Abstract
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Alabert F (1989) Non‐Gaussian data expansion in the earth sciences. Terra Nova 1(2):123–134
Allard D, D’Or D, Froidevaux R (2011) An efficient maximum entropy approach for categorical variable prediction. Eur J Soil Sci 62(3):381–393
Apanasovich TV, Genton MG (2010) Cross-covariance functions for multivariate random fields based on latent dimensions. Biometrika 97(1):15–30
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 York
Burgess P, Wright V, Emery D (2001) Numerical forward modelling of peritidal carbonate parasequence development: implications for outcrop interpretation. Basin Res 13(1):1–16
Carle SF, Fogg GE (1996) Transition probability-based indicator geostatistics. Math Geol 28(4):453–476
Catuneanu O, Galloway WE, Kendall CGSC, Miall AD, Posamentier HW, Strasser A, Tucker ME (2011) Sequence stratigraphy: methodology and nomenclature. Newslett Stratigr 44(3):173–245
Chilès J-P, Delfiner P (2012) Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncertainty, vol 713. Wiley, Hoboken
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 congress
Dubrule O (2016) Indicator variogram models – do we have much choice?. Manuscript submitted for publication
Egenhoff SO, Peterhänsel A, Bechstädt T, Zühlke R, Grötsch J (1999) Facies architecture of an isolated carbonate platform: tracing the cycles of the Latemar (Middle Triassic, northern Italy). Sedimentology 46(5):893–912
Fischer AG (1964) The Lofer cyclothems of the alpine Triassic. Princeton University, Princeton
Genz A (1992) Numerical computation of multivariate normal probabilities. J Comput Graph Stat 1(2):141–149
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):1167–1177
Goldhammer R, Dunn P, Hardie L (1990) Depositional cycles, composite sea-level changes, cycle stacking patterns, and the hierarchy of stratigraphic forcing: examples from Alpine Triassic platform carbonates. Geol Soc Am Bull 102(5):535–562
Grotzinger JP (1986) Cyclicity and paleoenvironmental dynamics, Rocknest platform, northwest Canada. Geol Soc Am Bull 97(10):1208–1231
Kendall M, Stuart A, Ord J (1994) Vol. 1: Distribution theory. Arnold, London
Lantuéjoul C (2002) Geostatistical simulation: models and algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin
Li B, Zhang H (2011) An approach to modeling asymmetric multivariate spatial covariance structures. J Multivar Anal 102(10):1445–1453
Masetti D, Neri C, Bosellini A (1991) Deep-water asymmetric cycles and progradation of carbonate platforms governed by high-frequency eustatic oscillations (Triassic of the Dolomites, Italy). Geology 19(4):336–339
Oliver DS (2003) Gaussian cosimulation: modelling of the cross-covariance. Math Geol 35(6):681–698
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
Sena CM, John CM (2013) Impact of dynamic sedimentation on facies heterogeneities in Lower Cretaceous peritidal deposits of central east Oman. Sedimentology 60(5):1156–1183
Sheppard W (1899) On the application of the theory of error to cases of normal distribution and normal correlation. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser A Containing Pap Math Phys Charact 192:101–531
Strasser A (1988) Shallowing‐upward sequences in Purbeckian peritidal carbonates (lowermost Cretaceous, Swiss and French Jura Mountains). Sedimentology 35(3):369–383
Tucker M (1985) Shallow-marine carbonate facies and facies models. Geol Soc London Spec Publ 18(1):147–169
Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York
Wackernagel H (2013) Multivariate geostatistics: an introduction with applications. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin
Acknowledgements
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Analytical Expression of the Triple Gaussian Integral
Appendix: Analytical Expression of the Triple Gaussian Integral
In a similar fashion as Kendall et al. (1994), we consider three correlated gaussian variates being in their respective intervals as a set of three dependent events. With the truncation rule displayed in Fig. 1 and thresholds that equal 0, facies 1 at location x and facies 2 at location x+h correspond to one variate being negative and two positive. The indicator covariance C 12 (h) quantifies the probability of the intersection of these three events. The correlation matrix between the three gaussian variates is the following:
The probability can be written as a triple integral of the corresponding gaussian density g Σ(h)(u,v,w):
Thanks to the gaussian integral symmetry property, the probability of intersection of the events is the complementary of the probability of their union (Kendall et al. 1994). Therefore, by definition of the union, the intersection of the three events can be expressed as a sum of the corresponding single and pair events and so the triple integral as a sum of the single integrals that equal to 0.5 and double integrals with their respective correlation coefficient:
Sheppard (1899) gives then the solution of the double integral that allows to obtain the final expression of the transition probability between facies 1 and 2 (Eq. 15):
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Le Blévec, T., Dubrule, O., John, C.M., Hampson, G.J. (2017). Modelling Asymmetrical Facies Successions Using Pluri-Gaussian Simulations. In: Gómez-Hernández, J., Rodrigo-Ilarri, J., Rodrigo-Clavero, M., Cassiraga, E., Vargas-Guzmán, J. (eds) Geostatistics Valencia 2016. Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46819-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46819-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46818-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46819-8
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)