A Practical Comparison between Gaussian and Direct Sequential Simulation Algorithms using a 3D Porosity Dataset

Sabeti, H.; Moradpouri, F.

doi:10.22044/jme.2022.11874.2180

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

H. Sabeti ¹^{, 2}
F. Moradpouri ³

¹ Department of Mining Engineering, Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, Iran,

² CERENA, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

³ Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Lorestan University, Khoramabad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22044/jme.2022.11874.2180

Abstract

The geo-statistical simulation algorithms for continuous spatial variables have been used widely in order to generate the statistically-honored models. There are two main algorithms doing the continuous variable simulation, Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) and Direct Sequential Simulation (DSS). The main advantage of the DSS algorithm against the SGS algorithm is that in the DSS algorithm no Gaussian transformation of the original data is made. In this work, these two simulation algorithms are explained, and their applications to a 3D spatial dataset are deeply investigated. The dataset consists of the porosity values of 16 vertical wells extracted from an actual cube obtained by a seismic inversion process. One well data is excluded from the simulation process for the blind well test. Comparison between the histograms show that the histogram reproduction is slightly better for the SGS algorithm, although the population reproductions are the same for both SGS and DSS results. The DSS algorithm reproduce the mean of input data closer to the mean of well data compared to that of the SGS algorithm. Considering one realization from each simulation algorithm, the RMS error corresponding to all simulated cells against the real values is approximately equal for both algorithms. On the other hand, the error show a slightly less value when the mean of 100 realizations of the DSS result is considered.

Keywords

20.1001.1.22518592.2022.13.2.15.9

Main Subjects

Geostatistics

References

[1]. Deutsch, CV and Journel, A.G. (1998). GSLIB Geostatistical Software Library and. User's Guide. New York: Oxford University Press.

[2]. Bai, T. and Tahmasebi, P. (2022). Sequential Gaussian simulation for geosystems modeling: A machine learning approach. Geoscience Frontiers. 13 (1): 101258.

[3]. Shen, W., Hu, Y., Zhang, J., Zhao, F., Bian, P. and Liu, Y. (2021). Spatial distribution and human health risk assessment of soil heavy metals based on sequential Gaussian simulation and positive matrix factorization model: A case study in irrigation area of the Yellow River. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 225, 112752.

[4]. Madenoglu, S., Atalay, F. and Erpul G. (2020). Uncertainty assessment of soil erodibility by direct sequential Gaussian simulation (DSIM) in semiarid land uses. Soil and Tillage Research. 204, 104731.

[5]. Sotoudeh, F., Ataei, M., Kakaie, R. and Pourrahimian, Y. (2020). Application of Sequential Gaussian Conditional Simulation to Underground Mine Design under Grade Uncertainty. Journal of Mining and Environment. 11 (3): 695-709.

[6]. Talesh Hosseini S., Asghari O, and Ghavami Riabi SR. (2018). Spatial modelling of zonality elements based on compositional nature of geochemical data using geostatistical approach: a case study of Baghqloom area, Iran. Journal of Mining and Environment. 9 (1): 153-67.

[7]. Sakizadeh M., Sattari M.T. and Ghorbani H. (2017). A new method to consider spatial risk assessment of cross-correlated heavy metals using geo-statistical simulation. Journal of Mining and Environment. 8 (3): 373-91.

[8]. Metahni, S., Coudert, L., Gloaguen, E., Guemiza, K., Mercier, G. and Blais J-F. (2019). Comparison of different interpolation methods and sequential Gaussian simulation to estimate volumes of soil contaminated by As, Cr, Cu, PCP and dioxins/furans. Environmental Pollution. 252, 409-19.

[9]. Wang, J. and Zuo, R. (2018). Identification of geochemical anomalies through combined sequential Gaussian simulation and grid-based local singularity analysis. Computers and Geosciences. 118, 52-64.

[10]. Gholampour, O., Hezarkhani, A., Maghsoudi, A. and Mousavi, M. (2019). Application of sequential Gaussian simulation and concentration-volume fractal model to delineate alterations in hypogene zone of miduk porphyry copper deposit, SE Iran. Journal of African Earth Sciences. 150, 389-400.

[11]. Soares A. (2001). Direct Sequential Simulation and Cosimulation. Mathematical Geology. 33(8), 911-26.

[12]. Ribeiro, S., Caineta, J., Costa, A.C., Henriques, R., and Soares, A. (2016). Detection of inhomogeneities in precipitation time series in Portugal using direct sequential simulation. Atmospheric Research. 171, 147-58.

[13]. Sabeti, H., Moradzadeh, A., Ardejani, F.D., Azevedo, L., Soares, A., Pereira, P. and Nunes, R. (2017). Geostatistical seismic inversion for non-stationary patterns using direct sequential simulation and co-simulation. Geophysical Prospecting. 65, 25-48.

[14]. Pereira, P., Azevedo, L., Nunes, R. and Soares, A. (2019). The impact of a priori elastic models into iterative geostatistical seismic inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics. 170, 103850.

[15]. Almeida, F., Davolio, A. and Schiozer, D.J. (2020). Reducing uncertainties of reservoir properties in an automatized process coupled with geological modeling considering scalar and spatial uncertain attributes. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 189, 106993.

[16]. Horta, A., Azevedo, L., Neves, J., Soares, A. and Pozza, L. (2021). Integrating portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) measurement uncertainty for accurate soil contamination mapping. Geoderma. 382, 114712.

[17]. Otzen, M., Finlay, C.C. and Hansen, T.M. (2022). Direct Sequential Simulation for spherical linear inverse problems. Computers and Geosciences. 160, 105026.

[18]. Hajsadeghi, S., Asghari, O., Mirmohammadi, M., Afzal, P. and Meshkani, S.A. (2020). Uncertainty-volume fractal model for delineating copper mineralization controllers using geostatistical simulation in Nohkouhi volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit, Central Iran. Bulletin of the Mineral Research and Exploration. 161 (161): 1-11.

[19]. Soltani, F., P. Afzal, and Asghari, O. (2014). Delineation of alteration zones based on Sequential Gaussian Simulation and concentration–volume fractal modeling in the hypogene zone of Sungun copper deposit, NW Iran. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 140, 64-76.

[20]. Soltani, F., Moarefvand, P., Alinia, F. and Afzal, P. (2019). Characterization of rare earth elements by coupling multivariate analysis, factor analysis, and geostatistical simulation; case-study of Gazestan deposit, central Iran. Journal of Mining and Environment. 10 (4): 929-945.

A Practical Comparison between Gaussian and Direct Sequential Simulation Algorithms using a 3D Porosity Dataset

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 2April 2022Pages 547-557

Volume 13, Issue 2
April 2022
Pages 547-557