Table
2.1. Calculation of experimental semi-variogram values in two major directions
for iron ore example on square grid
|
Direction |
Distance between |
Experimental |
Number of |
|
|
samples (ft) |
semi-variogram |
pairs |
|
East-west |
100 |
1.46 |
36 |
|
|
200 |
3.30 |
33 |
|
|
300 |
4.31 |
27 |
|
|
400 |
6.70 |
23 |
|
North-south |
100 |
5.35 |
36 |
|
|
200 |
9.87 |
27 |
|
|
300 |
18.88 |
21 |
Table
2.2. Calculation of semi-variogram in diagonal direction for iron ore
|
Direction |
Distance between |
Experimental |
Number of |
|
|
samples (ft) |
semi-variogram |
pairs |
|
North-west |
141 |
7.06 |
32 |
|
South-east |
282 |
12.95 |
21 |
|
diagonal |
424 |
30.85 |
13 |
Table 2.3.
Hypothetical borehole log from lead/zinc deposit --- Zinc values
|
|
|
|
Table 2.4.
Calculated experimental semi-variogram from Lead/Zinc deposit
|
|
Table
2.5. Experimental semi-variogram from 400m adit --- silver values
|
Distance between |
Experimental |
|
Distance between |
Experimental |
|
Distance between |
Experimental |
|
Distance between |
Experimental |
|
samples(m) |
semi-variogram |
|
samples(m) |
semi-variogram |
|
samples(m) |
semi-variogram |
|
samples (m) |
semi-variogram |
|
1 |
0.42 |
|
26 |
8.94 |
|
51 |
10.22 |
|
76 |
12.26 |
|
2 |
0.72 |
|
27 |
8.48 |
|
52 |
9.96 |
|
77 |
11.69 |
|
3 |
0.92 |
|
28 |
7.65 |
|
53 |
11.64 |
|
78 |
12.30 |
|
4 |
1.36 |
|
29 |
7.04 |
|
54 |
11.93 |
|
79 |
11.63 |
|
5 |
1.69 |
|
30 |
6.49 |
|
55 |
12.62 |
|
80 |
12.98 |
|
6 |
2.03 |
|
31 |
7.26 |
|
56 |
11.35 |
|
81 |
15.78 |
|
7 |
1.95 |
|
32 |
7.47 |
|
57 |
10.18 |
|
82 |
17.42 |
|
8 |
2.75 |
|
33 |
7.66 |
|
58 |
10.69 |
|
83 |
16.72 |
|
9 |
3.65 |
|
34 |
9.54 |
|
59 |
10.03 |
|
84 |
17.20 |
|
10 |
4.05 |
|
35 |
10.98 |
|
60 |
9.81 |
|
85 |
17.16 |
|
11 |
3.44 |
|
36 |
10.82 |
|
61 |
10.23 |
|
86 |
14.67 |
|
12 |
3.55 |
|
37 |
10.58 |
|
62 |
11.85 |
|
87 |
14.12 |
|
13 |
3.24 |
|
38 |
10.21 |
|
63 |
11.27 |
|
88 |
14.56 |
|
14 |
3.07 |
|
39 |
10.08 |
|
64 |
13.01 |
|
89 |
16.04 |
|
15 |
4.52 |
|
40 |
8.28 |
|
65 |
13.61 |
|
90 |
17.81 |
|
16 |
5.23 |
|
41 |
8.08 |
|
66 |
14.17 |
|
91 |
20.96 |
|
17 |
6.53 |
|
42 |
9.34 |
|
67 |
11.75 |
|
92 |
22.70 |
|
18 |
6.41 |
|
43 |
9.55 |
|
68 |
9.91 |
|
93 |
23.20 |
|
19 |
5.98 |
|
44 |
9.87 |
|
69 |
10.12 |
|
94 |
24.37 |
|
20 |
5.72 |
|
45 |
10.45 |
|
70 |
9.56 |
|
95 |
23.67 |
|
21 |
5.26 |
|
46 |
10.23 |
|
71 |
10.91 |
|
96 |
21.66 |
|
22 |
6.46 |
|
47 |
8.87 |
|
72 |
11.98 |
|
97 |
21.44 |
|
23 |
7.01 |
|
48 |
9.19 |
|
73 |
12.13 |
|
98 |
22.94 |
|
24 |
7.55 |
|
49 |
10.19 |
|
74 |
11.45 |
|
99 |
22.29 |
|
25 |
8.06 |
|
50 |
10.73 |
|
75 |
12.14 |
|
100 |
22.16 |
Table 2.6. Spherical
semi-variogram model for silver values up to h=75m
|
Distance between |
Theoretical |
|
samples (m) |
semi-variogram |
|
0 |
0.00 |
|
5 |
1.64 |
|
10 |
3.26 |
|
15 |
4.80 |
|
20 |
6.25 |
|
25 |
7.56 |
|
30 |
8.71 |
|
35 |
9.66 |
|
40 |
10.38 |
|
45 |
10.84 |
|
50 |
11.00 |
|
>50 |
11.00 |
Table 2.7 Attempts to fit exponential models to
silver semi-variogram
|
Distance between |
Theoretical
semi-variograms |
|||
|
samples (m) |
a=33,C=14 |
a=50,C=14 |
a=50,C=15 |
a=50,C=16 |
|
5 |
1.97 |
1.33 |
1.43 |
1.52 |
|
10 |
3.66 |
2.54 |
2.72 |
2.90 |
|
15 |
5.11 |
3.63 |
3.89 |
4.15 |
|
20 |
6.36 |
4.62 |
4.95 |
5.27 |
|
25 |
7.44 |
5.51 |
5.90 |
6.30 |
|
30 |
8.36 |
6.32 |
6.77 |
7.22 |
|
35 |
9.15 |
7.05 |
7.55 |
8.05 |
|
40 |
9.83 |
7.71 |
8.26 |
8.81 |
|
45 |
10.42 |
8.31 |
8.90 |
9.49 |
|
50 |
10.92 |
8.85 |
9.48 |
10.11 |
|
55 |
11.36 |
9.34 |
10.01 |
10.67 |
|
60 |
11.73 |
9.78 |
10.48 |
11.18 |
|
65 |
12.05 |
10.18 |
10.91 |
11.64 |
|
70 |
12.32 |
10.55 |
11.30 |
12.05 |
Table 2.8 Experimental
semi-variogram from a disseminated nickel deposit (logarithm of grade)
|
|
|
Table
2.9 First attempt to fit a mixture of Spherical models to the experimental nickel
semi-variogram (parameters in text)
|
Distance between |
Theoretical |
|
Distance between |
Theoretical |
|
samples (m) |
semi-variogram |
|
samples (m) |
semi-variogram |
|
0 |
0.00 |
|
25 |
2.36 |
|
2 |
0.77 |
|
30 |
2.42 |
|
4 |
1.12 |
|
35 |
2.48 |
|
6 |
1.44 |
|
40 |
2.52 |
|
8 |
1.73 |
|
45 |
2.54 |
|
10 |
1.96 |
|
50 |
2.55 |
|
12 |
2.12 |
|
55 |
2.55 |
|
14 |
2.20 |
|
60 |
2.55 |
|
16 |
2.23 |
|
|
|
|
18 |
2.26 |
|
|
|
|
20 |
2.29 |
|
|
|
Table 2.10 Final attempt
to fit a mixture of Spherical models to the experimental Nickel semi-variogram
(parameters in text)
|
Distance between |
Theoretical |
|
Distance between |
Theoretical |
|
samples (m) |
semi-variogram |
|
samples (m) |
semi-variogram |
|
0 |
0.00 |
|
20 |
2.03 |
|
2 |
0.74 |
|
25 |
2.14 |
|
4 |
1.05 |
|
30 |
2.24 |
|
6 |
1.34 |
|
35 |
2.33 |
|
8 |
1.58 |
|
40 |
2.40 |
|
10 |
1.75 |
|
45 |
2.46 |
|
12 |
1.85 |
|
50 |
2.51 |
|
14 |
1.89 |
|
55 |
2.54 |
|
16 |
1.94 |
|
60 |
2.55 |
|
18 |
1.99 |
|
|
|
Table 3.1 Hypothetical borehole log fom
Lead/Zinc deposit ---
core has been sectioned in three alternative
ways, 1.52m, 3.04m and 4.56m
|
|
Table 3.2 Experimental semi-variogram values calculated from the three
different core section lengths
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||