Modelling Asymmetrical Facies Successions Using Pluri-Gaussian Simulations
An approach to model spatial asymmetrical relations between indicators is presented in a pluri-Gaussian framework. The underlying gaussian random functions are modelled using the linear model of co-regionalization, and a spatial shift is applied to them. Analytical relationships between the two underlying gaussian variograms and the indicator covariances are developed for a truncation rule with three facies and cut-off at 0. The application of this truncation rule demonstrates that the spatial shift on the underlying gaussian functions produces asymmetries in the modelled 1D facies sequences. For a general truncation rule, the indicator covariances can be computed numerically, and a sensitivity study shows that the spatial shift and the correlation coefficient between the gaussian functions provide flexibility to model the asymmetry between facies. Finally, a case study is presented of a Triassic vertical facies succession in the Latemar carbonate platform (Dolomites, Northern Italy) composed of shallowing-upward cycles. The model is flexible enough to capture the different transition probabilities between the environments of deposition and to generate realistic facies successions.
KeywordsGaussian Function Transition Rate Spatial Shift Asymmetrical Relation Sequence Indicator Simulation
The authors would like to thank the Earth Science and Engineering Department of Imperial College for a PhD studentship grant for T. Le Blévec and Total for funding O. Dubrule professorship at Imperial College.
- Armstrong M, Galli A, Beucher H, Loc’h G, Renard D, Doligez B, … Geffroy F (2011) Plurigaussian simulations in geosciences. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Chilès J-P, Delfiner P (2012) Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncertainty, vol 713. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- D’Or D, Allard D, Biver P, Froidevaux R, Walgenwitz A (2008) Simulating categorical random fields using the multinomial regression approach. Paper presented at the Geostats 2008—proceedings of the eighth international geostatistics congressGoogle Scholar
- Dubrule O (2016) Indicator variogram models – do we have much choice?. Manuscript submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
- Fischer AG (1964) The Lofer cyclothems of the alpine Triassic. Princeton University, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Genz A (1992) Numerical computation of multivariate normal probabilities. J Comput Graph Stat 1(2):141–149Google Scholar
- Genz A, Bretz F, Miwa T, Mi X, Leisch F, Scheipl F, Hothorn T (2009) mvtnorm: multivariate normal and t distributions. R package version 0.9-8. URL http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvtnorm
- Gneiting T, Kleiber W, Schlather M (2012) Matérn cross-covariance functions for multivariate random fields. J Am Stat Assoc 105(491):1167–1177Google Scholar
- Kendall M, Stuart A, Ord J (1994) Vol. 1: Distribution theory. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Lantuéjoul C (2002) Geostatistical simulation: models and algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Renard D, Bez N, Desassis N, Beucher H, Ors F, Laporte F (2015) RGeostats: the geostatistical package (Version 11.0.1). Retrieved from http://cg.ensmp.fr/rgeostats
- Wackernagel H (2013) Multivariate geostatistics: an introduction with applications. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar