Lyell Collection

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sides, E. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 1994; v. 79; p. 109-121;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1994.079.01.11
© 1994 Geological Society of London

Deposit variability

Quantifying differences between computer models of orebody shapes

E. J. Sides

International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences, Kanaalweg 3, 2628 EB Delft, The Netherlands

Several different methods have been used for the representation of orebody shapes in computer systems including serial-slice, gridded seam, regular block, mathematical functions, solid geometry, and boundary representation models. The accuracy and precison of such models are affected by factors such as errors associated with the original data used, natural variations, errors in data capture and processing, etc.

In order to asses the relative importance of such factors it is necessary to quantify differences in accuracy and precision between different model structures. To meet this objective a new technique which relies on statistical study of a series of sample lines, intersecting two or more different orebody models, is proposed.

Application of this technique on orebody models at the Neves-Corvo copper-tin deposits in southern Portugal suggested that in certain circumstances regular block models can give very poor estimates of the total volume of materials of different geological types. In addition it was shown quantitatively that shape interpretations close to the plane of drill-sections are better, in terms of accuracy and precision, than interpretations for zones falling between the drill-section planes.