Mathematical Geology

, Volume 32, Issue 8, pp 919–942 | Cite as

Geostatistical Simulation of Regionalized Pore-Size Distributions Using Min/Max Autocorrelation Factors

  • A. J. Desbarats
  • R. Dimitrakopoulos


In many fields of the Earth Sciences, one is interested in the distribution of particle or void sizes within samples. Like many other geological attributes, size distributions exhibit spatial variability, and it is convenient to view them within a geostatistical framework, as regionalized functions or curves. Since they rarely conform to simple parametric models, size distributions are best characterized using their raw spectrum as determined experimentally in the form of a series of abundance measures corresponding to a series of discrete size classes. However, the number of classes may be large and the class abundances may be highly cross-correlated. In order to model the spatial variations of discretized size distributions using current geostatistical simulation methods, it is necessary to reduce the number of variables considered and to render them uncorrelated among one another. This is achieved using a principal components-based approach known as Min/Max Autocorrelation Factors (MAF). For a two-structure linear model of coregionalization, the approach has the attractive feature of producing orthogonal factors ranked in order of increasing spatial correlation. Factors consisting largely of noise and exhibiting pure nugget–effect correlation structures are isolated in the lower rankings, and these need not be simulated. The factors to be simulated are those capturing most of the spatial correlation in the data, and they are isolated in the highest rankings. Following a review of MAF theory, the approach is applied to the modeling of pore-size distributions in partially welded tuff. Results of the case study confirm the usefulness of the MAF approach for the simulation of large numbers of coregionalized variables.

principal component analysis coregionalization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agterberg, F. P., Katsube, T. J., and Lew, S. N., 1984, Statistical analysis of granite pore size distribution data, Lac du Bonnet Batholith, eastern Manitoba: Geological Survey of Canada Paper 84-1A, p. 29–38.Google Scholar
  2. Alyamani, M. S., and Sen, Z., 1993, Determination of hydraulic conductivity from complete Grain-size distribution curves: Ground Water, v. 31, no. 4, p. 551–555.Google Scholar
  3. Bader, H., 1970, The hyperbolic distribution of particle sizes: Jour. Geophy. Res., v. 75, no. 15, p. 2822–2830.Google Scholar
  4. Bagnold, R. A., and Barndorff-Nielsen, O., 1980, The pattern of natural size distributions: Sedimentology, v. 27, p. 199–207.Google Scholar
  5. Basan, P. B., Lowden, B. D., Whattler, P. R., and Attard, J. L., 1997, Pore-size data in petrophysics: A perspective on the measurement of pore geometry, in Lovell, M. A., and Harvey, P. K., eds., Developments in petrophysics: Geological Society of London, Special Publication 122, p. 47–67.Google Scholar
  6. Berman, M., 1985, The statistical properties of three noise removal procedures for multichannel remotely sensed data: CSIRO Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Consulting Rep. NSW/85/31/MB9, 37 p.Google Scholar
  7. Borgman, L. E., and Frahme, R. B., 1976, A case study: Multivariate properties of bentonite In northeasternWyoming, in Guarascio, M., David, M., and Huijbregts, C., eds., Advanced Geostatistics in the Mining Industry: Proceedings of the NATO Advance. Study Institute, Rome, October 13–25, Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 381–390.Google Scholar
  8. Case, C. M., Ghiglieri, D. L., and Rennie, D. P., 1987, Model-dependence of the interpretation of mercury injection porosimetry data, in Evans, D. D., and Nicholson, T. J., eds., Flow and transport through unsaturated fractured rock: Geophysical Monograph 42, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, p. 157–164.Google Scholar
  9. Chavez, P. S., and Kwarteng, A. Y., 1989, Extracting spectral contrast in LANDSAT thematic mapper image data using selective principal component analysis: Photogrammetric Eng. and Remote Sensing, v. 55, no. 3, p. 339–348.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J. C., 1986, Statistics and data analysis in geology: John Wiley, New York, 646 p.Google Scholar
  11. Deutsch, C. V., and Journel, A. G., 1992, GSLIB: Geostatistical software library and user's Guide: Oxford University Press, 340 p.Google Scholar
  12. Desbarats, A. J., 1995, Upscaling capillary pressure-saturation curves in heterogeneous porous media: Water Resour. Res., v. 31, no. 2, p. 281–288.Google Scholar
  13. Desbarats, A. J., 1997, Geostatistical modeling of unsaturated flow parameters at the Apache Leap Tuff site, in Baafi, E. Y., and Schofield, N. A., eds., Geostatistics Wollongong '96, vol. 1, p. 621–633.Google Scholar
  14. Dwivedi, R. S., and Ravi-Sankar, T., 1992, Principal component analysis of LANDSAT MSS data for delineation of terrain features: Int. Jour. of Remote Sensing, v. 13, no. 12, p. 2309–2318.Google Scholar
  15. Full, W. F., Ehrlich, R., and Kennedy, S., 1984, Optimal configuration and information content of sets of frequency distributions: Jour. of Sed. Petrololgy, v. 54, no. 1, p. 117–126.Google Scholar
  16. Goovaerts, P., 1993, Spatial orthogonality of the principal components computed from coregionalized variables: Math. Geol., v. 25, no. 3, p. 281–302.Google Scholar
  17. Goulard, M., and Voltz, M., 1993, Geostatistical interpolation of curves: A case study in soil science, in Soares, A., ed, Geostatistics Troia '92: vol. 2, p. 805–816, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  18. Green, A. A., Berman, M., Switzer, P., and Craig, M. D., 1988, A transform for ordering multispectral data in terms of image quality with implications for noise removal: IEEE Trans. Geosc. Rem. Sens., v. 26, no. 1, p. 65–74.Google Scholar
  19. Grunsky, E. C., and Agterberg, F. P., 1988, Spatial and multivariate analysis of geochemical data from metavolcanic rock in the Ben Nevis area, Ontario: Math. Geol., v. 20, no. 7, p. 825–862.Google Scholar
  20. Joreskog, K. G., Klovan, J. E., and Reyment, R. A., 1976, Geological factor analysis: Methods in Geomathematics 1, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 178 p.Google Scholar
  21. Journel, A. G., and Huijbregts, C., 1978, Mining geostatistics: Academic Press, London, 600 p.Google Scholar
  22. Kleingeld, W., and Lantuejoul, C., 1993, Sampling of orebodies with a highly dispersed Mineralization, in Soares, A., ed., Geostatistics Troia '92: Kluwer, Dordrecht, vol. 2, p. 953–964.Google Scholar
  23. Klovan, J. E., 1966, The use of factor analysis in determining depositional environments from grain-size distributions: J. of Sediment. Petrol., v. 36, p. 115–125.Google Scholar
  24. Krumbein, W. C., 1934, Size frequency distribution of sediments: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 4, p. 65–77.Google Scholar
  25. Luster, G. R., 1985, Raw materials for Portland cement: Applications of conditional simulation of coregionalization: unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 532 p.Google Scholar
  26. Manieh, A., 1984, Oolite liberation of oolitic iron ore, Wadi Fatima, Saudi Arabia: Int. Jour. of Mineral Processing, v. 13, no. 3, p. 187–192.Google Scholar
  27. Mather, P. M., 1972, Study of factors influencing variations in size characteristics of fluvioglacial Sediments: Math. Geol., v. 4, no. 3, p. 219–234.Google Scholar
  28. Perfect, E., 1997, Fractal models for the fragmentation of rocks and soils: A review, in Vallejo, L. E., ed., Fractals in engineering geology: Engineering Geology, v. 48, nos. 3—4, p. 185–198.Google Scholar
  29. Pirkle, E. C., Pirkle, F. L., Pirkle, W. A., and Stayert, P. R., 1984, TheYulee heavy mineral sand deposits of northeastern Florida: Economic Geology, v. 79, no. 4, p. 725–737.Google Scholar
  30. Rasmussen, T. C., Evans, D. D., Sheets, P. J., and Blanford, J. H., 1990, Unsaturated fractured rock characterization methods and data sets at the Apache Leap Tuff site: Report NUREG/CR-5596, 139 p., US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  31. Rasmussen, T. C., Evans, D. D., Sheets, P. J., and Blanford, J. H., 1993, Permeability of Apache Leap tuff: Borehole and core measurements using water and air: Water Resour. Res., v. 29, no. 7, p. 1997–2006.Google Scholar
  32. Sichel, H. S., 1973, Statistical valuation of diamondiferous deposits: Jour. S-Afr. Inst. Min. and Metall., v. 73, p. 235–243.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, M., 1993, The use of fractals in quantifying pyrite textures to determine ore liberation in base metal ores: GSA North-Central Section 27th annual meeting, Abstracts with programs-Geological Society of America, v. 25, no. 3, p. 82.Google Scholar
  34. Suro-Perez, V., and Journel, A. G., 1991, Indicator principal component kriging: Math. Geol., v. 23, no. 5, p. 759–792.Google Scholar
  35. Switzer, P., and Green, A. A., 1984, Min/Max autocorrelation factors for multivariate spatial imaging: Technical Report No. 6, Department of Statistics, Stanford University, 14 p.Google Scholar
  36. Tercan, A. E., 1999, Importance of orthogonalization algorithm in modeling conditional distributions by orthogonal transformed indicator methods: Math. Geol., v. 31, no. 2, p. 155–173.Google Scholar
  37. Vogt, G. T., 1988, Porosity, pore-size distribution and pore surface area of Apache Leap Tuff near Superior, Arizona using mercury intrusion: unpublished master's thesis, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, 130 p.Google Scholar
  38. Wackernagel, H., Petitgas, P., and Touffait, Y., 1989, Overview of methods for coregionalization analysis, in Armstrong M., ed., Geostatistics, Vol. 1: Kluwer, Dordrech, p. 409-420.Google Scholar
  39. Wackernagel, H., 1995, Multivariate geostatistics: Springer, Berlin, 256 p.Google Scholar
  40. Wardlaw, N. C., and Taylor, R. P., 1976, Mercury capillary pressure curves and the interpretation of pore structure and capillary behavior in reservoir rocks: Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol., v. 24, p. 225–262.Google Scholar
  41. Yim, W. W. S., 1984, Liberation studies on tin-bearing sands off North Cornwall, United Kingdom: Marine Mining, v. 5, no. 1, p. 87–99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geology 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Desbarats
    • 1
  • R. Dimitrakopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.Geological Survey of CanadaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.W. H. Bryan Mining Geology Research CentreUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations