Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

TUGAS I

TA 3024 – Geostatistik dan Estimasi Cadangan

Disusun oleh :
Elvira Mutiara Saumi (12117019)

PROGRAM STUDI SARJANA TEKNIK PERTAMBANGAN


FAKULTAS TEKNIK PERTAMBANGAN DAN PERMINYAKAN
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2020
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Data 9 5 5 2 7 4 8 1 9 4 7 2
9 5 5 2 7 4 8 1 9 0 4 7 2
a. Show that there are only 10 pairs of points for the first lag, and obtain the value of the gamma*(1)
Answer :
The pairs of points for the first lag are (9,5) ; (5,5) ; (5,2) ; (2,7) ; (7,4) ; (4,8) ; (8,1) ; (1,9) ; (4,7) ; (7,2)
Conclusion :
So, there only 10 pairs of for the first lag

b) Calculate the experimental variogram for the next six lags and plot it
The experimental variogram is calculated using formula:

Lag 1 (h=d) 1
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 16 0 9 25 9 16 49 64 9 25
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 222
N 10
Gamma(1) 11,1

Lag 2 (h=2d) 2
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 16 9 4 4 1 9 1 25 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 73
N 9
Gamma(2) 4,055555556
Lag 3 (h=3d) 3
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 49 4 1 36 36 25 9 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 164
N 8 Experimental Variogram
Gamma(3) 10,25
Gamma(h)

Lag 4 (h=4d) 4
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 4 1 9 1 4 16 36 49
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 120
N 8
Gamma(4) 7,5

Lag 5 (h=5d) 5
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 25 9 16 49 0 1 1
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 101
N 7
Gamma(5) 7,21429

Lag 6 (h=6d) 6
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 1 16 16 9 9 36
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 87
N 6
Gamma(6) 7,25

Lag 7 (h=7d) 7
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 64 16 4 0 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 88
N 5
Gamma(7) 8,8

Lag h(m) Gamma(h)


1 1 11,1
2 2 4,055555556
3 3 10,25
4 4 7,5
5 5 7,214285714
6 6 7,25
7 7 8,8

Experimental Variogram
Gamma(h)

15 11,1 10,25
Gamma(h), ppm2

7,5 7,214285714 7,25 8,8


10
4,055555556
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
h (m)
c) Calculate the first seven lags of the experimental variogram and compare it to the previous one
Answer :
Lag 1 (h=d) 1
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 16 0 9 25 9 16 49 64 81 16 9 25
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 319
N 12
Gamma(1) 13,29166667

Lag 2 (h=2d) 2
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 16 9 4 4 1 9 1 1 25 49 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 123
N 11
Gamma(2) 5,590909091

Lag 3 (h=3d) 3
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 49 4 1 36 36 25 64 9 4 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 232
N 10
Gamma(3) 11,6

Lag 4 (h=4d) 4
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 4 1 9 1 4 16 16 36 49
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 136
N 9
Gamma(4) 7,555555556

Lag 5 (h=5d) 5
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 25 9 16 49 49 0 1 1
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 150
N 8
Gamma(5) 9,375

Lag 6 (h=6d) 6
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 1 16 16 4 9 9 36
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 91
N 7
Gamma(6) 6,5

Lag 7 (h=7d) 7
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 64 16 25 4 0 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 113
N 6
Gamma(7) 9,41667

Lag h(m) Gamma*(h)/ missing Gamma(h)


1 1 11,1 13,29166667
2 2 4,055555556 5,590909091
3 3 10,25 11,6
4 4 7,5 7,555555556
5 5 7,214285714 9,375
6 6 7,25 6,5
7 7 8,8 9,416666667
Experimental Variogram Comparison
13,29166667
14 11,6
11,1
10,25

Gamma(h), ppm2
12 9,375 9,416666667
8,8
10 7,555555556
7,5 7,214285714 7,25
8 6,5
5,590909091
6 4,055555556
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
h(m)

Gamma*(h)/ missing Gamma(h)

Analayze:
From the experimental variogram comparison, the missing variogram is below the zero value. It
show that we cant make the assumption when we missing the data and put the zero value to that
missing data because the variogram, the pairs data and variance will quite different.

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Data 9 5 5 2 7 4 8 1 9 10 4 7 2
9 5 5 2 7 4 8 1 9 100 4 7 2

Calculate the experimental variogram for the first seven lags and plot both for comparison
The experimental variogram is calculated using formula:
10 ppm
Lag 1 (h=d) 1
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 16 0 9 25 9 16 49 64 1 36 9 25
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 259
N 12
Gamma(1) 10,791667

Lag 2 (h=2d) 2
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 16 9 4 4 1 9 1 81 25 9 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 163
N 11
Gamma(2) 7,4090909

Lag 3 (h=3d) 3
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 49 4 1 36 36 25 4 9 4 64
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 232
N 10
Gamma(3) 11,6

Lag 4 (h=4d) 4
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 4 1 9 1 4 36 16 36 49
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 156
N 9
Gamma(4) 8,6666667

Lag 5 (h=5d) 5
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 25 9 16 49 9 0 1 1
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 110
N 8
Gamma(5) 6,875

Lag 6 (h=6d) 6
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 1 16 16 64 9 9 36
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 151
N 7
Gamma(6) 10,785714

Lag 7 (h=7d) 7
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 64 16 25 4 0 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 113
N 6
Gamma(7) 9,4166667
Experimental Variogram Comparison
100 ppm
Lag 1 (h=d) 1
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 16 0 9 25 9 16 49 64 8281 9216 9 25
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 17719
N 12
Gamma*(1) 738,292

Lag 2 (h=2d) 2
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 16 9 4 4 1 9 1 9801 25 8649 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 18523
N 11
Gamma*(2) 841,955

Lag 3 (h=3d) 3
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 49 4 1 36 36 25 8464 9 4 9604
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 18232
N 10
Gamma*(3) 911,6
Lag 4 (h=4d) 4
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 4 1 9 1 4 9216 16 36 49
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 9336
N 9
Gamma*(4) 518,667

Lag 5 (h=5d) 5
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 25 9 16 49 8649 0 1 1
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 8750
N 8
Gamma*(5) 546,875

Lag 6 (h=6d) 6
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 1 16 16 9604 9 9 36
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 9691
N 7
Gamma*(6) 692,214

Lag 7 (h=7d) 7
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 64 16 9025 4 0 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 9113
N 6
Gamma*(7) 759,417

Lag h(m) Gamma(h) Gamma*(h)


1 1 10,79166667 738,2916667
2 2 7,409090909 841,9545455
3 3 11,6 911,6
4 4 8,666666667 518,6666667
5 5 6,875 546,875
6 6 10,78571429 692,2142857
7 7 9,416666667 759,4166667

Experimental Variogram Comparison


1000 911,6
841,9545455
900
759,4166667
800 738,2916667 692,2142857
Gamma (h), ppm2

700
600 518,6666667 546,875
500
400
300
200
7,409090909 11,6 8,666666667 6,875 10,78571429
100 10,79166667 9,416666667
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
h (m)

Gamma(h) Gamma*(h)
Analayze :
From the experimental variogram result we can see that the variogram is very different. It
because there are the outlier data from the data we have and it will cause the average and
variance increased. In statistic calculation it will be better if we check the data is there any outlier
data or not before we do the analyze variogram. If we misscalculated because of the outlier, it
will give the bad influence and a bad result variogram.

Answer :
1. N-S direction

Lag n h(m) Gamma1(h)


1 35,3553 1,60714286
2 70,7107 2,23809524
3 106,066 2,21428571
4 141,421 1,71428571
2. E-W direction

Lag n h(m) Gamma2(h)


1 35,3553 2,23333333
2 70,7107 2,54
3 106,066 1,325
4 141,421 2,43333333

3. NE-SW direction

Lag n h(m) Gamma3(h)


1 35,3553 3,20833333
2 70,7107 1,36666667
3 106,066 2,6875
4 141,421 4

4. NW-SE direction

Lag n h(m) Gamma4(h)


1 35,3553 1,8125
2 70,7107 2,5
3 106,066 1,375
4 141,421 1,83333333

So, we got :

Experimental Variogram All Direction


4,5
4
3,5
Gamma(h), ppm2

3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
35,35533906 70,71067812 106,0660172 141,4213562
h(m)

Gamma1(h) Gamma2(h) Gamma3(h) Gamma4(h)


Experimental Variogram N-S, E-W
3

Gamma(h), ppm2 2,5


2
1,5
1
0,5
0
35,35533906 70,71067812 106,0660172 141,4213562
h(m)

Gamma1(h) Gamma2(h)

Experimental Variogram NE-SW, NW-SE


5
Gamma(h), ppm2

0
35,35533906 70,71067812 106,0660172 141,4213562
h(m)

Gamma3(h) Gamma4(h)

Analyze :
The variogram can be defined as isotropic if the variogram have the same direction from
all direction. Anisotropic variogram can be defined when the data is so different from the
model, sill, range and depend on the direction. We can see that the result of experimental
variogram from all direction (N-S, E-W, NE-SW and NW-SE) there are one data
gamma4(h) is relatively going up while the others not. It show that the variogram is
anisotropic.
BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05
4 2 3 3 2
5 4 5 5 3
3 3 4 3 3
4 4 6 4 4
6 6 4 7 5
8 8 7 9 4
7 10 9 9 6
9 11 10 8
11 12 9
13 11

The experimental variogram is calculated using formula:


LAG 1 (h=d=1) BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05
1 4 4 4 1
4 1 1 4 0
1 1 4 1 1
4 4 4 9 1
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 4 4 9 4 1
1 4 4 0 4
4 4 1 4
4 1 1
4 4
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 27 18 31 23 17
N 9 6 8 7 9
Gamma(1) 1,5 1,5 1,9375 1,64286 0,94444
Average Gamma(1) 1,50496

LAG 2 (h=2d=2) BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05


1 1 1 0 1
1 0 1 1 1
9 9 0 16 4
16 16 1 25 0
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 1 16 25 4 1
1 16 1 16
16 9 9
16 9

Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 61 42 53 47 41


N 8 5 7 6 8
Gamma(1) 3,8125 4,2 3,78571 3,91667 2,5625
Average Gamma(2) 3,65548

LAG 3 (h=3d=3) BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05


0 4 9 1 4
1 4 1 4 4
25 25 9 36 1
9 36 9 25 4
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 9 49 9 9
9 25 25
36 25
Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 89 69 102 75 72
N 7 4 6 5 7
Gamma(1) 6,35714 8,625 8,5 7,5 5,14286
Average Gamma(3) 7,225

LAG 4 (h=4d=4) DH-01 DH-02 DH-03 DH-04 DH-05


4 16 1 16 9
9 16 4 16 1
16 49 25 36 9
25 25 36 16
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 25 64 16
25 49

Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 104 81 119 104 100


N 6 3 5 4 6
Gamma(1) 8,66667 13,5 11,9 13 8,33333
Average Gamma(4) 11,08

LAG 5 (h=5d=5) DH-01 DH-02 DH-03 DH-04 DH-05


16 36 16 36 4
4 36 16 16 9
36 49 49 25
49 36 25
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 49 36

Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 154 72 117 101 99


N 5 2 4 3 5
Gamma(1) 15,4 18 14,625 16,8333 9,9
Average Gamma(5) 14,9517

LAG 6 (h=6d=6) DH-01 DH-02 DH-03 DH-04 DH-05


9 64 36 36 16
[z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2
16 36 25 25
64 64 36
81 49

Total [z(xi) - z(xi+h)]^2 170 64 136 61 126


N 4 1 3 2 4
Gamma(1) 21,25 32 22,6667 15,25 15,75
Average Gamma(6) 21,3833

Result :

Lag h(m) Gamma(h)


1 1 1,5049603
2 2 3,6554762
3 3 7,225
4 4 11,08
5 5 14,951667
6 6 21,383333

Experimental Variogram
25
21,38333333

20
14,95166667
Gamma(h)

15
11,08
10 Gamma(h)
7,225
Linear (Gamma(h))
3,65547619
5
1,504960317

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
h(m)

Analyze :
The experimental variogram show the data is relatively going up. It because the variance is not
constant from the data and make the data relatively going up. From that result we can conclude
that the data is not stationarity