Geology of Ore Deposits

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 84–92 | Cite as

Reliability of volumetric geological structural models



The results of theoretical analysis of the data commonly used for development of volumetric geological structural models, and the uncertainties that arise interpreting these data, are discussed. Such uncertainties are caused by restricted technical capabilities of structural analysis, necessity in model assumptions, and subjective experience of interpreter. To minimize the uncertainties introduced by the interpreter in the presentation of 3D structure of geological models, a formalized procedure based on methodology of expert judgment has been elaborated. This procedure comprises several stages: compilation of the database of local structural intersections, integration of all structural elements in the block volume, and comparison of alternative models suggested by several interpreters for the given state of knowledge on the studied block. The compilation of the database and integration of intersections and structural elements is accompanied by an estimation of the reliability of decisions made, using specially prepared formal scales. The stages may be cyclically repeated until the knowledge on the block will achieve a degree, which rules out alternative models on the accepted scale.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Apostolakis, G., The Concept of Probability in Safety Assessment of Technological Systems, Science, 1990, vol. 250, no. 4986, pp. 1359–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beshelev, S.D. and Gurvich, F.G., Ekspertnye otsenki (Expert Judgments), Moscow: Nauka, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. Bonano, E.J. and Cranwell, R.M., Treatment of Uncertainties in the Performance Assessment of Geologic High-Level Radioactive Waste Repositories, Math. Geol., 1988, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kochkin, B.T., Geological Uncertainties in Estimation of Safety of Systems of Waste Disposal, Geoekologiya, 2004, no. 2, pp. 142–153.Google Scholar
  5. Larichev, O.I., Ob”ektivnye modeli i sub”ektivnye resheniya (Unbiased Models and Subjective Solutions), Moscow: Nauka, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. Litvak, B.G., Ekspertnye otsenki i prinyatie reshenii (Expert Judgments and Making Solutions), Moscow: Patent, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. Peacock, D.C.P. and Marrett, R., Srtrain and Stress: Reply, J. Struct. Geol., 2000, no. 22, pp. 1369–1378.Google Scholar
  8. Petrov, V.A., Tectonodynamic Conditions of Isolation of Radioactive Wastes in Crystalline Rocks, Doctoral Dissertation in Geology and Mineralogy, Moscow: IGEM RAS, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. Veittinen, T., Ahokas, H., Hella, P., and Saksa, P., Advances in Classifications for Structural Modelling of Olkiluoto Site, in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXVII. Symp. Warrendale: MRS, 2004, vol. 807, pp. 527–532.Google Scholar
  10. White, M. and Saegusa, H., Representation of Fractured Zone Interpretation Uncertainty in 3D Geological Models of the Mizunami Underground Research Laboratory, Japan, Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXVII Simp. Warrendale: MRS, 2004, vol. 807, pp. 533–538.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits, Petrography, Mineralogy, and GeochemistryRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations