# Optimization Criteria for Mathematical Models Used in Sedimentology

• Graeme Bonham-Carter
Part of the Computer Applications in the Earth Sciences book series (CAES)

## Abstract

Optimization principles play a key role in mathematical sedimentology in at least three ways.
1. (1)

The data-gathering process is optimized so as either to maximize the amount of information to be obtained with limited cost of sampling and measurement or to minimize the cost of obtaining at least a certain known amount of information.

2. (2)

Many commonly used data-analysis models have been formulated using optimization criteria. Examples include: regression by minimizing the sum of squares; principal component analysis by maximizing the amount of variation associated with each successive component axis, subject to constraints; discriminant-function analysis by placing decision surfaces so as to maximize the separation of predefined groups; cluster analysis by maximizing the compactness of groups; and several others.

3. (3)

Simulation modeling may involve optimization. First, principles of least work or similar optimization criteria may provide keys to the mathematical formulation of a model. This follows as a consequence of the optimization inherent in nature. Second, a basic goal in simulation is to adjust the parameters so as to minimize the difference between the model’s output and the real-world response. Furthermore, the process of exploring the sensitivity of a simulation model to systematic changes in parameters is a natural extension of optimization.

An appreciation of basic optimization principles leads to a clearer understanding as to how mathematics can help to solve sedimentological problems.

## Keywords

Feasible Solution Decision Variable Optimization Criterion Sediment Concentration Sediment Discharge

## References

1. Allen, J. R. L., 1970, Physical processes of sedimentation: American Elsevier, New York, 248 p.Google Scholar
2. Bagnold, R. A., 1956, The flow of cohesionless grains in fluids: Roy Soc. London Phil. Trans., v. 249, ser. A, p. 235–297.
3. Bonham-Carter, G. F., and Sutherland, A. J., 1968, Mathematical model and FORTRAN IV program for computer simulation of deltaic sedimentation: Kansas Geol. Survey, Computer Contr. 24, 56 p.Google Scholar
4. Briggs, L. I., and Pollack, H. N., 1967, Digital model of evaporite sedimentation: Science, v. 155, no. 3761, p. 453–456.Google Scholar
5. Brush, L. M., 1965, Sediment sorting in alluvial channels, in Primary sedimentary structures and their hydrodynamic interpretation: Soc. Econ. Paleon. and Mineral. Sp. Publ., no. 12, p. 25–33.Google Scholar
6. Cochran, W. G., 1963, Sampling techniques ( 2nd ed. ): John Wiley & Sons, New York, 413 p.Google Scholar
7. Dacey, M. F., and Krumbein, W. C, 1970, Markovian models in stratigraphic analysis: Jour. Intern. Assoc. Math. Geol., v. 2, no. 2, p. 175–191.
8. Farmer, D. G., 1971, A computer-simulation model of sedimentation in a salt-wedge estuary: Marine Geology, v. 10, no. 2, p. 133–143.Google Scholar
9. Gibbs, R. J., Matthews, M. D., and Link, D. A., 1971, The relationship between sphere size and settling velocity: Jour. Sed. Pet., v. 41, no. 1, p. 1–7.Google Scholar
11. Griffiths, J. C., 1967, Scientific method in analysis of sediments: McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 508 p.Google Scholar
12. Guy, H. P., Simons, D. B., and Richardson, E. V., 1966, Summary of alluvial-channel data from flume experiments, 1956–61: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 462–I, 96 p.Google Scholar
13. Harbaugh, J. W., and Bonham-Carter, G. F., 1970, Computer simulation in geology: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 575 p.Google Scholar
14. Harbaugh, J. W., 1966, Mathematical simulation of marine sedimentation with IBM 7090/7094 computers: Kansas Geol. Survey, Computer Contr. 1, 52 p.Google Scholar
15. Harbaugh, J. W., and Merriam, D. F., 1968, Computer applications in stratigraphic analysis: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 282 p.Google Scholar
16. Kelley, J. C., and McManus, D. A., 1969, Optimizing sediment-sampling plans: Marine Geology, v. 7, no. 5, p. 465–471.Google Scholar
17. Kelley, J. C., 1971, Multivariate oceanographic sampling: Jour. Intern. Assoc. Math. Geol., v. 3, no. 1, p. 43–50.
18. King, C. A, M., and McCullagh, M. J., 1971, A simulation model of a complex recurved spit: Jour. Geology, v. 72, no. 1, p. 22–37.Google Scholar
19. Krumbein, W. C., and Graybill, F. A., 1965, An introduction to statistical models in geology: McGraw-Hill, New York, 475 p.Google Scholar
20. Langbein, W. B., 1966, River geometry: minimum variance adjustment U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 500-C, p. C6–C11.Google Scholar
21. Leopold, L. B., and Langbein, W. B., 1966, River meanders: Scientific American, v. 214, no. 6, p. 60–70.
22. Lumsden, D. N., 1971, Markov-chain analysis of carbonate rocks: applications, limitations, and implications as exemplified by the Pennsylvanian System in southern Nevada: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 82, no. 2, p. 447–462.
23. McCammon, R. B., 1970, Component estimation under uncertainty, in Geostatistics: Plenum Press, New York, p. 45–61.Google Scholar
24. Read, W. A., 1969, Analysis and simulation of Namurian sediments in central Scotland using a Markov-process model: Jour. Intern. Math. Geol., v. 1, no. 2, p. 199–219.
25. Rosen, R. R., 1967, Optimality principles in biology: Butterworths London, 198 p.
26. Schwarzacher, W., 1969, The use of Markov chains in the study of sedimentary cycles: Jour. Intern. Assoc. Math. Geol., v. 1, no. 1, p. 17–41.
27. Slaughter, M., and Hamil, M., 1970, Model for deposition of volcanic ash and resulting bentonite: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 81, no. 31, p. 961–968.
28. Vanoni, V. A., Brooks, N. H., and Kennedy, J. F., 1961, Lecture notes on sediment transportation and channel stability: W. M. Keck Lab. for Hydraulics and Water Res., California Inst. Tech., Tech. Rept. KH-R-1.Google Scholar
29. Wilde, D. J., and Beightler, C. S., 1967, Foundations of optimization: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 480 p.