Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 127–146 | Cite as

Conditional Latin Hypercube Simulation of (Log)Gaussian Random Fields

  • Stelios LiodakisEmail author
  • Phaedon Kyriakidis
  • Petros Gaganis
Special Issue


In earth and environmental sciences applications, uncertainty analysis regarding the outputs of models whose parameters are spatially varying (or spatially distributed) is often performed in a Monte Carlo framework. In this context, alternative realizations of the spatial distribution of model inputs, typically conditioned to reproduce attribute values at locations where measurements are obtained, are generated via geostatistical simulation using simple random (SR) sampling. The environmental model under consideration is then evaluated using each of these realizations as a plausible input, in order to construct a distribution of plausible model outputs for uncertainty analysis purposes. In hydrogeological investigations, for example, conditional simulations of saturated hydraulic conductivity are used as input to physically-based simulators of flow and transport to evaluate the associated uncertainty in the spatial distribution of solute concentration. Realistic uncertainty analysis via SR sampling, however, requires a large number of simulated attribute realizations for the model inputs in order to yield a representative distribution of model outputs; this often hinders the application of uncertainty analysis due to the computational expense of evaluating complex environmental models. Stratified sampling methods, including variants of Latin hypercube sampling, constitute more efficient sampling aternatives, often resulting in a more representative distribution of model outputs (e.g., solute concentration) with fewer model input realizations (e.g., hydraulic conductivity), thus reducing the computational cost of uncertainty analysis. The application of stratified and Latin hypercube sampling in a geostatistical simulation context, however, is not widespread, and, apart from a few exceptions, has been limited to the unconditional simulation case. This paper proposes methodological modifications for adopting existing methods for stratified sampling (including Latin hypercube sampling), employed to date in an unconditional geostatistical simulation context, for the purpose of efficient conditional simulation of Gaussian random fields. The proposed conditional simulation methods are compared to traditional geostatistical simulation, based on SR sampling, in the context of a hydrogeological flow and transport model via a synthetic case study. The results indicate that stratified sampling methods (including Latin hypercube sampling) are more efficient than SR, overall reproducing to a similar extent statistics of the conductivity (and subsequently concentration) fields, yet with smaller sampling variability. These findings suggest that the proposed efficient conditional sampling methods could contribute to the wider application of uncertainty analysis in spatially distributed environmental models using geostatistical simulation.


Geostatistics Monte Carlo simulation Uncertainty analysis Hydrogeology 



This work was funded as part of the research project with title (2269) “Advances in Geostatistics for Environmental Characterization and Natural Resources Management” (GEOSTATENV), implemented within the framework of the Action Aristeia I of the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” (Actions Beneficiary: General Secretariat for Research and Technology), and is co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Greek State.


  1. Alabert F (1987) The practice of fast conditional simulations through the LU decomposition of the covariance matrix. Math Geol 19(5):369–386Google Scholar
  2. Caers J (2011) Modeling uncertainty in the earth sciences. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chilès JP, Delfiner P (1999) Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncertainty. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis M (1987) Production of conditional simulations via the LU triangular decomposition of the covariance matrix. Math Geol 19(2):91–98Google Scholar
  5. Helton JC, Davis FJ (2002) Illustration of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Risk Anal 22(3):591–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Helton JC, Davis FJ (2003) Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 81(1):23–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Helton JC, Johnson JD, Salaberry CJ, Storlie CB (2006) Survey of sampling based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:1175–1209Google Scholar
  8. Iman RL, Conover WJ (1982) A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables. Commun Stat Part B Simul Comput 11(3):311–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Journel A (1974) Geostatistics for conditional simulation of ore bodies. Econ Geol 69(5):673–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kyriakidis P (2005) Sequential spatial simulation using latin hypercube sampling. In: Leuagthong O, Deutsch CV (eds) Geostatistics Banff 2004: 7th International Geostatistics Congress, Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics vol 14, Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  11. Kyriakidis P, Gaganis P (2013) Efficient simulation of (log)normal random fields for hydrogeological applications. Math Geosci 45(5):531–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McDonald M, Harbaugh A (1988) A modular three-dimensional finite difference ground-water flow model. Tech. Rep. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 6: Modeling Techniques, US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  13. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245Google Scholar
  14. Pebesma EJ, Heuvelink GBM (1999) Latin hypercube sampling of gaussian random fields. Technometrics 41:303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stein M (1987) Large sample properties of simulations using latin hypercube sampling. Technometrics 29(2):143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sudicky E, Illman W, Goltz I, Adams J, McLaren R (2010) Heterogeneity in hydraulic conductivity and its role on the macroscale transport of a solute plume: from measurements to a practical application of stochastic flow and transport theory. Water Resour Res 46:W01508. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Switzer P (2000) Multiple simulation of spatial fields. In: Heuvelink GBM, Lemmens MJPM (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on spatial accuracy assessment in natural resources and environmental sciences, Coronet Books Inc., pp 629–635Google Scholar
  18. Xu C, He HS, Hu Y, Chang Y, Li X, Bu R (2005) Latin hypercube sampling and geostatistical modeling of spatial uncertainty in a spatially explicit forest landscape model simulation. Ecol Model 185:255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhang Y, Pinder G (2003) Latin hypercube lattice sample selection strategy for correlated random hydraulic conductivity fields. Water Resour Res 39(8):255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zheng C (1990) MT3D, a modular three-dimensional transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems. Technical Report to the Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  21. Zinn B, Harvey C (2003) When good statistical models of aquifer heterogeneity go bad: a comparison of flow, dispersion, and mass transfer in connected and multivariate gaussian hydraulic conductivity fields. Water Resour Res 39(3):1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of the AegeanMytileneGreece
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering and GeomaticsCyprus University of TechnologyLemesosCyprus
  3. 3.Department of EnvironmentUniversity of the AegeanMytileneGreece

Personalised recommendations