Advertisement

Entropy-Based Weighting in One-Dimensional Multiple Errors Analysis of Geological Contacts to Model Geological Structure

  • Weisheng Hou
  • Chanjie Cui
  • Liang Yang
  • Qiaochu Yang
  • Keith Clarke
Article

Abstract

In each step of geological modeling, errors have an impact on measurements and workflow processes and, so, have consequences that challenge accurate three-dimensional geological modeling. In the context of classical error theory, for now, only spatial positional error is considered, acknowledging that temporal, attribute, and ontological errors—and many others—are part of the complete error budget. Existing methods usually assumed that a single error distribution (Gaussian) exists across all kinds of spatial data. Yet, across, and even within, different kinds of raw data (such as borehole logs, user-defined geological sections, and geological maps), different types of positional error distributions may exist. Most statistical methods make a priori assumptions about error distributions that impact their explanatory power. Consequently, analyzing errors in multi-source and conflated data for geological modeling remains a grand challenge in geological modeling. In this study, a novel approach is presented regarding the analysis of one-dimensional multiple errors in the raw data used for model geological structures. The analysis is based on the relationship between spatial error distributions and different geological attributes. By assuming that the contact points of a geological subsurface are decided by the geological attributes related to both sides of the subsurface, this assumption means that the spatial error of geological contacts can be transferred into specific probabilities of all the related geological attributes at each three-dimensional point, which is termed the “geological attribute probability”. Both a normal distribution and a continuous uniform distribution were transferred into geological attribute probabilities, allowing different kinds of spatial error distributions to be summed directly after the transformation. On cross-points with multiple raw data with errors that follow different kinds of distributions, an entropy-based weight was given to each type of data to calculate the final probabilities. The weighting value at each point in space is decided by the related geological attribute probabilities. In a test application that accounted for the best estimates of geological contacts, the experimental results showed the following: (1) for line segments, the band shape of geological attribute probabilities matched that of existing error models; and (2) the geological attribute probabilities directly show the error distribution and are an effective way of describing multiple error distributions among the input data.

Keywords

Multiple error distribution Entropy-based weight Geological attribute probability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate the valuable comments of the anonymous reviewers in the refinements of this manuscript. This study was substantially supported by the NSFC Program (41472300, 41502068, and 41102207), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (12lgpy19, 15lgjc45), and the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (RFDP) (20100171120001). The research was performed while the first author was a visiting research scholar at the Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, and the department’s support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Allard D, Comunian A, Renard P (2012) Probability aggregation methods in geoscience. Math Geosci 44:545–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bárdossy G, Fodor J (2004) Evaluation of uncertainties and risks in geology—new mathematical approaches for their handling. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bistacchi A, Massironi M, Dal Piaz GV, Dal Piaz G, Monopoli B, Schiavo A, Toffolon G (2008) 3D fold and fault reconstruction with an uncertainty model: an example from an Alpine tunnel case study. Comput Geosci 34:351–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond CE, Lunn RJ, Shipton ZK, Lunn AD (2012) What makes an expert effective at interpreting seismic images? Geology 40:75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caers J, Hoffman T (2006) The probability perturbation method: a new look at Bayesian inverse modeling. Math Geol 38:81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calcagno P, Chilès J-P, Courrioux G, Guillen A (2008) Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge: Part I. Modelling method coupling 3D potential-field interpolation and geological rules. Phys Earth Planet Inter 171:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caspary W, Scheuring R (1993) Positional accuracy in spatial databases. Comput Environ Urban Syst 17:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caumon G, Collon-Drouaillet P, Le Carlier de Veslud C, Viseur S, Sausse J (2009) Surface-based 3D modeling of geological structures. Math Geosci 41:927–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chauvin B, Caumon G (2015) Building folded horizon surfaces from 3D points: a new method based on geomechanical restoration. In: Schaeben H, Delgado RT, Gerald van den BK, Regina van den B (eds) Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geosciences (IAMG) 2015, Freiberg, Germany, September 2015, pp 39–48Google Scholar
  10. Chilès J-P, Aug C, Guillen A, Lees T (2004) Modelling the geometry of geological units and its uncertainty in 3D from structural data: the potential-field method. In: Proceedings of the international symposium “Orebody modelling and strategic mine planning—uncertainty and risk management models”, Perth, Western Australia, November 2004, pp 313–320 Google Scholar
  11. Christakos G (1990) A Bayesian/maximum-entropy view to the spatial estimation problem. Math Geol 22:763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collon P, Steckiewicz-Laurent W, Pellerin J, Laurent G, Caumon G, Reichart G, Vaute L (2015) 3D geomodelling combining implicit surfaces and Voronoi-based remeshing: a case study in the Lorraine Coal Basin (France). Comput Geosci 77:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis CJ (2002) Statistics and data analysis in geology, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dutton G (1992) Handling positional uncertainty in spatial databases. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on spatial data handling, Charleston, SC, USA, August 1992, pp 460–469Google Scholar
  15. Fasani GB, Bozzano F, Cardarelli E, Cercato M (2013) Underground cavity investigation within the city of Rome (Italy): a multi-disciplinary approach combining geological and geophysical data. Eng Geol 152:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fomel S (1994) Method of velocity continuation in the problem of seismic time migration. Russ Geol Geophys 35:100–111Google Scholar
  17. Fomel S, Landa E (2014) Structural uncertainty of time-migrated seismic images. J Appl Geophys 101:27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grubb H, Tura A, Hanitzsch C (2001) Estimating and interpreting velocity uncertainty in migrated images and AVO attributes. Geophysics 66:1208–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guillen A, Calcagno P, Courrioux G, Joly A, Ledru P (2008) Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge: Part II. Modelling validation using gravity and magnetic data inversion. Phys Earth Planet Inter 171:158–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hou WS, Yang L, Deng DC, Ye J, Keith C, Yang ZJ, Zhuang WM, Liu JX, Huang JC (2016) Assessing quality of urban underground spaces by coupling 3D geological models: the case study of Foshan City, South China. Comput Geosci 89:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jessell WM, Ailleres L, de Kemp AE (2010) Towards an integrated inversion of geoscientific data: what price of geology? Tectonophysics 490:294–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones RR, McCaffrey KJ, Wilson RW, Holdsworth RE (2004) Digital field data acquisition: towards increased quantification of uncertainty during geological mapping. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 239:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Journel AG (2002) Combining knowledge from diverse sources: an alternative to traditional data independence hypotheses. Math Geol 34:573–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaufmann O, Martin T (2008) 3D geological modelling from boreholes, cross-sections and geological maps, application over former natural gas storages in coal mines. Comput Geosci 34:278–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li DJ, Gong JY, Xie GS, Du DS (2002) Error entropy band for linear segments in GIS. Geomat Inf Sci Wuhan Univ 31:82–85 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  26. Li X, Li P, Zhu H (2013) Coal seam surface modeling and updating with multi-source data integration using Bayesian Geostatistics. Eng Geol 164:208–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindsay MD, Aillères L, Jessell MW, de Kemp EA, Betts PG (2012) Locating and quantifying geological uncertainty in three-dimensional models: analysis of the Gippsland Basin, southeastern Australia. Tectonophysics 546–547:10–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindsay MD, Jessell MW, Ailleres L, Perrouty S, de Kemp E, Betts PG (2013) Geodiversity: exploration of 3D geological model space. Tectonophysics 594:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu Z (1999) Integration of uncertainties and distribution. Phys Exp 19(5):17–19 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. Mann CJ (1993) Uncertainty in geology. In: Davis JC, Herzfeld UC (eds) Computers in geology—25 years of progress. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 241–254Google Scholar
  31. Perkal J (1966) On the length of empirical curves. Discussion Paper 10, Michigan Inter-University Community of Mathematical Geographers, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  32. Polyakova EI, Journel AG (2007) The Nu expression for probabilistic data integration. Math Geol 39:715–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pon S, Lines LR (2005) Sensitivity analysis of seismic depth migrations. Geophysics 70:S39–S42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Royse KR (2010) Combining numerical and cognitive 3D modelling approaches in order to determine the structure of the Chalk in the London Basin. Comput Geosci 36:500–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shi WZ (1994) Modelling positional and thematic uncertainties in integration of remote sensing and geographic information systems. ITC, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  36. Shi WZ, Liu WB (2000) A stochastic process-based model for the positional error of line segments in GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tacher L, Pomian-Srzednicki I, Parriaux A (2006) Geological uncertainties associated with 3-D subsurface models. Comput Geosci 32:212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tarantola A, Valette B (1982) Inverse problems = quest for information. J Geophys 50:159–170Google Scholar
  39. Thiele ST, Jessell MW, Lindsay M, Wellmann JF, Pakyuz-Charrier E (2016) The topology of geology 2: topological uncertainty. J Struct Geol 91:74–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thore P, Shtuka A, Lecour M, Ait-Ettajer T, Cognot R (2002) Structural uncertainties: determination, management, and applications. Geophysics 67:840–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tong XH, Liu DJ (2004) Probability density function and estimation for error of digitized map coordinates in GIS. J Central South Univ Technol 11:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tong XH, Sun T, Fan JY, Goodchild MF, Shi WZ (2013) A statistical simulation model for positional error of line features in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 21:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Travelletti J, Malet J-P (2012) Characterization of the 3D geometry of flow-like landslides: a methodology based on the integration of heterogeneous multi-source data. Eng Geol 128:30–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Viard T, Caumon G, Lévy B (2011) Adjacent versus coincident representations of geospatial uncertainty: which promote better decisions? Comput Geosci 37:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wellmann JF, Regenauer-Lieb K (2012) Uncertainties have a meaning: information entropy as a quality measure for 3-D geological models. Tectonophysics 526–529:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wellmann JF, Horowitz FG, Schill E, Regenauer-Lieb K (2010) Towards incorporating uncertainty of structural data in 3D geological inversion. Tectonophysics 490:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu Q, Xu H, Zou X, Lei H (2015) A 3D modeling approach to complex faults with multi-source data. Comput Geosci 77:126–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang GY, Tulip J (1990) An algorithm for the avoidance of sliver polygons and clusters of points in spatial overlay. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on spatial data handling, Zurich, Switzerland, July 1990, pp 141–150Google Scholar
  49. Zhang JX, Zhang JP, Yao N (2009) Geostatistics for spatial uncertainty characterization. Geo Spat Inf Sci 12:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhu LF, Zhuang Z (2010) Framework system and research flow of uncertainty in 3D geological structure models. Min Sci Technol (China) 20:306–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weisheng Hou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chanjie Cui
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liang Yang
    • 1
    • 3
  • Qiaochu Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Keith Clarke
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Earth Sciences and EngineeringSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Mineral Resource Exploration and Geological ProcessesGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Geological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of Geography, 1720 Ellison HallUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations