0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

5 Ansichten11 SeitenFractal model

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Fractal model

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

5 Ansichten11 SeitenFractal model

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jgeoexp

Application of fractal models to outline mineralized zones in the Zaghia iron ore

deposit, Central Iran

Behnam Sadeghi a, Parviz Moarefvand b, Peyman Afzal a, c,⁎, Amir Bijan Yasrebi c, Lili Daneshvar Saein d

a

Department of Mining Engineering, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

b

Amirkabir University of Technology, Mining and Metallurgy Faculty, Tehran, Iran

c

Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK

d

Department of Geology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 15 May 2012 Recognition of different mineralized zones in an ore deposit is important for mine planning. This study aims

to separate the different mineralized zones and the wall rock in the Zaghia iron ore deposit situated in central

Keywords: Iran using the number–size (N–S) and concentration–volume (C–V) fractal methods. The N–S model reveals

Number–size (N–S) three geochemical zones deﬁned by Fe thresholds of 24% and 40%, with zones b 24% Fe representing weakly

Concentration–volume (C–V)

mineralized zones and wall rocks. The C–V model reveals four geochemical zones deﬁned by Fe thresholds of

Fractal models

18%, 30% and 35%, with zones b 18% Fe representing non-mineralized wall rocks. Both the N–S and C–V

Iron ore

Zaghia

models indicate that high grade mineralization is situated in the northern part of the ore deposit. The results

Iran of validation of the fractal models with the geological model show that the N–S fractal model of highly

mineralized zones is better than the C–V fractal model of highly mineralized zones. However, results obtained

by means of the C–V fractal model for weakly and moderately mineralized zones are more accurate than the

zones obtained by means of the N–S fractal model.

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction different ﬁelds of geosciences since the 1980s. Bolviken et al. (1992)

and Cheng et al. (1994) have shown that geochemical patterns of

Deﬁnition and delineation of mineralized zones from barren wall various elements have fractal dimensions. Several fractal models

rocks are essential in mineral exploration, resource evaluation and have been developed and applied to geochemical exploration for

mine planning. Conventional methods for identiﬁcation and mapping separating various geochemical (including mineralized) populations,

of variously enriched zones in iron ore deposits, for example, are based e.g., concentration–area (C–A) by Cheng et al. (1994), concentration–

on geological and mineralogical studies considering variations in the distance (C–D) by Li et al. (2003), concentration–volume (C–V) by Afzal

proportions of magnetite, hematite, and apatite, such as in Kiruna- et al. (2011) and number–size (N–S) by Agterberg (1995), Deng et al.

type iron deposits (Cox and Singer, 1986; Hitzman et al., 1992; (2010), Mandelbrot (1983), Turcotte (2002) and Wang et al. (2010).

Shayestehfar et al., 2006). The Kiruna-type iron ores are generally Fractal analysis assists in describing relationships of geological,

dominated by iron oxides, either magnetite or hematite, which are geochemical, and mineralogical settings with spatial information

known to occur in the Kiruna-Gällivare iron province in northern derived from analysis of mineral deposit occurrence data (Afzal et al.,

Sweden and in the Bafq-Saghand iron district in central Iran (Bonyadi 2011; Carranza, 2008, 2009, 2010; Carranza and Sadeghi, 2010;

et al., 2011; Cliff et al., 1990; Forsell and Godin, 1980; Frutos and Carranza et al., 2009; Cheng, 1999, 2007; Goncalves et al., 2001; Wang

Oyarzún, 1975; Shayestehfar et al., 2006). In this type of iron deposit, et al., 2011; Zuo et al., 2009). Various geochemical processes can

magnetite is found at deeper levels compared to hematite. Variations be explained based on differences in fractal dimensions obtained

of geochemistry and alterations are other useful parameters for iden- from analysis of relevant geochemical data. Log–log plots in fractal

tiﬁcation of variously mineralized zones in Kiruna-type iron deposits analysis are proper tools for delineation and classiﬁcation of geological

(Hitzman et al., 1992; Laznicka, 2005; Samani, 1988). populations in geochemical data because threshold values can be

Fractal geometry (Mandelbrot, 1983), which is an important recognized as breakpoints in those plots (Afzal et al., 2011).

branch of nonlinear mathematical sciences, has been applied in The application of fractal methods for analysis of mineralized zones

was based on relationships between metal grades and volumes or

tonnages (Afzal et al., 2011; Agterberg et al., 1993; Cheng, 2007; Sim

⁎ Corresponding author. Department of Mining Engineering, South Tehran Branch,

et al., 1999; Turcotte, 1986). Afzal et al. (2011) proposed and tested

Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. the C–V fractal method for delineation of different porphyry-Cu

E-mail address: P_Afzal@azad.ac.ir (P. Afzal). mineralized zones and barren wall rocks. In this paper, N–S and C–V

0375-6742/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.04.011

10 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19 11

a 3497200

c

361900

361200

3498720

1170

900

b d

Fig. 2. 3D modeling of drillcore geological data in the Zaghia deposit: (a) geological model of the deposit; (b) low grade ores; (c) high grade ores; (d) metasomatic units; (e) a rep-

resentative cross-section.

fractal methods were applied for delineating variously enriched zones there is a relationship between desirable attributes (e.g., ore element

and rocks in the Zaghia iron ore deposit, Central Iran. in this paper) and their cumulative numbers of samples. Based on

the model, Agterberg (1995) proposed a multifractal model named

2. Fractal models size-grade for determination of the spatial distributions of giant and

super-giant mineral deposits. Monecke et al. (2005) used the N–S

2.1. Number–size fractal model fractal model to characterize element enrichments associated with

metasomatic processes during the formation of hydrothermal ores

The N–S model, which was originally proposed by Mandelbrot in the Waterloo massive sulﬁde deposit, Australia. A power-law fre-

(1983), can be utilized to describe the distribution of geochemical quency model has been proposed to describe the N–S relationship

populations without pre-processing of data. The model shows that according to the frequency distribution of element concentrations

Fig. 1. Location map of the Bafq iron ore deposits and the Zaghia deposit (modiﬁed from Jami, 2005) and simpliﬁed geological map of the Zaghia deposit with location of drillcores

(modiﬁed from IMECO, 2010).

12 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

Table 1

Distribution number of samples among drillcores in the Zaghia deposit.

Drillcore name BH01 BH02 BH03 BH04 BH06 BH07 BH08 BH13 BH14 BH15

Number of samples 7 5 7 6 10 23 8 18 5 13

Drillcore name BH16 BH17 BH18 BH19 BH20 BH21 BH22 BH23 BH28

Number of samples 10 10 8 19 2 10 7 5 4

and cumulative number of samples with those attributes (Li et al., 3. Geological setting of the Zaghia iron ore deposit

1994; Sanderson et al., 1994; Shi and Wang, 1998; Turcotte, 1996;

Zuo et al., 2009). The model is expressed by the following equation The Zaghia iron deposit is situated in the Bafq district and is lo-

(Deng et al., 2010; Mandelbrot, 1983): cated 120 km east of Yazd in central Iran (Fig. 1). The Bafq district

is located in a metallogenic area in Iran with other mines such as

D

Nð ≥ ρÞ ¼ Fρ ð1Þ Choghart (iron), Esfordi (phosphate-magnetite), Koushk (lead and

zinc) and Chadormalu (iron and apatite). In this district, there are

where ρ denotes element concentration, N(≥ρ) denotes cumulative also Precambrian complexes with mineralizations of U, Th, V, Mn,

number of samples with concentration values greater than or equal to Mo, Ti, Ba, apatite, rare earth elements (REE), stratiform Pb-Zn mas-

ρ, F is a constant and D is the scaling exponent or fractal dimension of sive sulphides and different types of Fe ore (Bonyadi et al., 2011;

the distribution of element concentrations. According to Mandelbrot Daliran and Heins-Guenter, 2005; Förster and Jafarzadeh, 1994;

(1983) and Deng et al. (2010), log–log plots of N(≥ρ) versus ρ show Jami, 2005; Jami et al., 2007; Samani, 1988). The Zaghia deposit is

straight line segments with different slopes −D corresponding to dif- a Kiruna-type Fe-P oxide deposit in the Bafq district and of the same

ferent concentration intervals. type as the Choghart, Mishdavan and North Anomaly iron ores

(IMECO, 2010). It is one of the Fe deposits hosted by a sequence of

2.2. Concentration–volume fractal model pre-Cambrian and Cambrian rhyolitic volcanic rocks and intercalated

shallow-water sediments. The zoned and strata-bound ore deposit

The C–V fractal model, which was proposed by Afzal et al. (2011) has a prominent Fe-oxide‐rich core and an overlying body of

for separation of mineralized zones and wall rocks in porphyry-Cu metasomatite and breccia that is rich in magnetite and hematite.

deposits, can be expressed as: There are three major paragenetic stages of apatite mineralization,

which are mainly associated with Fe-oxide-rich (magnetite) ore or

a –a

Vðρ≤υÞ∝ρ 1 ; Vðρ≥υÞ∝ρ 2 ð2Þ metasomatic Fe-poor ore characterized by vein-style assemblage of

hematite and pyrite (IMECO, 2010; Sadeghi et al., 2011). Outcrops of

where V(ρ ≤ υ) and V(ρ ≥ υ) denote two volumes with concentration metasomatic units exist in the northern and southern parts of the de-

values less than or equal to and greater than or equal to the contour posit (Fig. 1).

value ρ; υ represents the threshold value of a zone (or volume); Most parts of this studied area have been covered by alluvium and

and a1 and a2 are characteristic exponents. Threshold values in therefore there are just small mineralized outcrops on the surface

this method represent boundaries between different mineralized based on ﬁeld geology observations and mineralogical data from

zones and wall rocks of mineral deposits. To calculate V(ρ ≤ υ) and four trenches, especially in the SE part of the deposit (Fig. 1).

V(ρ ≥ υ), which are the volumes enclosed by a contour level ρ in a Based on geological data (which include collar coordinates of each

3D model, the borehole data of ore element concentrations were drillcore, azimuth and dip (orientation), lithology and mineralogy)

interpolated by using geostatistical estimation. recorded from 19 drillcores in the deposit, major rock types in depth

Frequency

Fe (%)

B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19 13

tite (Fig. 2). The presence of the Fe minerals magnetite and hematite

are used to classify “high grade” and “low grade” ores, respectively. 2

The terms of “high-low” have been utilized in order to explain the Fe

minerals, within the deposit.

Low grade ores (hematite) are situated in the northern parts of the 1.5

Log No.

deposit. High grade ores (magnetite) occur in the northern, eastern

and central parts of the deposit. Metasomatic rocks are located and

1

occur extensively in many parts of the deposit (Fig. 2).

0

have been collected at 2 m intervals. The distribution of number of 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

samples among 19 drillcores is presented in Table 1. The samples

Log Fe

have been analyzed by XRF for various elements related to Fe miner-

alization. However, only Fe data were investigated in this paper. The Fig. 5. N–S log–log plot for Fe concentrations in the Zaghia deposit.

distribution of Fe data illustrates multi-modal nature with Fe mean

value of 30.49% (Fig. 3). The experimental semi-variogram for the Fe

data in this deposit exhibits a range and nugget effect of 22 m and

87, respectively (Fig. 4). Based on the semi-variogram, a 3D model because geochemical populations are deﬁned by different line seg-

of the distribution of Fe in the Zaghia deposit was generated with ments in the N–S log–log plot. The straight ﬁtted lines were obtained

ordinary kriging using the Datamine software (Sadeghi et al., 2011). based on least-square regression (Agterberg et al., 1996; Spalla et al.,

Ordinary kriging was used because it is compatible with a stationary 2010). In other words, the intensity of element enrichment is

model; it only involves a variogram, and it is in fact the form of depicted by each slope of the line segment in the N–S log–log plots

kriging used most (Chilès and Delﬁner, 1999). The method estimates (Afzal et al., 2010; Bai et al., 2010). Accordingly, there are three

values in un-sampled locations based on moving average of the populations in the Fe data. The ﬁrst Fe threshold is 24%, and values

variable of interest satisfying different dispersion forms of data, e.g., of b24% Fe pertain to wall rocks and weakly mineralized zones

sparse sampling points (Goovaerts, 1997). Ordinary kriging is a spa- (Table 2) which can be included in the low grade hematite ores.

tial estimation method where the error variance is minimized. The second Fe threshold is 40%, and values of 24%–40% Fe pertain to

This error variance is called the kriging variance. It is based on the moderately mineralized zones (representing a combination of low

conﬁguration of the data and on its variogram (Yamamoto, 2005). and high grade ores), whereas values of >40% Fe pertain to highly

The derived block models were used as input to the C–V model. The mineralized zone (magnetite ore).

deposit was modeled by 50 m × 50 m × 10 m voxels, which were deter- The various mineralized zones were distinguished by a mathe-

mined based on the geometrical properties of the deposit and grid matical ﬁlter called “Boolean data type” in RockWorks software. As

drilling dimensions (David, 1970). The Zaghia deposit is modeled a result, the studied mineralized zones in the 3D model are allocated

with 280,445 voxels. The terms of “highly”, “moderately” and “weakly” with binary codes (zero or one) such that zones with the code num-

have been used to classify mineralized zones based on fractal modeling ber of zero are removed and zones with the code number of one are

and accordance with the classiﬁcation of in terms of ore grades within retained in the 3D model. Based on classiﬁcation of the 3D model

the deposit. of the Fe data and based on the thresholds obtained from the N–S

fractal model, highly mineralized zones are situated in the northern

4.1. N–S fractal modeling part of the deposit (Fig. 6). Moderately mineralized zones are

disposed in a NW–SE trend. Weakly mineralized zones and wall rocks

The N–S method was applied to the Fe data (Fig. 5). The selection are situated in marginal parts of the deposit.

of breakpoints as threshold values appears to be an objective decision

4.2. C–V fractal modeling

400

different Fe grades were calculated to derive a C–V fractal model.

Threshold values of Fe were recognized in the C–V log–log plot

350

(Fig. 7), which reveals a power‐law relationship between Fe concen-

300 trations and volumes occupied. Depicted arrows in log–log plot show

threshold values as three breakpoints corresponding to 18%, 30% and

Semi-variance

250 35% Fe. Based on the log–log plot, highly mineralized zones are

considered to have >35% Fe (Table 3) which can be included in

200 high grade ores. The range of Fe concentrations between 30% and

150

Table 2

100 Zones in the Zaghia deposit based on two thresholds of Fe contents deﬁned

from the N–S fractal model.

50 Mineralized zones Range Fe%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Wall rocks and weakly mineralized b24

Distance

Moderately mineralized 24–40

Highly mineralized >40

Fig. 4. Semi-variogram of Fe data in Zaghia deposit.

14 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

a b

3497200

361900 361900 3497200

361200

361200

3498720 3498720

1170

1170

900 900

c d

361900 3497200

361200

3498720

1170

900

Fig. 6. Zones in the Zaghia deposit based on thresholds deﬁned from the N–S fractal model of Fe data: (a) highly mineralized zones; (b) moderately mineralized zones; (c) weakly

mineralized zones and wall rocks; and (d) a representative cross-section of the mineralized zones.

35% represent moderately mineralized zones consist of hematite and small highly mineralized zones are located in the eastern part of

magnetite ores (representing a combination of low and high grade the deposit. Moderately mineralized zones occur in the northern

ores). Weakly mineralized zones contain between 18% and 30% Fe and central parts of the deposit. Weakly mineralized zones exist in

(which can be included in low grade ores). Iron concentrations of many parts of the deposit and are disposed along the NW–SE trend.

b18% represent wall rocks. Wall rocks are situated in marginal parts of the deposit.

Based on the C–V fractal model of Fe, highly mineralized zones

are situated in the northern part of the deposit (Fig. 8). However, 5. Comparison of fractal models and geological model of the

deposit

Results of N–S and C–V modeling of the deposit are compared and

6 correlated to the 3D geological model of the deposit constructed by

using RockWorks™ v. 15 software and drillcore data (Fig. 2).

5

Highly mineralized zones deﬁned by means of N–S and C–V

Log Volume

2 Table 3

Zones in the Zaghia deposit based on three thresholds of Fe contents deﬁned from the

1 C–V fractal model (Fig. 6).

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Wall rocks b 18

Weakly mineralized 18–30

Log Fe (%)

Moderately mineralized 30–35

Highly mineralized > 35

Fig. 7. C–V log–log plot for Fe concentrations in the Zaghia deposit.

B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19 15

a 3497200

b

361900 361900 3497200

361200 361200

3498720 3498720

1170 1170

900 900

c 361900 3497200

d

361900 3497200

361200

361200

3498720

1170 3498720

1170

900

900

Fig. 8. Zones in the Zaghia deposit based on thresholds deﬁned from the C–V fractal model of Fe data: (a) highly mineralized zones; (b) moderately mineralized zones; (c) weakly

mineralized zones; (d) wall rocks; and (e) a representative cross-section of the mineralized zones.

ore deﬁned by 3D modeling of geological drillcore data (Fig. 9). and central parts of this deposit. Geological investigations show that

Moderately mineralized zones deﬁned by means of N–S and C–V some parts of Fe mineralization occurred within metasomatic units

modeling are apparently larger than zones of moderate and low (Fig. 10).

grade ores deﬁned by 3D modeling of geological drillcore data Carranza (2011) has shown an analysis for calculation of overlaps

(Fig. 10). There is spatial coincidence between moderately mineral- or spatial correlations between two binary models. Using the miner-

ized zones deﬁned by means of the C–V and N–S modeling and alization model depicted in Figs. 9 and 10, an intersection operation

low grade ore zones deﬁned by 3D modeling of geological drillcore between a fractal mineralized zone model and different zones in the

data in the northern and eastern parts of the deposit (Fig. 10). geological ore model (Fig. 2) was performed to obtain numbers of

Therefore, it can be concluded that the metasomatic units host voxels corresponding to each of the four classes of overlap zones as

Fe concentrations in mineralized zones that are located in the SE shown in the Table 4. Using the obtained numbers of voxels, Type I

16 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

Fig. 9. Highly mineralized zones in the Zaghia deposit: (a) based on 3D modeling of drillcore geological data; (b) C–V modeling of Fe data; and (c) N–S modeling of Fe data. Rep-

resentative cross-sections: (d) based on 3D modeling of drillcore geological data; (e) C–V modeling of Fe data; and (f) N–S modeling of Fe data.

error (T1E), Type II error (T2E), and overall accuracy (OA) of the mineralized zone obtained from N–S modeling (Table 7). On the

fractal models were estimated with respect to the geological ore other hand, moderately mineralized zone deﬁned by C–V modeling

model. Of the two errors, a lower T2E is more important than a lower has overlap with the metasomatic and low grade ore zones in the

T1E because the former could entail a decision to mine (i.e., spend 3D geological model. However, the outcomes which results of the

effort, time, and money) for ‘nothing’ (Carranza, 2011). In addition, C–V model are more accurate than those of the N–S model with re-

for each of the fractal models, the values for OA of the N–S and C–V spect to low grade ore and metasomatic zones in the 3D geological

fractal models of mineralized zones were compared with one another model.

as follows.

Comparison between high grade zones obtained from 3D geolog- 6. Conclusions

ical modeling and highly mineralized zones from fractal modeling

shows that the C–V fractal model is better than the N–S model be- In the many cases, drillcore logging in the ﬁeld is dealing with the

cause the fact that the number of overlapped voxels (A) in the C–V lack of proper diagnosis of geological phenomenon can undermine

model (1453 voxels) is higher than in the N–S model (253 voxels), delineation of mineralized zones because it depends on interpretation

as depicted in Table 5. In addition, the T2E of the C–V model is of individual loggers, which is subjective and no two loggers usually

higher grade than that of the N–S model in terms of high grade have the same interpretations. However, conventional geological

ore zone in the 3D geological model. Overall accuracies of the C–V modeling based on drillcore data is fundamentally important for ore

and N–S fractal models with respect to high grade ore zone of the body spatial structure understanding and mathematical applications.

geological model are 0.867 and 0.960, respectively, which indicate Grades of the ore elements are not observed in conventional methods

that the N–S model gives better results to identify highly mineral- of geological ore modeling while the variations in ore grades in a

ized zones in the deposit. On the other hand, correlation (from OA mineral deposit is an obvious and salient feature. Given the problems

results) between high grade zone obtained from N–S modeling and as mentioned above, using a series of newly established methods

high grade ore zone is higher than the C–V model because of a based on mathematical analyses such as fractal modeling seems to

strong proportional relationship between extension and positions be inevitable.

of voxels in the N–S model and high grade ore zone in the 3D geo- In this paper, the number–size (N–S) and concentration–volume

logical model. (C–V) fractal models were used to investigate and delineate various

A comparison between moderately mineralized zones based on Fe‐mineralized zones in the Zaghia iron ore deposit in the Bafq dis-

the fractal models and the metasomatic zone in the 3D geological trict (Iran). Both the N–S and C–V fractal models reveal high grade

model shows that there is a similarity between the two fractal Fe-mineralized zones in the northern part of the deposit. The thresh-

models. Overall accuracies for the C–V and N–S models are 0.791 old Fe values for highly mineralized zone are 40% and 35% based on

and 0.737, respectively (Table 6). Overall accuracy of moderately the N–S and C–V fractal models, respectively. Models of moderately

mineralized zone obtained from C–V modeling is higher than the mineralized zones in the central and SE parts of the deposit contain

B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19 17

Fig. 10. Moderately mineralized zones in the Zaghia deposit based on: (a) 3D modeling of drillcore geological data; (b) C–V modeling of Fe data; (c) N–S modeling of Fe data; and

(d) 3D modeling of metasomatic units from drillcore data.

24–40% Fe according to the N–S model, and 30–35% Fe according to geological model. In addition, parts of the moderately mineralized

the C–V model. The N–S model reveals weakly mineralized zones zones obtained from the fractal models correlate with metasomatic

and wall rocks containing b24% Fe. In contrast, the C–V method re- units in the SE and central parts of the Zaghia deposit.

veals that wall rocks contain b18% and weakly mineralized zones

contain 18–30% Fe.

According to the correlation between results driven by fractal Table 5

modeling and geological logging from drillcores in Zaghia iron ore de- Overall accuracy (OA), Type I and Type II errors (T1E and T2E, respectively) with re-

posit, Highly mineralized zones generated by fractal models, especial- spect to high grade ore zone resulted from geological model of highly mineralized

ly the N–S model, have a strong correlation with high grade iron ores zones obtained through C–V and N–S fractal modeling of Fe data with respect to high

grade ore zones deﬁned by 3D geological modeling of drillcore data.

according to the 3D geological model, and moderately mineralized

zones correlate with low grade iron ores in the northern and eastern High grade ore zones of geological

parts of the Zaghia deposit. There is a strong relationship between model

moderately mineralized zones derived by the C–V model and the Inside zones Outside zones

metasomatic zone with low grade iron ore according to the 3D C–V fractal model of Inside zones A 1453 B 21971

highly mineralized Outside zones C 1471 D 151775

zones

Table 4 T1E 0.503 T2E 0.126

Matrix for comparing performance of fractal modeling results with geological model. OA 0.867

A, B, C, and D represent numbers of voxels in overlaps between classes in the binary

geological model and the binary results of fractal models (Carranza, 2011). High grade ore zones of geological

model

Geological model

Inside zones Outside zones

Inside zone Outside zone

N–S fractal model of Inside zones A 275 B 4508

Fractal model Inside zone True positive (A) False positive (B) highly mineralized Outside zones C 2649 D 170416

Outside zone False negative (C) True negative (D) zones

Type I error = C/(A + C) Type II error = B/(B + D) T1E 0.906 T2E 0.026

Overall accuracy = (A + D)/(A + B + C + D) OA 0.960

18 B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19

Table 6

Overall accuracy (OA), Type I and Type II errors (T1E and T2E, respectively) with respect to moderately mineralized zones obtained through C–V and N–S fractal modeling of Fe data

with respect to moderately grade ore zones deﬁned by 3D geological modeling (metasomatic units) of drillcore data.

C–V fractal model of moderately mineralized zones Inside zones A 46531 B 25279

Outside zones C 14455 D 103353

T1E 0.237 T2E 0.196

OA 0.791

N–S fractal model of moderately mineralized zones Inside zones A 46497 B 35305

Outside zones C 14489 D 93361

T1E 0.237 T2E 0.274

OA 0.737

Table 7

Overall accuracy (OA), Type I and Type II errors (T1E and T2E, respectively) with respect to moderately mineralized zones obtained through N–S and weakly and moderately min-

eralized zones of C–V fractal modeling of Fe data with respect to low grade ore zones deﬁned by 3D geological modeling of drillcore data.

C–V fractal model of weakly and moderately mineralized zones Inside zones A 6839 B 64971

Outside zones C 1155 D 103390

T1E 0.144 T2E 0.386

OA 0.625

N–S fractal model of moderately mineralized zones Inside zones A 6547 B 75255

Outside zones C 1447 D 93398

T1E 0.181 T2E 0.446

OA 0.566

Acknowledgements Bolviken, B., Stokke, P.R., Feder, J., Jossang, T., 1992. The fractal nature of geochemical

landscapes. Journal of Geochernical Exploration 43, 91–109.

Bonyadi, Z., Davidson, G.J., Mehrabi, B., Meffre, S., Ghazban, F., 2011. Signiﬁcance of

The authors would like to thank Mr. Gholamreza Hashemi as man- apatite REE depletion and monazite inclusions in the brecciated Se–Chahun

ager of Iranian iron exploration project in Iran Minerals Production iron oxide–apatite deposit, Bafq district, Iran: insights from paragenesis and

& Supply Co. (IMPASCO) and Dr. M. R. Mahvi as Executive manager geochemistry. Chemical Geology 281, 253–269.

Carranza, E.J.M., 2008. Geochemical Anomaly and Mineral Prospectivity Mapping in

of International minerals engineering consultant Co. (IMECO) for GIS. Handbook of Exploration and Environmental Geochemistry, Vol. 11. Elsevier,

authorizing the use of Zaghia exploration data. The authors would Amsterdam. 351 pp.

like to thank the editors and reviewers of this paper for their com- Carranza, E.J.M., 2009. Controls on mineral deposit occurrence inferred from analysis of

their spatial pattern and spatial association with geological features. Ore Geology

ments and valuable remarks. Reviews 35, 383–400.

Carranza, E.J.M., 2010. From predictive mapping of mineral prospectivity to quantita-

Appendix A. Supplementary data tive estimation of number of undiscovered prospects. Resource Geology 61, 30–51.

Carranza, E.J.M., 2011. Analysis and mapping of geochemical anomalies using logratio-

transformed stream sediment data with censored values. Journal of Geochemical

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http:// Exploration 110, 167–185.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.04.011. Carranza, E.J.M., Sadeghi, M., 2010. Predictive mapping of prospectivity and quantita-

tive estimation of undiscovered VMS deposits in Skellefte district (Sweden). Ore

Geology Reviews 38, 219–241.

References Carranza, E.J.M., Owusu, E.A., Hale, M., 2009. Mapping of prospectivity and estimation

of number of undiscovered for lode gold, southwestern Ashanti Belt, Ghana.

Afzal, P., Khakzad, A., Moarefvand, P., Rashidnejad Omran, N., Esfandiari, B., Fadakar Mineralium Deposita 44, 915–938.

Alghalandis, Y., 2010. Geochemical anomaly separation by multifractal modeling Cheng, Q., 1999. Spatial and scaling modelling for geochemical anomaly separation.

in Kahang (Gor Gor) porphyry system. Central Iran. Journal of Geochemical Explo- Journal of Geochemical Exploration 65, 175–194.

ration 104, 34–46. Cheng, Q., 2007. Mapping singularities with stream sediment geochemical data for

Afzal, P., Fadakar Alghalandis, Y., Khakzad, A., Moarefvand, P., Rashidnejad Omran, N., prediction of undiscovered mineral deposits in Gejiu, Yunnan Province, China.

2011. Delineation of mineralization zones in porphyry Cu deposits by fractal Ore Geology Reviews 32, 314–324.

concentration–volume modeling. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 108, 220–232. Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F.P., Ballantyne, S.B., 1994. The separation of geochemical anomalies

Agterberg, F.P., 1995. Multifractal modeling of the sizes and grades of giant and super- from background by fractal methods. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 51, 109–130.

giant deposits. International Geology Review 37, 1–8. Chilès, J.P., Delﬁner, P., 1999. Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty. Wiley, New

Agterberg, F.P., Cheng, Q., Wright, D.F., 1993. Fractal modeling of mineral deposits. In: York. 695 pp.

Elbrond, J., Tang, X. (Eds.), 24th APCOM symposium proceeding, Montreal, Canada, Cliff, R.A., Rickard, D., Blake, K., 1990. Isotope systematic of the Kiruna magnetite ores,

pp. 43–53. Sweden, Part 1. Age of the ore. Economic Geology 85, 1770–1776.

Agterberg, F.P., Cheng, Q., Brown, A., Good, D., 1996. Multifractal modeling of fractures in Cox, D., Singer, D., 1986. Mineral Deposits Models. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin.

the Lac du Bonnet Batholith, Manitoba. Computers and Geosciences 22, 497–507. 1693 pp.

Bai, J., Porwal, A., Hart, C., Ford, A., Yu, L., 2010. Mapping geochemical singularity using Daliran, F., Heins-Guenter, S., 2005. Geology and metallogenesis of the phosphate and

multifractal analysis: application to anomaly deﬁnition on stream sediments data rare earth element resources of the Bafq iron-ore district, central Iran. Proceedings

from Funin Sheet, Yunnan, China. Journal of Geochernical Exploration 104, 1–11. of the 20th World Mining Congress, Iran, pp. 357–361.

B. Sadeghi et al. / Journal of Geochemical Exploration 122 (2012) 9–19 19

David, M., 1970. Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 283 pp. Sadeghi, B., Moarefvand, P., Afzal, P., 2011. Determination of Fe grade distribution by

Deng, J., Wang, Q., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Gong, Q., Liu, H., 2010. Delineation and explana- using of concentration-number fractal method in boreholes of Zaghia iron ore de-

tion of geochemical anomalies using fractal models in the Heqing area, Yunnan posit, Bafq. Earth and Resources Journal 3, 51–60 (In Persian with English abstract).

Province, China. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 105, 95–105. Samani, B.A., 1988. Metallogeny of the Precambrian in Iran. Precambrian Research 39,

Forsell, P., Godin, L., 1980. Geology of the Kiruna Area. 26th International Geological 85–106.

Congress, Guidebook, pp. 143–150. Sanderson, D.J., Roberts, S., Gumiel, P., 1994. A Fractal relationship between vein thick-

Förster, H.J., Jafarzadeh, A., 1994. The Bafq mining district in Central Iran — a highly ness and gold grade in drill core from La Codosera, Spain. Economic Geology 89,

mineralized Infracambrian volcanic ﬁeld. Economic Geology 89, 1697–1721. 168–173.

Frutos, J.J., Oyarzún, M.J., 1975. Tectonic and geochemical evidence concerning the gen- Shayestehfar, M.R., Zarrabi, A., Sharaﬁ, A., Yazdi, A., 2006. Petrology, petrography and

esis of El Laco magnetite lava ﬂow deposits, Chile. Economic Geology 70, 988–990. mineralographical studies of “Choghart Iron Ore Mine”, Bafgh area, Iran. Geochimica

Goncalves, M.A., Mateus, A., Oliveira, V., 2001. Geochemical anomaly separation by et Cosmochimica Acta 70, A578.

multifractal modeling. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 72, 91–114. Shi, J., Wang, C., 1998. Fractal analysis of gold deposits in China: implication for giant

Goovaerts, P., 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. Oxford University deposit exploration. Earth Sciences Journal of China University of Geosciences 23,

Press, New York. 496 pp. 616–618 (In Chinese with English Abstract).

Hitzman, M.W., Oreskes, N., Einaudi, M.T., 1992. Geological characteristics and tectonic Sim, B.L., Agterberg, F.P., Beaudry, C., 1999. Determining the cutoff between back-

setting of Proterozoic iron oxide (Cu-U-Au-REE) deposits. Precambrian Research ground and relative base metal contamination levels using multifractal methods.

58, 241–287. Computers & Geosciences 25, 1023–1041.

IMECO, 2010. General Exploration of Zaghia (IIC) Iron Ore Deposit Report. International Spalla, M.I., Morotta, A.M., Gosso, G., 2010. Advances in interpretation of geological

Minerals Engineering Consultant Company (IMECO). processes: reﬁnement of multi-scale data and integration in numerical modelling.

Jami, M., 2005. Geology, Geochemistry & Evolution of Esfordi Phosphate (Iron Deposit, Geological Society, London. 240 pp.

Bafq Area - Central Iran), Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of New South Wales, Turcotte, D.L., 1986. A fractal approach to the relationship between ore grade and

384 pp. tonnage. Economic Geology 18, 1525–1532.

Jami, M., Dunlop, A.C., Cohen, D.R., 2007. Fluid inclusion and stable isotope study of the Turcotte, D.L., 1996. Fractals and Chaos in Geophysics, second ed. Cambridge University

Esfordi apatite-magnetite deposit, Central Iran. Economic Geology 102, 1111–1128. Press, Cambridge UK, pp. 81–99.

Laznicka, P., 2005. Giant Metallic Deposits Future Sources of Industrial Metals. Springer- Turcotte, D.L., 2002. Fractals in petrology. Lithos 65, 261–271.

Verlag. 732 pp. Wang, Q.F., Deng, J., Liu, H., Yang, L.Q., Wan, L., Zhang, R.Z., 2010. Fractal models for ore

Li, C., Xu, Y., Jiang, X., 1994. The fractal model of mineral deposits. Geology of Zhejiang reserve estimation. Ore Geology Reviews 37, 2–14.

10, 25–32 (In Chinese with English Abstract). Wang, Q.F., Deng, J., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Wan, L., 2011. Fractal models for estimating

Li, C., Ma, T., Shi, J., 2003. Application of a fractal method relating concentrations and local reserves with different mineralization qualities and spatial variations. Journal of

distances for separation of geochemical anomalies from background. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 108, 196–208.

Geochemical Exploration 77, 167–175. Yamamoto, J.K., 2005. Comparing Ordinary Kriging Interpolation Variance and Indicator

Mandelbrot, B.B., 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, Kriging Conditional Variance for Assessing Uncertainties at Unsampled Locations.

CA. Updated and Augmented Edition. In: Dessureault, S., Ganguli, R., Kecojevic, V., Girard-Dwyer, J. (Eds.), Application of

Monecke, T., Monecke, J., Herzig, P.M., Gemmell, J.B., Monch, W., 2005. Truncated Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry. Balkema.

fractal frequency distribution of element abundance data: a dynamic model for Zuo, R., Cheng, Q., Xia, Q., 2009. Application of fractal models to characterization of ver-

the metasomatic enrichment of base and precious metals. Earth and Planetary tical distribution of geochemical element concentration. Journal of Geochemical

Science Letters 232, 363–378. Exploration 102, 37–43.