. range
Sill

36
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,

37
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Figure 15 Histogram of Errors (DAK))
Figure 16 Histogram of errors - run 9

38
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Table 5 Errors statistics for DAK(Vrange(0)): True - Estimated
Table 6 Errors statistics for single Kriging (Run 9): True - Estimated
The histogram of the errors of the geologist choice

of parameters (central values) , which corresponds
either to run 9, 18 or 27, represents a good match,
but DAK performs better.
39
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
The methodology may be applied to improve the

performance
of
any
semivariogram
based
interpolator. The aleatorization of the runs is quite
natural in the case of simulation as interpolator, but it
may also be done with kriging like interpolators by
using any technique of resampling.
In the next section we present an analogous
experiment with simulation as an interpolator.

40
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
d)Following the same guidelines used in the

previous section, 27 simulations of the deposit
were generated according to Tables 1 and 2. As
the seed of the random generator was initialized
only once, we did not obtain the same values for
runs 9, 18 and 27. For each run just one
simulation was obtained.

41
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
d) In the sequence one can observe horizontal

sections for some levels obtained from the run 1
for variable Ni. We have obtained all levels for
every run, but for the sake of conciseness, just a
few are shown.

42
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Figure 17 (c)
Horizontal Section
level -10m
Run 3
Figure 17 (a)
Horizontal Section
level -10m
Run 1
Figure 17 (b)
Horizontal Section
level -10m
Run 2

43
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Table 7
R[1]
30649.90
R[10]
30754.89
R[19]
30541.56
R[2]
30836.71
R[11]
30521.16
R[20]
30400.86
R[3]
30588.43
R[12]
30626.19
R[21]
31184.91
R[4]
30499.56
R[13]
31114.96
R[22]
30582.42
R[5]
30125.19
R[14]
30496.09
R[23]
30981.64
R[6]
29796.91
R[15]
30478.49
R[24]
30719.53
R[7]
28775.79
R[16]
31533.80
R[25]
31650.80
R[8]
30318.43
R[17]
30124.75
R[26]
30548.88
R[9]
31586.04
R[18]
30040.92
R[27]
29763.12
The equivalent runs 9, 18 e 27 now have different values

because of the aleatorization of the simulation process.

44
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
31365
31365
Figure 18 (b)
Figure 18 (a)
31365

45
Figure
18
(c)
Figure
18
(d)
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
The extension of the method to simulation will be

called designed averaged simulations (DAS). The
results preserved the relation between the quality of
the semivariogram and that of the resource
estimation.

46
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
The vertical semivariogram is the best one and

there is no relevant difference between
conservative and central choices, but for optimist
choices the impact is negative. The resources
estimation is better achieved with DAS(Vrange(0))
than simulation.

47
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
run
9, 18, 27
N-S range
E-W range
Vert. range
Sill

48
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
We also evaluated the simulated values for each

block, as we did before with kriging, comparing
each designed averaged simulated block (DAS)
with the true one.
Table 8 Errors Statistics for DAS(Vrange(0)): True - Estimated
Table 9 Error Statistics for simulation (Vrange(0)): True - Estimated

49
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
d) conclusions:
1)The gain in the evaluation process was almost 10%
2)The method orientates which simulations or
interpolations must be kept.
3)The method allows a better selection of directional
semivariograms and its parameters levels.
4) Future work includes tests with other samples and
simulation methods.

50
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,
Send comments to:

THANK YOU !
51
Mathematical
Geosciences,
Congress. Santiago,

Luis P. Braga (UFRJ) Francisco J. Da Silva (UFRRJ) Claudio G. Porto (UFRJ) Cassio Freitas (IBGE)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Luis P. Braga (UFRJ) Francisco J. Da Silva (UFRRJ) Claudio G. Porto (UFRJ) Cassio Freitas (IBGE)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luis P. Braga (UFRJ) Francisco J. Da Silva (UFRRJ) Claudio G. Porto (UFRJ) Cassio Freitas (IBGE)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling of mineral deposits using

geostatistics and experimental design

Goal: Improve the mineral resources

How: Through experimental design

Outline of the presentation

Eight International Geostatisti

a) Simulate the grade on a regular 3D mesh based on

a)The data consists of 76 drillholes, located in a grid of

a) The central values(0) of a spherical

Eight International Geostatisti

a) A three dimensional model of the selected

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

a) In the Figure 3 it is depicted the vertical section

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

b)For each interpolator the sequence presented in

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

Table 3 Average Effect Table

Eight International Geostatisti

b)From Table 3 we build the average effect plots that

Eight International Geostatisti

c) The first experiment was done with ordinary kriging

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

c) Next, we show the same level for different runs.

Eight International Geostatisti

Figure 10 (a) Run 2

Figure 10 (b) Run 9

Figure 10 (c) Run 19

Resources 9, 18 and 27 are equal because they correspond to the same

Eight International Geostatisti

c) As mentioned before we calculate the average of the

Resources for each set of runs, as arranged by type of

Eight International Geostatisti

Table 3 Average Effect Table

Eight International Geostatisti

true value = 31365

Eight International Geostatisti

true value = 31365

Eight International Geostatisti

true value = 31365

Eight International Geostatisti

true value = 31365

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

The combined estimation was superior to the

Eight International Geostatisti

Eight International Geostatisti

Figure 15 Histogram of Errors (DAK))

Figure 16 Histogram of errors - run 9