1 1
Gerald Jalkanen , Rudolf Greuer ,HuannSheng Chen 2
ABSTRACT
A short cut is presented where the average grade above a primary grade cutoff and its associated byproduct
grade(s) are estimated by screening the primary and byproduct grades. For the primary variable, choose
samples whose grades are above a cutoff of interest. Compute variograms for the subset of the primary
variable. Then using this variogram, krige the blocks of interest only using the samples whose grades are
above the cutoff. The next step is to screen byproduct grades by choosing byproduct samples whose associated
primary grades are above the cutoff of interest. Next compute variograms for this subset of byproduct samples.
Then using this variogram, krige the blocks of interest using byproduct saniplegrades whose associated primary
sample grades are above the cutoff of interest. The results are the average grade above a primary cutoff for
both the primary and the associated byproduct variables. Using two simulated primary and reference data sets
a case study resulted in the screening krigings performing better than the indicator kriging approach in the first
case study. A second case study had mixed results with the primary indicator approach performing better than
the primary screened approach. The byproduct screened approach performed better than the byproduct
indicator approach.
A short cut is presented where the average grade above a primary grade cutoff and its associated byproduct
grade@)are estimated.
 0 otherwise
Note that for different values of z c l the indicator transform is computed, indicator variograms are modeled
and indicator krigings are conducted to estimate the probability of the primary variable being below some cutoff
z c l . The estimated probabilities are then ordered from the smallest of z c l to the largest. Order relation
1 Dept. of Mining & Mtl Proc Eng, Michigan Tech University, Houghton, MI 4993 1
2 Dept of Mathematics, Michigan Tech University, Houghton, MI 4993 1
problems among probabilities are corrected. This ordered collection of estimated probabilities is then an
estimate for the cumulative distribution function
Assume for cutoffs z (1). j= l.k+ 1 we have an estimate of ( (A,z (j)) for j= l , k + 1.Given the estimate
( (A,z ), the quantity of metal above a given cutoff within a region A can be exbressed as:
If given a cutoff of cut is equal to z 0) then the integral is estimated by the following sum:
If given a cutoff of cut lies between z (j) and z (j + 1) then a linear interpolation is used to determine
Cl
(* (A,cut). This is
The measure of central tendency c c, with this point is usually (cut +z cl (j+ 1))12.0. The quantity of metal
for the cutoff of cut is then
The tonnage recovery factor for the case when cut is equal to z (j)is
The tonnage ricovery factor for the case when cut lies between Zcl ( j ) and z cl (j + 1) is
The development given here is basically from Davis and Jalkanen (1988). Define a bivariate indicator variable
as follows
0 Otherwise
The expected value of this bivariate indicator variable is the joint probability
Note that for different values of yc with a fixed value of cut the bivariate indicator transform is computed,
bivariate variograms are modeled and bivariate indicator krigings are conducted to estimate the joint
probabilities of byproduct given that the primary variable exceeds some cutoff cut. To estimate the conditional
distribution of byproduct given that the primary variable exceeds some cutoff the joint probability given above
is divided by the estimated conditional probability
Note that this probability is computed from the indicator kriging of the primary variable with the indicator
transform of
I(x,cut) = 1 if z c l 5 cut X EA
0 Otherwise
Pr(z cl 5 cut)
The probability that the primary variable is above a cutoff cut is then computed by
The estimated quantity of metal is then calculated from the discrete approximation
Note that the average value between two class limits is the measure of center of a particular class. Other
measures of central tendency for the center of the class might be used.
A problem that is sometimes encountered in estimating the conditional distribution is sometimes the probability
that the primary variable is above the cutoff cut is equal to zero. This causes the estimated conditional
probability distribution to blow up. In effect the conditional probability distribution is not defined. Note that
the estimated byproduct average grade given that the primary is above a cutoff cut is infinity. What we are
proposing for this case is three different cases. The first is to set the byproduct average grade given that the
primary is above a cutoff cut equal to the largest value in the data set. The second case is to set the byproduct
average grade given that the primary is above a cutoff cut equal to zero. The third case is to set the byproduct
average grade given that the primary is above a cutoff equal to a missing value.
SCREENING KRIGMG
A new approach is presented where the average grade above a primary grade cutoff and its associated
byproduct grade(s) are estimated by screening the primary and byproduct grades. For the primary variable,
choose samples whose grades are above a .cutoff of interest. Compute variograms for the subset of the
primary variable. Then using this variogram, krige the blocks of interest only using the samples whose
grades are above the cutoff. The next step is to screen byproduct grades by choosing byproduct samples
whose associated primary grades are above the cutoff of interest. Next compute variograms for this subset
of byproduct samples . Then using this variogram, krige the blocks of interest using byproduct sample
grades whose associated primary sample grades are above the cutoff of interest. Assuming M variables are
of interest, one simply utilizes one indicator kriging to estimate the cdf associated with the cutoff of
interest, and M screening krigings to estimate the primary and byproduct grades of interest. Note that the
current method to estimate the average grade of a primary variable above a cutoff of interest is to use the
method covered in the section Primary Average Grade Above a Cutoff. The current method to estimate the
average grade of byproduct grades is to simply use the method covered in the section Estimating The
Average Grade of a Byproduct Variable. A few comments about the computation of the average grade of a
primary variable above a cutoff are now made. First is that it removes the need of choosing the upper most
cutoff z (k+ 1). In practice this cutoff is usually chosen as the largest value in the data set. The second
comment is that for a cutoff cut geater' than or equal to z , (k) the value of the measure of central
tendency c is the screening kriging result and notequal to (z c, +z c l (k+ 1))/2.0.
The first data sets utilized in this study comes from Deutsch and Journel (1992). The first set consists of a
clustered sample of 140 values drawn from a reference data set. This data set will be used to for the indicator
krigings and the screening kriging. The second data set is a complete reference data set that consists of an
origin for both x and y of 0.5. The number of nodes in both the x and y direction is 50. The spacing between
nodes is 1.0. This data set is then of 2500 samples. This reference data set will be utilized to compare the
screening kriging results with the current method to estimate primary and byproduct grades above a cutoff.
The first step in the indicator kriging of the primary variable was to compute quantiles in increments of 0.1
from 0.0 to 1.0. Next an indicator transform was computed for each of the quantiles. Next indicator
variograms were modeled for each of the quantiles. Next indicator kriging was done for each of the quantiles.
Then using the formulas in the section PRIMARY AVERAGE GRADE ABOVE A CUTOFF using a median
cutoff for the clustered data set the average grade above the median cutoff was computed for each of the kriged
blocks.
The first step in the indicator kriging of the byproduct variable given that the primary variable is above a cutoff
was to compute quantiles in increments of 0.1 from 0.0 to 1.0 for the byproduct variable. Next a joint
indicator transform was computed for each of the quantiles along with the cutoff of interest for the primary
variable which was the median of the clustered data set. Next indicator variograms were modeled for each of
the joint indicator transformed data sets. Next indicator kriging was done for each of the joint indicator
transformed data sets. Then the conditional distribution for each of the kriged blocks was computed by dividing
the joint distributions by the marginal distribution. Then using the formulas in the section BYRPODUCT
AVERAGE GRADE ABOVE A PRIMARY CUTOFF GRADE the average grade of the byproduct variable
given that the primary variable was above the median cutoff was computed for each of the kriged blocks.
The first step in the screening kriging of the primary variable was to create a data set that only contained data
points where the primary variable was above a cutoff. The cutoff for this case was the median value of the
primary variable. Next a variogram was modeled for this data set. Next kriging was done using the screened
data set. The kriging results were used as the screening krigings average grade above a primary cutoff.
The first step in the screening kriging of the byproduct variable was to create a separate data set that only
contained data points of the byproduct variable given that its associated primary variable is above the screening
cutoff. The cutoff for this case was the median of the primary variable. Next a variogram was modeled for
this data set. Next kriging was done using the byproduct screened data set. The kriging results were used as
the screened kriging for the byproduct average given that its associated primary grade was above the primary
cutoff.
COMPUTATIONS WITH THE REFERENCE DATA SET
The following steps were done for each of the kriged blocks of the above krigings. First the reference data set
was searched for data points that were contained in a kriging block. A sum of the primary variables that were
above the median cutoff was computed. A sum of the byproduct variables given that their associated primary
variable was above the median cutoff was computed. The average grade of the primary variable above the
median cutoff was then the sum above divided by the number of points that were above the median cutoff. The
average grade of the byproduct variable given that the primary variable was above the median cutoff was then
the sum above divided by the number of points that were above the median cutoff.

FIRST DATA SET COMPARISON OF RESULTS
The first comparison to be computed was a scattergram of primary indicator vs primary true. The correlation
coefficient for this plot was 0.33. The next comparison to be computed was a scattergram of primary screened
vs primary true. The correlation coefficient for this plot was 0.386. Note if the correlation coefficient is to
be used as the defining statistic then the primary screened result would be considered as better than the primary
indicator result.
The third comparison to be computed was a scattergram of byproduct indicator vs byproduct true with
the case when the probability of the primary variable being above a cutoff equal to zero sets the average grade
above a cutoff equal to the greatest value. The correlation coefficient for this plot was 0.071. The fourth
comparison to be computed was a scattergram of byprduct indicator vs byproduct true with the case when the
probability of the primary variable being above a cutoff equal to zero sets the average grade above a cutoff
equal to zero. The correlation coefficient for this plot was 0.326 The firth comparison to be computed was a
scattergram of byproduct indicator vs byproduct true with the case when the probability of the primary variable
being above a cutoff equal to zero sets the average grade above a cutoff as missing. The correlation coefficient
for this plot was 0.259. The last comparison to be computed was a scattergram of byproduct screened vs
byproduct true. The correlation coefficient for this plot was 0.522. Note if the correlatoin coefficient is to be
used as the defining statistic then the byproduct screened result would be considered as better than the
byproduct indicator results.
The second data sets used in this paper were generated by using the simulation program SASIM which uses
the Simulated Amealing algorithm to compute the simulation. This program came from the book GLSLB by
Deutsch and Journel(1992). The second case studies first data set is a reference data set that had an origin for
both easting and northing directions of 0.25. The number of nodes in both the easting and northing directions
was 100. The spacing between nodes was 0.5 for both the easting and northing directions. The byproduct
variable was generated by using the simulation program with two levels of the elevation variable with the first
level results as the primary variable and the second level as the byproduct variable. The second primary data
set that was used to conduct the second case studies indicator and screening krigings was extracted from the
second data sets reference data set with an origin for both the easting and northing directions of 1.25. The
number of nodes in both the easting and northing directions was 20. The spacing between nodes was 2.5 for
both the easting and northing directions. This reference data set was utilized to compare the screening kriging
results with the current method to estimate primary and byproduct grades above a cutoff for the second case
study.
For the second data set like the first data set, INDICATOR KRIGING OF PRIMARY VARIABLE was
computed, INDICATOR KRIGING OF BYPRODUCT VARIABLE was computed, PRIMARY VARIABLE
SCREENING KRIGING was computed. BYPRODUCT VARIABLE SCREENING KRIGING was computed,
and COMPUTATIONS WITH THE REFERNECE DATA SET was computed. Note like the first data set the
primary cutoff for these computations was the median of the primary data set.

SECOND DATA SET COMPARISON OF RESULTS
The first comparison to be computed was a scattergram of primary indicator vs primary true. The correlation
coefficient for this plot was 0.714. The next comparison to be computed was a scattergramof primary
screened vs primary true. The correlation coefficient for this plot was 0.429. Note if the correlation
coefficient is to be used as the defining statistic then the primary indicator result would be considered as better
than the primary screened result.
The next comparison to be computed was a scattergram of byproduct indicator vs byproduct true. The
correlation 'coefficient for this plot was 0.456. The next comparison to be computed was a scattergram of
byproduct screened vs byproduct true. The correlation coefficient for this plot was 0.522. Note if the
correlation coefficient is to be used as the defining statistic then the byproduct screened results would be
considered as better than the byproduct indicator results.
Ashort cut has been presented where the average grade above a primary grade cutoff and its associated
byproduct grades@)are estimated. Using two simulated primary and reference data sets the screening krigings
performed better than the indicator kriging approach in the first data set. In the second simulated data set the
indicator kriging of the primary variable performed better than the screened result but the screening kriging
of the byproduct performed better than the indicator approach. It would also be interesting to cokrig the
indicator, the primary data set, and byproduct data sets. Note that this would require a cokriging program that
allows for the input of missing data.. It would also be interesting to compare the CDF form of both Indicator
and Bivariate Multiple Indicator Kriging as presented by Barnes (1999) with thescreening approach.
REFERENCES
Barnes, Tracy 1999, Practical PostProcessing of Indicator Distributions. In Kadri Dagdelen (Ed.) Proceedings
of the.29' APCOM: Society of Mining Engineers, Golden Col., p 227237.
Barnes, Tracy 1999, Bivariate Multiple Indicator Kriging. In Kadri Dagdelen (Ed) Proceedings of the 29'
APCOM; Society of Mining Engineers, Golden Col. p 565572.
Deutsch Clayton V., and Journel, Andre G.. 19%, GSLIB Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide
Oxford University Press,
Journel, Andre G., 1983, Nonparametric Estimation of Spatial Distributions, Math Geol. V. 15, n 3 p. 445
468.
Davis, Bruce M. and Jalkanen, Gerald J., 1988, Nonparametric Estimation of Multivariate Joint and
Conditional Spatial Distributions, Math Geol. V. 20, n 4, p. 367381.
Muito mais do que documentos
Descubra tudo o que o Scribd tem a oferecer, incluindo livros e audiolivros de grandes editoras.
Cancele quando quiser.